butchersapron
Bring back hanging
For you tommy ze debate is over
Surely to the questions 'Did the commodity 'wage labour' exist?
The market didn't exist then in yugoslvia? Was there a stock market'? you mean yes, not no?
And sure, the primary concern of the state (note i say state) was the maintenance of power - that in no way means that capitalism could not/was not one of the elements of that. In fact that's a characteristic of all capitalist states, not something exceptional to the FRY.
Power relationships are tied up entirely with power relationships as well - it was necessary to produce, firstly to maintain the existing power relationships. How long do regimes seen as unable to provide for their populations last? That's why the labour markets and border were relaxed, why foreign investment was welcopmed and a stiock market esatblised in the 1960s.
You're isolating one single aspect and elavating it to a single explanatory fact, and you're abstracting it from or ignoring the other determinants of it.
I can't see what you're offering above against the idea of the FRY (and eastern bloc countries) as being capitalist other than they were about power. Well, sure they were, so is capitalism. Did elements of classical and modern capitlaism exist in the FRY. Yes. Did the state try to utilise those elements to maintain its own ascendancy - yes it did.
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!
You keep doing it yourself: "case closed" and suchlike. So, why not? Why not me doing it to you, then? Why not give you the same treatment?
Well, guess what, IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT - STOP DOING IT YOURSELF, YOU HYPOCRITE!!
No. Money was reduced to "an internal accounting unit". [Sakwa 2003, p.3]
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....
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)
Are you saying that you disagree with all theories of state-capitalism, or just as regards Yugoslavia?
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.
Jeezus, I have never seen a cruder analysis in life 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 somewheat conveniently... Eccchhhh....
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
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!
Erm, no: it creates any and all the relations of society. That's the point of substance.
To have a capitalist economy many requirements have to be present.
None were present there!