TITO BROZ, SLAVMAN BABY

TITO BROZ, SLAVMAN BABY

Other urls found in this thread:

libcom.org/library/praxis-marxist-critisism-dissent-socialist-yugoslavia.
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

HE KILLS KRAUTS AND HATES THE TANKIES

...

TONY "28 GRAMS"CI BOUT TO WAGE A WAR OF POSITION

he literally did nothing wrong

...

NATO blackmailed him to do it, I swear!

Kind of ironic considering Hoxha literally ignored a crippling homelessness epidemic to build bunkers.

Sounds more like he solved it by providing roofs over their heads tbh.

You sound like a revisionist fam.

I wish I was alive when Hoxha went bunkers. He could have built houses out of sandbags and plaster that would have been cheaper and better. I would have told him and the world would have been in awe at the millions of bunkers we made.

You kid, but this is an argument unironically peddled among the type of retards in this thread who will curse Stalinists for writing off every arguments against this as 'bourgeois propaganda', but at the same time say Yugoslavia was much better without actually knowing much about it besides 'lol it's dat based 20th century country led by a socialist and it was against the USSR, so it's cool lol Tito xD market socialism Yugo bros.'.

As a guy who's parents grew up in the what used to be Yugoslavia and is now Serbia, and has done a lot of research on it, it was basically just as miserable as in the USSR. 'Market socialism' in practice mirrored what was basically the system of kholkosi in the USSR (so no, 'workplace democracy' was an outright sham) and personal freedom, especially the freedom to oppose to regime, was practically zero.

The same homelessness epidemic Yugoslavia endured, but managed to curb better than Albania with, you guessed it, IMF loans and the fact that there was freedom to leave the state capitalist shithole of Yugoslavia and move to western Europe where wealth and, quite ironically, personal freedom was plentiful.

ITS

THE

SLAV SHACK

Well I also have a "friend" who has parents that lived in Serbia in Yugoslavia as well and they would disagree.

Regardless, you are exaggerating when you say that repression was as bad as the USSR. You could fucking leave for starters.

His father was able to get an education and work in a collective as soon as he left college. He left Belgrade only because of the war and now resides in America with an IT job that treats him like shit all day and a boss that sexually harasses him which he can really do nothing about in his situation.

I don't advocate for Market Socialism, but saying that it's worse than the USSR is silly and the Balkan states now are even worse now.

This is why, as I said, I have more than just anecdotal evidence from my parents, but an actual insight collected from research.

There was no Yugoslav 'revolution'. The state of Yugoslavia was created by anti-fascist partisans who defacto ran the country economically following the Stalinist model of the USSR, then gradually introduced 'market socialism' on the federal level a few decades later. As a Leninist, I of course do not disagree with using coercion to maintain something, as long as this something is worth maintaining. Considering there was no such thing as critical input allowed in Yugoslavia, nor was it even possible to form organized opposition EVEN as communists, it was absolutely worthless. Read: libcom.org/library/praxis-marxist-critisism-dissent-socialist-yugoslavia.

I am not. In virtually every facet of Yugoslav daily life, you had a mirroring of Stalinist trends. Stakhanovism, the 'ideal worker' doctrine based on hero worship of highly respected workers, existed just the same as udarnici. Political repression functioned on a similar labor camp repression as the gulags, but instead of most of them being in the Siberian diaspora, they were on goli otok. All dissent, mild or not, netted you an imprisonment. You can read more about this in Dragutin Grgurević's 'First Workers Council' (PDF related), sources at the end end notes.

Completely irrelevant. Political asylum was guaranteed for those who left in neighboring western European countries (which NOBODY in Yugoslavia knew; they were kept ignorant of this, and most other things through state-controlled media), and the fact that you could leave was only utilized to alleviate day to day repression by basically saying 'well if you don't like it, you can just leave!'.

So no, while Yugoslavia was not hell on earth, it was just yet another failed 20th century experiment that was little more than a dysfunctional nepotist capitalism where the bourgeois class was replaced with a red bureaucracy. Literally USSR, and my parents (who still have sympathy for the communist movement and its ideas, like me!) are glad it's over and buried.

Bad meme. I'm not fan of Yugoslavia or Josip "Lenin is for Queers, USA rox" Tito but the Western countries were already rich before WWII and had spent more then a century perfecting and shedding blood over their spooky bourgeois freedoms.

Terrible post

Completely irrelevant to their motives for a better life now, is it? Yugoslavia was so dysfunctional that people only stayed for increasingly more nationalist sentiments or because they were legitimately affraid of leaving, both feelings stemming from a disillusionment of the status quo. I never glorified the west as ideal. All I said was that the west was quite ironically a better place to live in for just about anyone than Yugoslavia. Consult

Nice arguments. But sure, stay delusional. One day you'll look back and realize your attitude towards the 20th century was only selectively rational and comprehensive towards the USSR, and that you are no different from the Stalinists who excuse whatever the USSR did with what is basically a consequentialist, utilitarian view.

tankies are so fucking deluded it's unreal

What do you think about Zizek's general remarks about Yugoslavia? Are they accurate?

zizek helped the liberal capitalists in slovenia topple the socialist regime, they slaughtered many innocent JNA soldiers and stole money from the other republics because the central bank of jugoslavija was located in slovenia

so ye fuck zizek

Ah yes b/c the muh privileges of the few are an accurate representation of the situation at large, and more importantly completely make the fact that the country was basically USSR with Balkan characteristics (>>1023929) nihil. Good job.

Also good job at taking the sweet Tito and hella Hoxha pic seriously, and then unironically thinking I am a Stalinist when I presented arguments that directly say Stalinism was the failure Yugoslavia was modeled after.

All accurate. Yugoslavia was a failure like any other 20th century communist experiment. Bury this shit in the dustbin where it belongs and look ahead like a proper communist.

It's not very perceptive to say that communism was a failure in the 20th century; it's self-evident. Also, looking ahead doesn't mean denouncing the past and disowning it. Fuck your bullshit choice of either burying it or glorifying Stalinism. Take your communist "sympathies" and fuck off back to reddit.

I fail to see at all how this is a critique of Market Socialism. It is more of a critique of the repression of political opinion in Tito's Yugoslavia, which is fair, I too hold these opinions. I don't quite grasp how this makes the economic practice of Market Socialism somehow less pragmatic for the west in terms of post-capitalist economic practices.

Apparently not to the people in this thread.

It precisely does.

From the start, I said burying the past should be the innate quality of modern communists. There is nothing to salvage in that ungodly mess; there is only opportunity to learn from its failures.

>if he disagrees, he's not a communist and should go back to
First of all, if I don't go to reddit it's because it's precisely the kind of garbage I try to not have happen here. I am a communist, not a lifestylist.

It's not a critique of market socialism (although I don't agree with it), because there was no 'market socialism' as the theory presents it. It was a myth. In reality, it was identical to the system of kholkhoz and sovkhoz from the USSR post-Stalinization. The political oppression, while awful in itself, was only secondary to the basic fact that Tito's Yugoslavia was basically capitalism with red bureacracy replacing localized bourgeoisie. Once again, read this post (which nobody has for some reason!).

I must have missed that episode when Yugoslavia was not at all authoritarian and not having a secret police dragging people off in the middle of the night just like in the ML countries. Also le anecdotal evidence meme. I know plenty of Balkanbros and they sort of agree that it was a shithole.

Fair point.
And thnx for the LibCom link, however why did you link a book in a language half this board couldn't read?

If there's nothing to salvage there's nothing to learn.
You're an asswipe who thinks the past can stay buried. You're motives are the same as any other who wants to keep their hands clean. If you write it all off then you don't have to defend yourself from guilt by association. Only problem being no one cares about your nuanced sensibilities; a communist is a communist to the bourgeoisie.

sage

Because there were people in this thread I replied to who are (or at least claimed to be) from ex-Yugoslav countries, meaning they can read Serbo-Croat.

I don't think there's anything worth saving (salvaging) much of anything besides theory and some authentic revolutionary sparks.

It must stay buried. Nobody should attempt to repeat the 20th century in the name of socialism or communism again.

Guilt by association? Hah, if only. I'm sorry but, unlike the Stalinists, I'm not here to play empiricist or apologist and say 'well, it wasn't THAT bad!'. No, I'm here to actually try my best to give birth to something worthwhile which actually ends up fulfilling the promise of a better world (like may I remind you, the communist movement was originally about). If the 20th century was a failure, it undoubtedly must have been set up to become the failure it was. This means the communist movement needs to start at the beginning entirely.

>One is temp­ted to reverse Marx’s Thes­is 11: the first task today is pre­cisely not to suc­cumb to the tempta­tion to act, to inter­ve­ne dir­ectly and change things (which then inev­it­ably ends in a cul-de-sac of debil­it­at­ing impossib­il­ity: “What can we do again­st glob­al cap­it­al?”), but to ques­tion the hege­mon­ic ideo­lo­gic­al co-ordin­ates. In short, our his­tor­ic­al moment is still that of Adorno:
>>To the ques­tion “What should we do?” I can most often truly answer only”, with “I don’t know.” I can only try to ana­lyse rig­or­ously what there is. Here people reproach me: When you prac­tise cri­ti­cism, you are also obliged to say how one should make it bet­ter. To my mind, this is incon­tro­vert­ibly a bour­geois pre­ju­dice. Many times in his­tory it so happened that the very works which pur­sued purely the­or­et­ic­al goals trans­formed con­scious­ness, and thereby also social real­ity.
From Zizek's Revolution at the Gates. I very much agree with this sentiment.