In a hopeful attempt to slide the Holla Forums raiding threads.
What could of Tito done in his lifetime to prevent the breakup of Yugoslavia after his death? Would training and appointing a leader as good as him be the only way? Or was Yugoslavia just fucked without him regardless?
bump
ovo je sad yugoslavia thread
youtube.com
Well Yugoslavia was a one party (benevolent) dictatorship so in hindsight he probably should have trained and selected someone to be his disciple who would take over after him
this
he should have also promoted only yugoslavian identitiy and nationalism
stupid ethnic identiarians on all sides ruined that tho, cuz
Goli Otok didn't have enough space for all the reactionaries, fuck.
this
Tito himself couldn't do jackshit once the IMF tit went dry and hyperinflation hit, if he lived to '91 whatever strongest nationalist movement at the time (probably the Serbs) would have strung him like Caucescu was.
Tito couldn't have done jack shit. Capitalism won last century for various reasons, and strengthening Yugoslav 'nationalism', or choosing a dictator succesor certainly wouldn't have helped socialism one iota.
Staying the hell away from the IMF for one. Although tbh I don't know much about why they needed the loan exactly. Was it caused by internal factors? Because I heard that the main reason was the oil crisis in the 70s and a Western embargo on Yugoslav exports.
Am I right?
Move the capital from Belgrade to Sarajevo, a multiethnic city. That would influence the multietunic and brotherhood people over the provincial nationalists.
Address Serbian nationalism or national identity. The Serba claims that the crosts got the good shit and were overrepresented in some fields and that Serbia's identity was suppressed. Honestly id say in 1945 expel all the Hubgarians from Vodvodjina, and fuck what the UN says. Address serbs feeling marginalized and give them proportional representation in some ways. The Croatians (well Ustasha fascists) made their bed, lay in it so let them suffer lessened representation.
And set up a better person as successor rather than the rotating premiership after his death.
Also keep decent relations2hip with the USSR
market "socialism" is always doomed for failure
If France tried to form a federal state with the Vichy Regime It would've collapsed just the same.
So here's an idea:
1.No concessions to wartime nazi collaborators whatsoever during the foundation of Yugoslavia.
2.No splitting of the Socialist Camp
3.Populate land gained from Italy with people from the very East as (Polish scenario).
...
China isn't market socialist, they just have some sort of state prerogative to intervene when a company gets out of line but that's it.
There is no private property as in Lenin's NEP Soviet Union. it all is lended to you by the vanguard of the chinese proletariate and, once in a white, it assembles to discuss their path to communism. They even have x-year plans.
"gun kills person".
So once they reach post-scarcity through capitalism they will all come together and transform the society into communism? I bet my fucking ass that won't happen.
Let me show you to the nextest gulag.
Is there a place in Engels or in Lenin telling you how exactly to run the economy of your transitional socialist state? Lenin did the same thing as China is doing now: NEP.
Yes. Lenin wrote on it, but not extensively.
His idea was Planned Economy and Industrialization (except he called it "electrification").
He left the country under the NEP to achieve his industrialization (or, at the very least, to stop the deprivations).
You are footing the "communism is alphabetization and electrification" meme which was a joke on part of Lenin's. He calls a spade a spade and industrialization he calls industrialization.
A plenty of porky shills are trying hard to equate each working class liberation movement with the central command economy you had starting with the Stalin era.
Comrade, don't be like a porky shill.
What do you even mean by that?
NEP was used to organize small enterprises into big trusts. That could be interpreted as a step towards industrialization (that requires state managing big enterprises), but that was not how industrialization should've happened according to Lenin. He was very adamant that State Capitalism (i.e. NEP) should not last longer than was necessary for unification of small businesses.
I.e. this sentence is either irrelevant to my argument (one meaning of it), or it is false (if it is another).
Communism is Soviet Power (i.e. direct democracy) plus Electrification (i.e. industrialization under planned economy) of the Whole Country
I call bullshit on this.
Yep. This is deep bullshit territory.
Substantiate your claims, please.
koja si partija
Communism is Soviet Power plus Electrification of the Whole Country
what you are citing is:
Communism is Council/Soviet Power + Electrification of the entire country, because without the electrification you cannot raise the industrial output.
I was drawing from a speech of his on the liquidation of analphabetism of the 26.12.1919.
lunacharsky.newgod.su
His point is that without alphabetization you can't have electrification (which lenin understands quite literally as the creation of power plants and the respective supply lines) which in turn is necessary of the industrialization.
As for bullshit and other such strong terms, stuff it right up your arse. If you want more substance and less bullshit then go ahead and establish what's best practice for that thread.
...
Yugoslavia was fucked in the long term anyway, there's always been too much difference between Slovenes, Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks.
The Kingdom fell apart immediately once Germany invaded in WW2, turning on themselves before the Germans even did anything.
The Republic after the war was only held together for so long because Tito had an iron will.
Was the popular slogan in USSR during Lenin's time. It was not used only once, if that's what you claim.
It's called "literacy".
Link and/or quote, please. I found only a decree (Eradication/Elimination of Illiteracy, aka LikBez), not a speech, at that date.
In case you forgot, you are expected to present an argument that either Lenin "left the country under the NEP to achieve his industrialization" (implying that Lenin did not want Planned Economy) or that Electrification was not used as a synonym of Industrialization by Lenin.
I'm not sure what you are arguing about exactly, though, but both are clearly wrong.