Deadslavia

What are your opinions on the good old Yugoslavia and Tito?
I have never seen a Titoist that wasnt a Yugo. There has to be a reason for that.

Attached: 1523431682811.jpg (1280x720, 70.9K)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm
versobooks.com/blogs/3830-down-with-the-pipe-and-the-poodle-yugoslavia-1968
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

both were shit

Yeah, and… Why?

TITO DID NOTHING WRONG, THOSE THAT DISAGREE ARE CHETNIK, USTAŠE FASCISTS OR IMPERIALISTS

Attached: 092cc2af0598af67ef0284b1e0ba0c6e7d98a21dcb539e2ab524708b97c9f552.jpg (620x419, 184.72K)

Tito was shit

The worst socialist ever.

Market socialism is the best course of action for the time immediately following the revolution while the economy is being rebuilt, the best planning mechanisms are found, and the logistical infrastructure of a planned economy is being built. In other words its an excellent transitional period, especially because market consolidation naturally leads to the creation of large, democratically run worker owned co-ops which can easily be incorporated into the structure of a planned economy.

Go home Enver. You're drunk.

15% unemployment was amazing

It did not deserve what America did to it.

It was great but the people living in it were shit in the end.

lmaoing @ this shit
Market "socialism" is basically right-deviationist ML, you've been drinking the "transitional phase" kool-aid too much. The USSR proved that a planned economy can work in an underdeveloped country, no need for markets.
The NEP was a mistake, and by the start of central planning the USSR was less developed than Yugoslavia in 1945 so there's no reason why Yugoslavia needed half a century of NEP.
Stop reading Hayek.

Attached: yugofags2.png (586x522, 42.85K)

Depends on why you subscribe to the far left. If its for the maximization of people's happiness, and equalization of labor input with labor value then Tito was awesome. Life was great, stable, proper, un-oppressive.

Tito didn't have to do 1% of what Comrade Stalin did to establish Communism in the Balkans as he took a more nuanced approach to governing. He respected protesters from the left, and acted practically, not dogmatically.

People don't like Tito or Yugoslavia because they don't know shit about it. Ziveo Drug Tito

Cool place. Didn't deserve what happened to it.

He has an unfair rep among modern radicals. Yes, his economic policy was borderline capitalism, but all things considered he was a great leader and did quite well with what he could work with. Most of the people in the Balkans that hate him are butthurt ethnonationalists.

America seeked to destroy it.

So it was good.

workers had on average more political and economic control and influence in Yugoslavia than the average eastern bloc state, and a living standard that only Hungary and Czechslovakia could match, there was a reason it was the most immigrated to socialist country. Retards here view it trough an ideological lens and their perspective of it is only trough essays. The Yugoslav market economy was even more efficient than the bootleg planned economy the revisionists ran after they twisted Stalin's design inside out. People on Zig Forums can't comprehend nuance, so don't understand it is possible to criticize Yugoslavia and it's policies while at the same time praising it for it's obvious advancements of socialism, and often forget to take Hoxha's screeching about Yugoslavia with a pinch of salt

The biggest claim against Yugoslavia is usually that it had a bourgeois class, and this claim is the easiest one to debunk. In the first 100 pages of capital Marx outright states that workers who own the MoP even in a market economy, like in a cooperative, are not capitalists, are not bourgeois. They cannot exploit themselves and the enterprise is collectively owned and they allocate their own surplus value to expand the forces of production. Considering that most of the Yugoslav economy was collectively owned trough worker self-management and the state owned economy was regulated by worker councils that branched out from the self-managed sector we can safely say Yugoslavia was a socialist country with collective ownership of the MoP. It was also democratic, with workers councils organizing the voting, and I'd say it was democratic to a fault as the party was opened up to everyone which made leeway for political careerists (same as with the rest of the eastern bloc unfortunately)
The only part of the economy that was centrally managed was the construction of infrastructure, MoP and allocation of resources to self-managed industry.

Many criticisms of self-management and market socialism can be made and have been made, and funnily enough I am usually the one to make them on this board as I am a ML, but the shit said about Yugoslavia in this thread is straight up slander.

Wrong

NEP was needed and it was necessary to build socialism and meet the needs of the people.

Russia had many already given resources in their land so they didn't need to rely much on import and everyone was forced to trade with them, so economic growth was not hard to manage. Othe socialist countries then, relied heavily on the Soviet union and when it collapsed many socialist countries went with it.

That is why the remaining socialist countries now rely on opening of to markets so they dont completly collapse

Regarding Market Socialism, I can't say muich but I like this guys take it sounds good. But I need to read some stuff regarding Market socialism before I can form an opinion

Pretty cool.

Cybernetics would be better but alas, computers weren't good enough when tito was alive.

The worst socialist ever

Have you read Capital?
This is wrong. They are abstract capitalists and Marx makes this clear in the poverty of philospohy. And they clearly didn't decide collectively the law of value decided. They control the enterprise but through competition and markets the law of value and thus semi-bourgoise interests rule society.

I never said that Yugoslavia didn't work according to the law of value or wasn't ran by the profit motive, it was but except for some 10% of industry that was state-managed workers directly allocated and controlled their labor value. And yes, I am also aware that in a capitalist society the majority of cooperatives despite having self-management still depended on large capital which is primarily held by the bourgeois, but in Yugoslavia large capital was held by workers cooperatives. This of course causes other problems, with workers of heavy industry having considerable leverage over other cooperatives which I meant when I said that market socialism still has many flaws, and this is also where they become 'abstract capitalists', in the fact that despite being workers themselves exploit other workers by having more leverage over them. What you described as semi-bourgeois interests, I wouldn't even call semi-bourgeois but fully bourgeois as cooperatives were still ran ultimately by the law of value and strived to create the largest profit. A few times these cooperatives developed bourgeois and had to be culled by the state. Still these issues are over inflated by Hoxhaists and some MLs, making Yugoslavia out to be ancapistan, or even more capitalist than capitalist states.
Yugoslavia was socialist because the means of production were socialized and so was administration of the country. They didn't take it far enough however, sticking to collective ownership over state ownership.

It was shit
He caused the ethnic wars because he divided the Yugos between each others, he gave shitons of weapons and military supplies to the countrysiders (what could go wrong), he also caused the Kosovo war and the state of that meme country today by letting shitons of Albanians immigrating there
also the yugoslav communists drew in the late 40's the frontiers of today's yugoslavia and guess what ? it's complete non-sense and is very similar to the colonial frontiers of africa

I wonder who could be behind this post.

Attached: Untitled.png (500x300, 33.7K)

BE GONE CHETNIK

Attached: 092cc2af0598af67ef0284b1e0ba0c6e7d98a21dcb539e2ab524708b97c9f552.jpg (620x419, 184.72K)

You are a disgrace and should follow the path of Draža Mihajlović.

absolute kek, he was the one keeping a lid on tensions that were already high
the balkans are the asia of europe, these people are basically the same but their hatred of each other is nearly inhuman

Attached: 300.jpg (160x108, 7.41K)

I agree with his economics to an extent but prefer Milosevic.

oh man, Tito is absolutely fucking broken in HoI4…

1. Tito was an hardcore anti Stalin revisionist
2. Tito was a marketcuck
3. Yugoslavia was able to afford its decent lifestyle due to mad loans from the IMF
4. Tito's boner for nationalism and autonomy was the main factor that lead to the breakup of Yugoslavia after his death

Attached: muh markets.png (620x350, 26.39K)

Based
Generally considered better than every other socialist country by a mile and the only socialist country where nostalgia for it is something the vast majority shares

Attached: tito-gaddafi.jpg (672x576, 83.81K)

Sorry Comrade but all other Socialist States were better, they had a good flag though

pls kill yourself, its more merciful than letting the tumor suffocating your brain continue growing
objectively false

Attached: lenin shiggy diggy.jpg (600x450, 29.1K)

peepeepoopoo

Better than any eastern european socialist state and lasted longer than any anarchist utopia.

Attached: 50495388.jpg (334x340, 86.47K)

bad theory but chad as fuck

no arguments but i appreciate the (you)s

we all know how that ended
i don't understand them, they are absolutely warm and generous toward foreigners but go in full animal mode when it comes to their neighbors


truely the best socialist country

...

Wish it was still alive, the Balkans are worthless without it

I don't even care about his politics, that pipe looks fucking rad

Did the workers that was holding Yugoslavia's large capital was working alongside the other workers? And not just giving commands but doing the same tasks as the other workers that aren't deciding the large capital.

advocating capitalism like that should be banned tbh

wrong
when you produce for profit motive there is no worker control but market control

"With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation."
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch24.htm

"What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch01.htm

there were coops in the soviet union - however never intended as a permanent solution but as a transitional form towards overcoming it and fully integrating them into the already dominant socialist mode of production
the SU and Stalin developed to overcome commodity production
retarded Tito oriented the whole fucking society on this

Or just the government getting the exploits from the workers.

yes, the state enforced that they did. If they didn't they were usually pruned, so you couldn't be an ass and exploit smaller industry. Unfortunately that wasn't enforced anymore after Tito died. As for the question if the workers of Yugoslavia who held large capital still worked, yes they did.

If you had read economic problems of socialism in the USSR you'd know that collective ownership is socialized ownership, even if state ownership is superior. All ownership in Yugoslavia was collective ownership trough self-managed factories which ownership defaulted to the employees of the industry, and in case there were no employees to the state which was governed by elected representatives of workers councils. If you use the first quotation of Marx against me, then the same criticism holds against the USSR even if it was a transitional period. Despite Stalins claims he also never got rid of commodity production in the USSR outside of the heavy industrial sector which was geared to the production of means of production, because it was effectively a system of command economy, working and existing only for the sake of further production of means of production, and resources such as steel and concrete were directly allocated to this production instead of being exchanged. Commodities still persisted in many forms however, for multiple reasons. If you read Kantorovich, the founder of the soviet planned economy, you'd know that there were many industries that couldn't be centrally planned because it wasn't economically efficient at the time, and it would be idealistic to do so. The sphere of planned command economy was mostly restricted to construction of the means of production, as well as the military and mechanical sector. Consumer goods in the USSR were still managed by markets because fluctuations in consumption were too great on a day-to-day basis to plan efficiently, so consumer goods still worked on a market. And next to this, the ruble was still crystallized labor power, or labor power commodified, and even Stalin argued in his book that socialism should eventually advance to a system where value is measured by labor time, in the second stage of communism.

Yugoslavias economic policies were a revision of Marxes' work but weren't capitalist. Socialism is defined by the collective ownership of the means of production and this has been the definition even before marxist scientific socialism. The MoP was socially owned in Yugoslavia and the government was governed by workers councils, so you had both a DoTP and a socialized economy.

I'm not even a Titoist, I am a ML but you are a dogmatic retard that ought to stop taking everything you read at face value, take everything with a grain of salt and consider the historical context. You need to accept that Stalin got some things wrong, for an example his belief that the antagonisms the bourgeois had to eachother was greater than between them and the socialist bloc, and that they could never unite into a proper bloc against socialism in the long term. History proved that wrong. By Stalins definition Yugoslavia was socialist despite it's revisionism (just as the revisionist USSR was still socialist) and if you call Yugoslavia capitalist you call the kolhozes capitalist and you call the consumer goods industry in the USSR capitalist.

Stalin was in the right as far as organization went and he was right to condemn Yugoslavia but you are spouting gibberish.

I meant they were working alongside other workers as in sweating and shit. And the workers would have power over the state and capable of deciding certain things alongside the state as well as awareness of government issues.

yes, that is my point.

versobooks.com/blogs/3830-down-with-the-pipe-and-the-poodle-yugoslavia-1968
Found a good piece on Yugoslavia, anti-bureaucratism, students and thirdworldism.

Boss. Lived in Yugoslavia. Was perfect. Worker self management simply works, and beats state capitalism by leagues.

Oh, and Kosovo is Serbia

Absolute shit state

Turni si Jugoslaviju u šupak komunjaro.

Turni si ovaj debeli kurac u tvoju cmarcugu cigojneru glupi