butchersapron
Bring back hanging
For you tommy ze debate is over
Economy of Yugoslavia
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
but it's actually sad...
gorski
customised free radical
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Error: Unable to find site's URL to redirect to.
Teach me prof
Teach me prof
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Ha! Ha! You're a tiger 
gorski
customised free radical
OK, then: chess and mate, m8!
No. Money was reduced to "an internal accounting unit". [Sakwa 2003, p.3]
I know what I mean but you want me to answer the way you want me to answer, so you don't have to change anything in your head and so no effort is needed - much easier and more comfortable... Lazy twat and a bully!! As per usual!!
It's SFRY for a reason, you fool! No, capitalism had nothing to do with that regime, absolutely not! But you know everything and some of us who knew very well [on our own skin, not from stupid newspapers and mediated by SWP and "clever Western social scientists" of anarchist or socialist persuasion, even] the nature of the regime we lived under and worked on abolishing it, for precisely the reason I mentioned [political sphere being the absolute subject and bourgeois economy having only the status of an object] - we know nothing [for you] new, so why should you listen to anyone, eh? Arrogant and ignorant, all at once! Very efficient!
You blabber here, as you frequently do! Nonsense: A is A etc. Yayks! It was not essential to produce surplus value at all but to produce surplus power! I repeat, that was the pillar relationship and everything was derived from that relationship, hence the centrally PLANNED ECONOMY was in place, you ignorant and arrogant fool!!!
It lasted, as I explained, because Tito had the support of the Americans [$20 billion he didn't have to return!!!], he drew hefty loans [$20 billion, the interest on which many there still are paying] and got loadsa money from YU gastarbeiters in the West [$20 billion]. Moreover, some tourism and plenty of arms industry's exports, building and construction abroad etc. He still bought the cheaper armaments he couldn't make in the USSR, the clever bastard that he was.
He was buying social peace with all that money! He still had 30% technological surplus, so people didn't have to work too hard, they had cheap loans for their houses to build, which - because of the inflation - they didn't have to work hard to pay off [in any semi-decent market economy those payments would have followed the inflation etc.] etc. etc.
Now, pay attention, you git: the cull of "liberals" in 60's. Ever heard of it? Why do you think it happened, Mr. know-it-all? Sit down, you know nothing, twat!! But you are full of yourself! Mr. Nikezic and co. [btw, his sister saved my life], the first, younger generation of educated politicians after the war was removed from power by Tito, when he saw that those reforms are taking the power away from the Party and him personally!
Ever heard of Tito? A despot! Cult of personality. Not "authoritarian" - his was a totalitarian regime, you blooming idiot! He was holding it all in his hand. President of SFRY for life, Chairman of the party, the only Marshall of the JN Army, in direct control of security and intelligence services. He was in charge and complete control!!!!
And what did he do after the reforms were stopped right in their track and thereby created a few million unemployed/technological surplus etc.? He gave them the passports and they left to build West Germany, Austria etc. up. That's the $20 billion in hard currencies he "made" easily and got rid of his own problem. Clever, innit?
But not clever enough for you. He was even cleverer, it seems, because he secretly left the newly introduced market working without ever bothering to inform the rest of us, otherwise we would have stopped going after the windmills, stupid us - Tito abolished central planning, introduced Human Rights for all, multi party elections, the rule of law, individual as Subject and so forth... Fucking hell, how stupid everyone iin Yugoslavia was!! I see it all now, thanx to you!!! Why didn't anyone phone Butchers and the SWP?!? It would have saved us... Oh, who knows how many lives, untold misery, energy and suffering... We could have lived in peace and harmony with our market economy - ever after....
It's because it was, you git!!! That's why all of the above has happened. Notice the "HAS happened" in it! That bit determined EVERYTHING!!! Because it could!
No, no and no again!
Stupid and arrogant! All in one, with loadsa aggression to boot! Now, go back to reading and OPEN YOUR MIND FOR ONCE AND LISTEN TO OTHERS, JUST FOR ONCE and you MIGHT learn something new... [That'd be the day...
] I rejoice when I learn something I didn't know, I yearn for it. But Bitch has no idea what that is. Maybe from somebody's book on occasion, or from a lecture put on the web but not from a fellow contributor on a board. Nope, too close for comfort, he must dominate us all.
Thatx for enlightening me, Comrade Stalinslackey!
No. Money was reduced to "an internal accounting unit". [Sakwa 2003, p.3]
I know what I mean but you want me to answer the way you want me to answer, so you don't have to change anything in your head and so no effort is needed - much easier and more comfortable... Lazy twat and a bully!! As per usual!!
It's SFRY for a reason, you fool! No, capitalism had nothing to do with that regime, absolutely not! But you know everything and some of us who knew very well [on our own skin, not from stupid newspapers and mediated by SWP and "clever Western social scientists" of anarchist or socialist persuasion, even] the nature of the regime we lived under and worked on abolishing it, for precisely the reason I mentioned [political sphere being the absolute subject and bourgeois economy having only the status of an object] - we know nothing [for you] new, so why should you listen to anyone, eh? Arrogant and ignorant, all at once! Very efficient!
You blabber here, as you frequently do! Nonsense: A is A etc. Yayks! It was not essential to produce surplus value at all but to produce surplus power! I repeat, that was the pillar relationship and everything was derived from that relationship, hence the centrally PLANNED ECONOMY was in place, you ignorant and arrogant fool!!!
It lasted, as I explained, because Tito had the support of the Americans [$20 billion he didn't have to return!!!], he drew hefty loans [$20 billion, the interest on which many there still are paying] and got loadsa money from YU gastarbeiters in the West [$20 billion]. Moreover, some tourism and plenty of arms industry's exports, building and construction abroad etc. He still bought the cheaper armaments he couldn't make in the USSR, the clever bastard that he was.
He was buying social peace with all that money! He still had 30% technological surplus, so people didn't have to work too hard, they had cheap loans for their houses to build, which - because of the inflation - they didn't have to work hard to pay off [in any semi-decent market economy those payments would have followed the inflation etc.] etc. etc.
Now, pay attention, you git: the cull of "liberals" in 60's. Ever heard of it? Why do you think it happened, Mr. know-it-all? Sit down, you know nothing, twat!! But you are full of yourself! Mr. Nikezic and co. [btw, his sister saved my life], the first, younger generation of educated politicians after the war was removed from power by Tito, when he saw that those reforms are taking the power away from the Party and him personally!
Ever heard of Tito? A despot! Cult of personality. Not "authoritarian" - his was a totalitarian regime, you blooming idiot! He was holding it all in his hand. President of SFRY for life, Chairman of the party, the only Marshall of the JN Army, in direct control of security and intelligence services. He was in charge and complete control!!!!
And what did he do after the reforms were stopped right in their track and thereby created a few million unemployed/technological surplus etc.? He gave them the passports and they left to build West Germany, Austria etc. up. That's the $20 billion in hard currencies he "made" easily and got rid of his own problem. Clever, innit?
But not clever enough for you. He was even cleverer, it seems, because he secretly left the newly introduced market working without ever bothering to inform the rest of us, otherwise we would have stopped going after the windmills, stupid us - Tito abolished central planning, introduced Human Rights for all, multi party elections, the rule of law, individual as Subject and so forth... Fucking hell, how stupid everyone iin Yugoslavia was!! I see it all now, thanx to you!!! Why didn't anyone phone Butchers and the SWP?!? It would have saved us... Oh, who knows how many lives, untold misery, energy and suffering... We could have lived in peace and harmony with our market economy - ever after....
It's because it was, you git!!! That's why all of the above has happened. Notice the "HAS happened" in it! That bit determined EVERYTHING!!! Because it could!
No, no and no again!
Stupid and arrogant! All in one, with loadsa aggression to boot! Now, go back to reading and OPEN YOUR MIND FOR ONCE AND LISTEN TO OTHERS, JUST FOR ONCE and you MIGHT learn something new... [That'd be the day...
] I rejoice when I learn something I didn't know, I yearn for it. But Bitch has no idea what that is. Maybe from somebody's book on occasion, or from a lecture put on the web but not from a fellow contributor on a board. Nope, too close for comfort, he must dominate us all.Thatx for enlightening me, Comrade Stalinslackey!
gorski
customised free radical
http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/index.html - btw, tell them that it's A. Kollontai, not "a"!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
No. Money was reduced to "an internal accounting unit". [Sakwa 2003, p.3]
I know what I mean but you want me to answer the way you want me to answer, so you don't have to change anything in your head and so no effort is needed - much easier and more comfortable... Lazy twat and a bully!! As per usual!!
It's SFRY for a reason, you fool! No, capitalism had nothing to do with that regime, absolutely not! But you know everything and some of us who knew very well [on our own skin, not from stupid newspapers and mediated by SWP and "clever Western social scientists" of anarchist or socialist persuasion, even] the nature of the regime we lived under and worked on abolishing it, for precisely the reason I mentioned [political sphere being the absolute subject and bourgeois economy having only the status of an object] - we know nothing [for you] new, so why should you listen to anyone, eh? Arrogant and ignorant, all at once! Very efficient!
You blabber here, as you frequently do! Nonsense: A is A etc. Yayks! It was not essential to produce surplus value at all but to produce surplus power! I repeat, that was the pillar relationship and everything was derived from that relationship, hence the centrally PLANNED ECONOMY was in place, you ignorant and arrogant fool!!!
It lasted, as I explained, because Tito had the support of the Americans [$20 billion he didn't have to return!!!], he drew hefty loans [$20 billion, the interest on which many there still are paying] and got loadsa money from YU gastarbeiters in the West [$20 billion]. Moreover, some tourism and plenty of arms industry's exports, building and construction abroad etc. He still bought the cheaper armaments he couldn't make in the USSR, the clever bastard that he was.
He was buying social peace with all that money! He still had 30% technological surplus, so people didn't have to work too hard, they had cheap loans for their houses to build, which - because of the inflation - they didn't have to work hard to pay off [in any semi-decent market economy those payments would have followed the inflation etc.] etc. etc.
Now, pay attention, you git: the cull of "liberals" in 60's. Ever heard of it? Why do you think it happened, Mr. know-it-all? Sit down, you know nothing, twat!! But you are full of yourself! Mr. Nikezic and co. [btw, his sister saved my life], the first, younger generation of educated politicians after the war was removed from power by Tito, when he saw that those reforms are taking the power away from the Party and him personally!
Ever heard of Tito? A despot! Cult of personality. Not "authoritarian" - his was a totalitarian regime, you blooming idiot! He was holding it all in his hand. President of SFRY for life, Chairman of the party, the only Marshall of the JN Army, in direct control of security and intelligence services. He was in charge and complete control!!!!
And what did he do after the reforms were stopped right in their track and thereby created a few million unemployed/technological surplus etc.? He gave them the passports and they left to build West Germany, Austria etc. up. That's the $20 billion in hard currencies he "made" easily and got rid of his own problem. Clever, innit?
But not clever enough for you. He was even cleverer, it seems, because he secretly left the newly introduced market working without ever bothering to inform the rest of us, otherwise we would have stopped going after the windmills, stupid us - Tito abolished central planning, introduced Human Rights for all, multi party elections, the rule of law, individual as Subject and so forth... Fucking hell, how stupid everyone iin Yugoslavia was!! I see it all now, thanx to you!!! Why didn't anyone phone Butchers and the SWP?!? It would have saved us... Oh, who knows how many lives, untold misery, energy and suffering... We could have lived in peace and harmony with our market economy - ever after....
It's because it was, you git!!! That's why all of the above has happened. Notice the "HAS happened" in it! That bit determined EVERYTHING!!! Because it could!
No, no and no again!
Stupid and arrogant! All in one, with loadsa aggression to boot! Now, go back to reading and OPEN YOUR MIND FOR ONCE AND LISTEN TO OTHERS, JUST FOR ONCE and you MIGHT learn something new... [That'd be the day...
Thatx for enlightening me, Comrade Stalinslackey!
Ah, i notice you've finally replied prof! (Only to let yourself down with the very first line, 'chess mate' indeed.) I shall reply to this later today or tommorow. And seriously now, don't try and insult people, you're really really bad at it (you git, you blooming idiot, SWP)
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
eh?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
He recommended that you shouldn't insult people because you do it so appallingly badly, not that you shouldn't insult him.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
On re-reading this post it's telling how little is actually directed at the question of whether Yugoslavia was capiitalist or not. There's a few substantive points that appear as if almost by accident amongst the ranting on stuff that's not really relavent. I'll try and stick to those few point.
Money is used as an accounting unit in capitalist states too. And fuedal ones. The question is, is that money capable of self-expansion? Can it comlete the circuit M--C--M'? Well, it appears that cra from only being accounting tool, money could also be hoarded, lent, borrowed, spent on hiring wage labour and so on. It could act as capital in other words. It could be spent on wage-labour, which then produced suplus value in the production processs, suplus value that was then realised in the market (though not nessecarily in the same state). This is the classical cicuit of capital.
The capitalist can appear as either individuals, foreign companies, or the state (and mixtures of all three). This is what happened in Yugoslavia, justifed by a people's democracy type ideology. This is why a stock market existed, to encourage foreign capital in to exploit the cheap wage labour, to produce suplus-value and to develop the country at the expense of 'outside' capital - and to a lesser extent to encourage domestic saving/investment, in order to make the w/c pay for capitalist development (see also your guest workers)
So we have capital operating - albeit not in total dominance of the poltical system as in some other countries (instead we have a dictatoership rep-licating the legitimation function that elected govts do in some capitalist states, but also operating as long term planner as the state has done in other capitalist states seeking to 'catch up' - Singapore, South Korea etc), nor at such a technologically advanced level as some others - but then, it doesn't need to.
Are you sure that Sawka quote you use above is actually writing about Yugoslavia and not Russia. As i'm sure you are aware there were substantial differences between the two economies (as well as the obvious similiarities). Can you provide the proper reference please?
Despite your many obvious faults, i can honestly say that i expected better than, because they called it that. "mediated by SWP"
This is the mostly irrelavant ranting i was referring to.
All states once they're past a certain level of development need to produce a surplus. All systems of government need to produce and re-prooduce the conditions of their own legitimacy and power. Saying that Yugoslavia did the latter doesn't differentiate it from capitalist states. That's is what states do in different ways. Sure it might have concentrated on this aspect more than some other states, but that way also included a moderate and planned introduction of wage labour and other essential elements for capitalism. You simply cannot seperate the political from the economic in this crude maner.
Uh..we're not discussing why 'it lasted'. Nor the loans that Tito recieved. Suffice to say that loans are also an integral element of capitalism. Capitalists borrow. The US loaned out or gave away huge sums to many capitlaist states post WW2. Again, this doesn't differentiate Yugoslavia from capitalism. It merely highlights that were placed within a historical situation where the main global power thought them to be of some use in attaining their own ends.
'30% technologial surplus' (from where i wonder?) Yes rising organic compostion of capital - a clasical sign of capital development.
Stuff about internal power struggles, and the cull of the liberals. That would the cull that resulted in tito reasserting his own power by bringing in further measures designed to stenghten the capitlist component of the economy. i,e currency convertibility (1965), explicitly allowing and encourging foreign investement for the first time (1968), massive liberalisation of the banks (1965-66), end of direct state taxes on entrprises, forcing them to sink or swim on the basis of their suplus-value production alone i.e the statutory ratio relation between the enterprises accumulation fund and the age fund was abolished (1965). Not to mention allowing yugoslavs to go off and send back potential capital that could either be saved/invested or sued to support families thereby reducing reproduction costs and allowing wages to be kept to a minimum(as well as reducing any costs that might come from those now foreign workers).
Tito adopted these measures because of the strength of the 'self-managers' i.e enterprise managers wing of the state, those who had been getting on with building up the capitalist sector on their own an didn't welcome the Party interference - such was the depth of implantation of these capitalist measures that tito had to adopt them as his own whilst destroying those who had challenged his power on the basis of them. The measures reamined.
Money is used as an accounting unit in capitalist states too. And fuedal ones. The question is, is that money capable of self-expansion? Can it comlete the circuit M--C--M'? Well, it appears that cra from only being accounting tool, money could also be hoarded, lent, borrowed, spent on hiring wage labour and so on. It could act as capital in other words. It could be spent on wage-labour, which then produced suplus value in the production processs, suplus value that was then realised in the market (though not nessecarily in the same state). This is the classical cicuit of capital.
The capitalist can appear as either individuals, foreign companies, or the state (and mixtures of all three). This is what happened in Yugoslavia, justifed by a people's democracy type ideology. This is why a stock market existed, to encourage foreign capital in to exploit the cheap wage labour, to produce suplus-value and to develop the country at the expense of 'outside' capital - and to a lesser extent to encourage domestic saving/investment, in order to make the w/c pay for capitalist development (see also your guest workers)
So we have capital operating - albeit not in total dominance of the poltical system as in some other countries (instead we have a dictatoership rep-licating the legitimation function that elected govts do in some capitalist states, but also operating as long term planner as the state has done in other capitalist states seeking to 'catch up' - Singapore, South Korea etc), nor at such a technologically advanced level as some others - but then, it doesn't need to.
Are you sure that Sawka quote you use above is actually writing about Yugoslavia and not Russia. As i'm sure you are aware there were substantial differences between the two economies (as well as the obvious similiarities). Can you provide the proper reference please?
Despite your many obvious faults, i can honestly say that i expected better than, because they called it that. "mediated by SWP"
This is the mostly irrelavant ranting i was referring to.
All states once they're past a certain level of development need to produce a surplus. All systems of government need to produce and re-prooduce the conditions of their own legitimacy and power. Saying that Yugoslavia did the latter doesn't differentiate it from capitalist states. That's is what states do in different ways. Sure it might have concentrated on this aspect more than some other states, but that way also included a moderate and planned introduction of wage labour and other essential elements for capitalism. You simply cannot seperate the political from the economic in this crude maner.
Uh..we're not discussing why 'it lasted'. Nor the loans that Tito recieved. Suffice to say that loans are also an integral element of capitalism. Capitalists borrow. The US loaned out or gave away huge sums to many capitlaist states post WW2. Again, this doesn't differentiate Yugoslavia from capitalism. It merely highlights that were placed within a historical situation where the main global power thought them to be of some use in attaining their own ends.
'30% technologial surplus' (from where i wonder?) Yes rising organic compostion of capital - a clasical sign of capital development.
Stuff about internal power struggles, and the cull of the liberals. That would the cull that resulted in tito reasserting his own power by bringing in further measures designed to stenghten the capitlist component of the economy. i,e currency convertibility (1965), explicitly allowing and encourging foreign investement for the first time (1968), massive liberalisation of the banks (1965-66), end of direct state taxes on entrprises, forcing them to sink or swim on the basis of their suplus-value production alone i.e the statutory ratio relation between the enterprises accumulation fund and the age fund was abolished (1965). Not to mention allowing yugoslavs to go off and send back potential capital that could either be saved/invested or sued to support families thereby reducing reproduction costs and allowing wages to be kept to a minimum(as well as reducing any costs that might come from those now foreign workers).
Tito adopted these measures because of the strength of the 'self-managers' i.e enterprise managers wing of the state, those who had been getting on with building up the capitalist sector on their own an didn't welcome the Party interference - such was the depth of implantation of these capitalist measures that tito had to adopt them as his own whilst destroying those who had challenged his power on the basis of them. The measures reamined.
gorski
customised free radical
You mean you're not getting the rest...
Or mebbe you better ignore it, as it doesn't make it easier on you to "prove a point"...Yayks. "Acting as capital"... Brrr... Something cold walked all over my grave just now... Feudalism as a market economy... Mama mia...
When that happened Feudalism was effectively dead! Gone. On its last legs. Hence we speak of a novel epoch! No sameness! Essential difference! REVOLUTION, BITCH! EVER HEARD OF IT?Yoooooyoyoyyyyyy.....
Here's the thing: YU was the second country to invent a transistor [and so well ahead of the rest of the world]. Yep, very advanced - but... It was not a market economy of any sort, so nowt was done to get the surplus value out of it [put it into radios, toys etc., get the investment back and then to reinvest into research and so forth]. Guess why? [You have 30 seconds...
][...to continue, I must have me smilies...]
gorski
customised free radical
Nope, that's barking up the wrong tree. You do it because you set your own Q and then it's lighter...
You are missing the wood for the trees, again: at any time, when a clash occured, the economy lost. No debate, no questions asked. Guess why? [20 seconds, this time!]
And to help you further still, here's your original Q:
The A is: [drrrrrrummmrrrroolllllllll] you must have guessed it by now... even though it was even less seconds to do so!
Sure, nothing to do with Capitalism! Nothing at all!!! Essentially different! The element gets its meaning from the whole. And the crucial part of the whole is - up there, where the Gods reside, in the Central Committee!!! No capitalist has anything over them, he can be simply taken to the cleaners and if necessary even shot. No compensation, the property/ownership rules do not apply... The CP owns everything, including your life... And the "logics of the capital" is the least of their little problems and worries, as they simply change the rules, as they see fit/need... End of story!
Nope. See above.
Correct, the SSSR. [Sorry, book not here but google is yer friend. Like, Sakwa, R. (2003) Russian Politics and Society, 3d ed. London Routlage] The essential difference between the two states? None! See above, all applies in both cases. When Tito broke with Stalin he even "fought" Stalinism with Stalinist methods, including his very own little Gulag archipelago, called Goli Otok [The Barren Island]. Guess why...
gorski
customised free radical
3
Meh. The arrogance of the Westerners, sitting in their comfy chairs and sipping tea, telling others what to think of their own lives and societies, no matter how educated and interested, working hard on it, every day, for who knows how many hours, even dreaming it, knowing it inside out with every pore of your skin, every cell of your body... And here is Bitch, SWP and others, who don't even speak the bloody language, who have read infinitesimally little on the subject by comparison, debated it even less, deffo not with the best minds on the subject and... we're supposed to be schtum and take it, because...?!? You're British, American or whatever? Piss off!!!!!
I knew it. As I said above, this is the inconvenient bit, as it's essential for understanding any of it, so try to brush it aside... Bitch!
Jeezus, I have never seen a cruder analysis in my life - and from someone who thinks he gets it better than an expert in the field... Yayks! Another "all is the same", another night in which all cows are black, rather surprisingly and somewhat conveniently... Eccchhhh....
Well, you ain't gonna! See above, that's the essence. Ignore at your own [peril of] ignorance.
No kidding! Genius! Fuck! Here's me sitting that was for charitable and Humanistic purposes, from the deepest depths of their cheatin' hearts!
Thanx, Bitch! What would I do without you! Can't even see the bleedin' obvious! That's why I got ya, Bitch! To teach! Woof!
Meh. The arrogance of the Westerners, sitting in their comfy chairs and sipping tea, telling others what to think of their own lives and societies, no matter how educated and interested, working hard on it, every day, for who knows how many hours, even dreaming it, knowing it inside out with every pore of your skin, every cell of your body... And here is Bitch, SWP and others, who don't even speak the bloody language, who have read infinitesimally little on the subject by comparison, debated it even less, deffo not with the best minds on the subject and... we're supposed to be schtum and take it, because...?!? You're British, American or whatever? Piss off!!!!!
I knew it. As I said above, this is the inconvenient bit, as it's essential for understanding any of it, so try to brush it aside... Bitch!
Jeezus, I have never seen a cruder analysis in my life - and from someone who thinks he gets it better than an expert in the field...
Yayks! Another "all is the same", another night in which all cows are black, rather surprisingly and somewhat conveniently... Eccchhhh....Well, you ain't gonna! See above, that's the essence. Ignore at your own [peril of] ignorance.
No kidding! Genius! Fuck! Here's me sitting that was for charitable and Humanistic purposes, from the deepest depths of their cheatin' hearts!
Thanx, Bitch! What would I do without you! Can't even see the bleedin' obvious! That's why I got ya, Bitch! To teach! Woof!
gorski
customised free radical
4
Mama mia. No one said there weren't factories and that they have no logics at all, of the technological kind. There's no arguing there. But the fact is he always had them and kept them. So much so that he actually set the system up so it was good for a company to employ more people, as the state added the value into the factory and its community then. Subsidised it. In fact, every community, because of its essential structural set-up tried mimicking the state in every respect. Every "unit" tried having it's little health centre, school, library, theatre, cinema, culture clubs and whatnot. Atomisation but mirroring the state. There was no escape from it. The state literally invented everything from within itself. It maintained it all and only the state had the right to initialise anything.
How d'ya like that kinda capitalism, eh? Meh. Allround "specialist", Bitch! Otherwise known to friends as the "Unfallible"!
Crickey! You've been googling, Bitch! But no brains to understand it. See, you must interpret what actually has happened. And you're a tad thin there.
For Capitalism and market to operate one must have private and state ownership, which is constitutional and sacrosanct. You must have an individual as a Subject. Legally, politically and economically, not to mention wider - societally. None of that existed. As an individual you had no rights whatsoever, in former YU. Only collectively. Say, as a member of an ethnic minority - there ex-YU excelled! One of if not the best in the world. But even that was rather limited, in terms of their reach. Culturally etc. -sure. But try to do something economically or politically and see what happens...
No Human Rights, no any rights, for that matter. Your arse is ours to do with as we see fit! Sinking or swimming? You must be joking. It was all totally planned! No freedom even to sink without their say-so! Because, it was not a capitalist thing at all! It had a completely different meaning! Hence, no capitalist logics applied. As it was not essential to produce surplus value.
The rest was up to them [how they sustain it etc.]
Now, obviously, at some point the system imploded. Guess why? Sure, I told you already, you should know. Hence the title "surreal Socialism".
Ayayayayayyyyy!!!! It was all a sham! No power whatsoever. You've never been to one of those. Well, guess what: I have. My whole family did. We knew it with every piece of us, but you don't have a bloody clue... And you're gonna teach me about their strength... BLIMEY, BITCH, YOU IS LOONY ARROGANT AND BLESSED IN YOUR IGNORANCE ON THE SUBJECT! AND YET, YOU HAVE THE INNER "MUST WIN!!!" TO FORCE YOU MAKE YOURSELF INTO A FOOL, YOU JUST CAN'T HELP YOURSELF, NOW, CAN YA?
My severe condolences...
Mama mia. No one said there weren't factories and that they have no logics at all, of the technological kind. There's no arguing there. But the fact is he always had them and kept them. So much so that he actually set the system up so it was good for a company to employ more people, as the state added the value into the factory and its community then. Subsidised it. In fact, every community, because of its essential structural set-up tried mimicking the state in every respect. Every "unit" tried having it's little health centre, school, library, theatre, cinema, culture clubs and whatnot. Atomisation but mirroring the state. There was no escape from it. The state literally invented everything from within itself. It maintained it all and only the state had the right to initialise anything.
How d'ya like that kinda capitalism, eh?
Meh. Allround "specialist", Bitch! Otherwise known to friends as the "Unfallible"!Crickey! You've been googling, Bitch!
But no brains to understand it. See, you must interpret what actually has happened. And you're a tad thin there.For Capitalism and market to operate one must have private and state ownership, which is constitutional and sacrosanct. You must have an individual as a Subject. Legally, politically and economically, not to mention wider - societally. None of that existed. As an individual you had no rights whatsoever, in former YU. Only collectively. Say, as a member of an ethnic minority - there ex-YU excelled! One of if not the best in the world. But even that was rather limited, in terms of their reach. Culturally etc. -sure. But try to do something economically or politically and see what happens...
No Human Rights, no any rights, for that matter. Your arse is ours to do with as we see fit! Sinking or swimming? You must be joking. It was all totally planned! No freedom even to sink without their say-so! Because, it was not a capitalist thing at all! It had a completely different meaning! Hence, no capitalist logics applied. As it was not essential to produce surplus value.
The rest was up to them [how they sustain it etc.]
Now, obviously, at some point the system imploded. Guess why? Sure, I told you already, you should know. Hence the title "surreal Socialism".
Ayayayayayyyyy!!!! It was all a sham! No power whatsoever. You've never been to one of those. Well, guess what: I have. My whole family did. We knew it with every piece of us, but you don't have a bloody clue... And you're gonna teach me about their strength... BLIMEY, BITCH, YOU IS LOONY ARROGANT AND BLESSED IN YOUR IGNORANCE ON THE SUBJECT! AND YET, YOU HAVE THE INNER "MUST WIN!!!" TO FORCE YOU MAKE YOURSELF INTO A FOOL, YOU JUST CAN'T HELP YOURSELF, NOW, CAN YA?
My severe condolences...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Jeezus, I have never seen a cruder analysis in life from someone who thinks he gets it better than an expert in the field...
Amongst this bizzare fractured series of partial replies, evasions, distortions and inanity this one stands out. Someone whose actually arguing that there was one single active relation in Yugoslavia, that of power, is telling me that my analysis is crude
gorski
customised free radical
Amongst this bizzare fractured series of partial replies, evasions, distortions and inanity this one stands out. Someone whose actually arguing that there was one single active relation in Yugoslavia, that of power, is telling me that my analysis is crude
Heh, if it's so simple, how come you can't get it through that thick skull of yours?
Tell you why: because of you compulsion to be da boss!!! And you're not.
Boy, it must hurt, this...
I feel for you.... [I think I luv ya...Chakka... Chakkkkaaa...]
gorski
customised free radical
Some notes towards clarification of notions...
OK, here's the essential tools, to be able to do it for yourself, from now on:
Political power is not a modern creation! But State as a type of political power/rule, where there is no identity between ownership and power/rule - is!
That's why Feudalism [and surreal Socialims, in another manner] are pre-Modern!
Centralisation of power through decentralisation of ownership, that is how a Modern Democratic State is established; where power doesn't follow directly from ownership. That leaves the Q of the mediating mechanisms of securing the key influence over the State, of course... we all know that the economically dominant class will be the most dominant in politics, generally speaking, if you look to, say, a paradigmatic America...
But!
Political revolution establishes a new type of rule/power!
From it you can begin understanding the complexities of our time... As opposed to the essential difference with, say Feudalism, where there's no distinction between the two and hence no private/public distinction, either...
In surreal Socialism there was no right to own the means of production, the way you have it in Capitalism, where even if you die the ownership has to be divided by law, the state must respect it, allis mediated by the rule oflaw/Constitutional Rights, which are universal... Not so in SrS!
The consequence is that one is not a Subject in SrS, as in Modernity/Capitalism, one doesn't have universal Human Rights, one doesn't feature as a Human Being, one's rights are always mediated only via concrete "memberships", as it were.
In Feudalism, likewise, one can't overcome one's Estate. By birth, rather than by one's talents, capabilities and work/effort, one gets various rights. They are mottled. There are no universal Human Rights, as no one is a Human Being but always man-overlord or man-peasant or clergyman.
Socialism and Feudalism are, however, diametrically opposite. In Socialism ownership follows from Power/Rule. In Feudalism it's the other way round.
Reich is a Feudal creation. Staat is Modern.
Power/rule appears as a function of ownership in Feudalism.
Those in power in Socialism also get the best pieces...
Having money/capital in Socialism doesn't make you powerful. Not even influential. Unless someone in power decides so.
Also, one needs to understand different types of ownership.
Roman private ownership connects us only in such a way that it disconnects us. It excludes the other. The right to use and abuse to the point of destruction. No obligations to any one.
Germanic institution of owership [majorat] is characterised by the presumption that we were given it by God, it's ours by divine right and hence one doesn't have the right to sell it or give it to another through a "Last Will" [as in Capitalism]. One has obligations, then, as one must secure the existence to the subjugated on that land. And hence one has rights. In other words land isn't by my will, because I want it - but I am by land, the land is the constant and an indivudual in a "accidentia" [to it], as it were.
Only with the rise of manufacture, with exchange dominating the rest of society, by everything becoming mediated by it - capital - as a process, not a thing, only then do we have private property proper, rather than the static private property of Feudalism.
Only in Capitalism do we have a Human Being as a generic being, a whole being, not strictly mediated by his Estate/birth [Feudalism or earlier Epochs] or by one's concrete "memberships" to various groups [SrS].
Of course, that was the potential atthe beginning of Capitalism. We had to struggle a helluvalot to get the right to vote regardless of... but the potential was there and we took it. Modernity as an unfinished project, as it were.
Feudalism doesn't have the generality of state [over-arching everything else, as in Capitalism], as it's a mere congregation of its pieces, a simple sum of its elements.
The essential relationship, which mediates and forms all other relationships in Feidalism is LAND, the ownership of land. So, the political subject, as it were, is not Man but Land itself. It caries rights and power with it and all the logical activity stems from there.
The French Bourgeois Revolution abolishes this inner connection. Ownership is a private matter and from it no power comes [automatically], as a principle, such as in Feudalism. Hence, the self-legitimisation is that this new state of affairs is fairer, more just, hence based in Reason, as opposed the previous one.
Of course, cenzus had to abolished etc. but the implication and potential, as I said, for emancipatory action is there!
The society is atomised, Estates were abolished, a fallen capitalist was no longer a capitalist but a prole, as opposed to a fallen Feudal Lord who was still a Lord and even if he is impoverished different rights and duties apply to him. He will be punished or rewarded accordingly, for the same crime or heroic act, due to a completely different set or rights/rules from a peasant.
That, in principle, is abolished with Modernity and all stand the same before the courts. The same rights and duties, the same punishment. Of course, it's not immediately like that and we have a lot of work to do - but the implication is there and hence it's down to us, our action to fight for our rights. Modernity opens it all up and it's down to us, no divine intevention, form then on. We can overcome our predicament by our own work and struggle! Modernity essentially rests squarely on our efforts, on a competent and interested Subject!!!
The essential thing from then on is that Freedom is not and cannot be given on a silver platter, by his "majesty's" edict - but has to be fought for. One can actually fight it out, by one's own capacities, labour, effort, even if one has to band together, one is no longer submitted to irrational authorities, to whom one owes defference. Only the rational authority of one's capabilities, hard work, talent is recognised.
Surreal Socialism falls beneath the level of Modernity in just about every aspect of it all. As you have seen so far, from some of my posts...
And now I'm off to study... Even though I only slept like 3 hours last night but must press on, to do what I have to do... Ciao...
OK, here's the essential tools, to be able to do it for yourself, from now on:
Political power is not a modern creation! But State as a type of political power/rule, where there is no identity between ownership and power/rule - is!
That's why Feudalism [and surreal Socialims, in another manner] are pre-Modern!
Centralisation of power through decentralisation of ownership, that is how a Modern Democratic State is established; where power doesn't follow directly from ownership. That leaves the Q of the mediating mechanisms of securing the key influence over the State, of course... we all know that the economically dominant class will be the most dominant in politics, generally speaking, if you look to, say, a paradigmatic America...
But!
Political revolution establishes a new type of rule/power!
From it you can begin understanding the complexities of our time... As opposed to the essential difference with, say Feudalism, where there's no distinction between the two and hence no private/public distinction, either...
In surreal Socialism there was no right to own the means of production, the way you have it in Capitalism, where even if you die the ownership has to be divided by law, the state must respect it, allis mediated by the rule oflaw/Constitutional Rights, which are universal... Not so in SrS!
The consequence is that one is not a Subject in SrS, as in Modernity/Capitalism, one doesn't have universal Human Rights, one doesn't feature as a Human Being, one's rights are always mediated only via concrete "memberships", as it were.
In Feudalism, likewise, one can't overcome one's Estate. By birth, rather than by one's talents, capabilities and work/effort, one gets various rights. They are mottled. There are no universal Human Rights, as no one is a Human Being but always man-overlord or man-peasant or clergyman.
Socialism and Feudalism are, however, diametrically opposite. In Socialism ownership follows from Power/Rule. In Feudalism it's the other way round.
Reich is a Feudal creation. Staat is Modern.
Power/rule appears as a function of ownership in Feudalism.
Those in power in Socialism also get the best pieces...
Having money/capital in Socialism doesn't make you powerful. Not even influential. Unless someone in power decides so.
Also, one needs to understand different types of ownership.
Roman private ownership connects us only in such a way that it disconnects us. It excludes the other. The right to use and abuse to the point of destruction. No obligations to any one.
Germanic institution of owership [majorat] is characterised by the presumption that we were given it by God, it's ours by divine right and hence one doesn't have the right to sell it or give it to another through a "Last Will" [as in Capitalism]. One has obligations, then, as one must secure the existence to the subjugated on that land. And hence one has rights. In other words land isn't by my will, because I want it - but I am by land, the land is the constant and an indivudual in a "accidentia" [to it], as it were.
Only with the rise of manufacture, with exchange dominating the rest of society, by everything becoming mediated by it - capital - as a process, not a thing, only then do we have private property proper, rather than the static private property of Feudalism.
Only in Capitalism do we have a Human Being as a generic being, a whole being, not strictly mediated by his Estate/birth [Feudalism or earlier Epochs] or by one's concrete "memberships" to various groups [SrS].
Of course, that was the potential atthe beginning of Capitalism. We had to struggle a helluvalot to get the right to vote regardless of... but the potential was there and we took it. Modernity as an unfinished project, as it were.
Feudalism doesn't have the generality of state [over-arching everything else, as in Capitalism], as it's a mere congregation of its pieces, a simple sum of its elements.
The essential relationship, which mediates and forms all other relationships in Feidalism is LAND, the ownership of land. So, the political subject, as it were, is not Man but Land itself. It caries rights and power with it and all the logical activity stems from there.
The French Bourgeois Revolution abolishes this inner connection. Ownership is a private matter and from it no power comes [automatically], as a principle, such as in Feudalism. Hence, the self-legitimisation is that this new state of affairs is fairer, more just, hence based in Reason, as opposed the previous one.
Of course, cenzus had to abolished etc. but the implication and potential, as I said, for emancipatory action is there!
The society is atomised, Estates were abolished, a fallen capitalist was no longer a capitalist but a prole, as opposed to a fallen Feudal Lord who was still a Lord and even if he is impoverished different rights and duties apply to him. He will be punished or rewarded accordingly, for the same crime or heroic act, due to a completely different set or rights/rules from a peasant.
That, in principle, is abolished with Modernity and all stand the same before the courts. The same rights and duties, the same punishment. Of course, it's not immediately like that and we have a lot of work to do - but the implication is there and hence it's down to us, our action to fight for our rights. Modernity opens it all up and it's down to us, no divine intevention, form then on. We can overcome our predicament by our own work and struggle! Modernity essentially rests squarely on our efforts, on a competent and interested Subject!!!
The essential thing from then on is that Freedom is not and cannot be given on a silver platter, by his "majesty's" edict - but has to be fought for. One can actually fight it out, by one's own capacities, labour, effort, even if one has to band together, one is no longer submitted to irrational authorities, to whom one owes defference. Only the rational authority of one's capabilities, hard work, talent is recognised.
Surreal Socialism falls beneath the level of Modernity in just about every aspect of it all. As you have seen so far, from some of my posts...
And now I'm off to study... Even though I only slept like 3 hours last night but must press on, to do what I have to do...
Ciao...butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Is there any chance of a reply to my post from this morning please? I've been very patient throughout this thread.
Note: simply saying stuff after my post doesn't count as replying, not in any substantive sense anyway.
Note: simply saying stuff after my post doesn't count as replying, not in any substantive sense anyway.
Sure, nothing to do with Capitalism! Nothing at all!!! Essentially different! The element gets its meaning from the whole. And the crucial part of the whole is - up there, where the Gods reside, in the Central Committee!!! No capitalist has anything over them, he can be simply taken to the cleaners and if necessary even shot. No compensation, the property/ownership rules do not apply... The CP owns everything, including your life... And the "logics of the capital" is the least of their little problems and worries, as they simply change the rules, as they see fit/need... End of story!
That's a point of substance. It doesn't address the question of whether the economy was capitalist, but it does address the question of whether the state defends capitalist relations of production and that's a good criterion for whether a country is capitalist or not.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
There was one other (related) point approaching substance, that capitalism requires the finished bourgeois subject, bourgeois legality, property forms etc - but it was put in a crudely stagist form leading to an ideal type capitalism, which, if followed through, really means very few places are or ever have been capitalist. It just dissapears the issue away in manner that oddly mirrors the insistence that all that is not perfect ideal type communism is capitalism that he was trying to pin on me earlier. It's a handy way of not having to deal with any facts or concrete history though.
gorski
customised free radical
Heh, look who's talking: by your standards we had capitalism everywhere at all times because there was exchange and money, thereby not differentiating, once again, between the essential and ephemeral of an epoch, so everyone's an equal "expert", as it's all the same...
[At least whatever Butchers allows and deems essential, at any rate...]
[At least whatever Butchers allows and deems essential, at any rate...
]I can't agree with that - certainly not in general. I can understand that it would look that way in the SFRY though.
That's why you're loosing the argument. You can't name these requirements.
Why should we think that capitalism has particular requirements? Why should we think there are criteria for when an economy is capitalist? Is there any reason to think this?
Similar threads
