Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

On Marxism-Leninism

Numbers 1 and 2 were the key (constitutional) features of Tito's Yugoslavia, replacing sections on democratic centralism. There is some really quite interesting discussion to be had about their attempt to forge a different path, their attempts to workers self-management (which wasn't all just theoretical) in particular.
True, but ultimately it was self-managed state capitalism.
 
The working class, or proletariat, was in power in Yugoslavia for more than forty years, it is claimed. How, then, can it be explained that new bourgeoisies came to power in each Yugoslav republic, and working class people supported the nascent bourgeoisie in engaging in horrific nationalist slaughter?

I know that there were creditable examples of workers acting against the nationalist slaughter, but they were a very small minority.

It cannot be claimed that Yugoslavia was actually a proletarian state when it could fall apart without large-scaled proletarian opposition to the break-up. The very state that was supposedly a state based on the proletariat was complicit in the slaughter of working class people on all sides.

Yugoslavia, like other similar states claiming to be ruled by the proletariat, actually de-politicised the proletariat.
Because of the collective presidency and the economic crisis caused by the capitalization of the market by the IMF, this led to growing greed within the elites of the republics and the proletarians were being slowly chained to separatism. A chain reaction of the breakup started by the Serbian bourgeoisie who are the most chauvinist of them all because of their ethnocentrism (due to Serbians being the dominant ethnic group, the same thing with Russian chauvinism that Lenin addressed).
 
"the Serbian bourgeoisie"? I thought that it was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?
Dictatorship of the Proletariat existed under Tito since Tito was born to a working-class family. If Tito did not go with the opportunist notion of collective presidency and appointed Stane Dolanc, another proletarian but from Slovenia (and also anti-separatist who was against Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene chauvinism), we would have somehow gotten a more stable notion of Yugoslav course in the 1990s without Serbian elites trying to meddle with it.
 
redsquirrel told me he was my enemy and that I was a liberal and not a real socialist.
:hmm: I'm not sure why you've decided to tag me into threads which I've not even posted on. And I'm pretty sure I never made such a claim about you.

I actually quite like you. But you do need to stop try to stop these late night posting spurges.
You're right about me posting before I set off for work though, 'guilty' on that one.
 
:hmm: I'm not sure why you've decided to tag me into threads which I've not even posted on. And I'm pretty sure I never made such a claim about you.

I actually quite like you. But you do need to stop try to stop these late night posting spurges.
You're right about me posting before I set off for work though, 'guilty' on that one.
Sorry man, it was irrational.
 
Because of the collective presidency and the economic crisis caused by the capitalization of the market by the IMF, this led to growing greed within the elites of the republics and the proletarians were being slowly chained to separatism. A chain reaction of the breakup started by the Serbian bourgeoisie who are the most chauvinist of them all because of their ethnocentrism (due to Serbians being the dominant ethnic group, the same thing with Russian chauvinism that Lenin addressed).
Excuses, excuses..
 
kebabking A grammar school boy from brixton if I recall correctly. He's responsible for pricing normal people out of rail travel among other ills

I was being sarcastic. Yugoslavia was not a dictatorship of the proletariat because Tito had grown up working class, just as the UK was not a classless, socialist paradise just because JM didn't go to Fêtes or Eton.
 
I was being sarcastic. Yugoslavia was not a dictatorship of the proletariat because Tito had grown up working class, just as the UK was not a classless, socialist paradise just because JM didn't go to Fêtes or Eton.
UK was never classless to begin with. There were classes still and UK was never socialist because the bourgeoisie kept doing concessions with the reformist path, hence preventing a revolution, and suppressing the Chartists.
 
UK was never classless to begin with. There were classes still and UK was never socialist because the bourgeoisie kept doing concessions with the reformist path, hence preventing a revolution, and suppressing the Chartists.

Really, wow who knew? Your intellect is truly dazzling. Show me some more of this Earth thing you cal dialectical materialism.
 
Back
Top Bottom