The (former) Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia

[wheelchairman]

A friend of mine asked me to make a completely new thread out of this. And since it doesn't really belong in the Abortion thread that does make some sense.

I'm willing to be a (non)objective source of information if anyone's actually interested in the topic. I tend to know a ood amount of things about the last few years (as I've actually been old and interested enough to pay attention), and I know about as much on the period before the 90s. The 90's have been slightly... Impossible to read about, impossible to find an objective oppinion, since all the people involved are still alive and the whole war thing is still kept not completely known. I basically know how/why it started, but not exactly what happened.

I need to brush up on modern SCG history.

Well I've only read bits and pieces by Milovan Djilas, a few links on general Yugoslavian history (very general) and a work about Slovenia's secession (on a military play by play basis.)

So what I'd like to know (and I'll try to make these questions specific since I know that broad and general questions would be difficult.) And I'll try to avoid asking you about Tito's application of Marxist theory in general because that might be a bit complicated if you are not a marxist yourself (I assume so at least).

After Tito, how was the power situation that developed inside the party? What were the general changes that happened? What in your opinion was the cause of the break-up and the extreme nationalism that now exists?

(and sorry if this sounds like propaganda to you, I just hear what some people have said about Albanians and it's like "woah" you know. But I don't know what your opinion is either.)

[Izie]

So what I'd like to know (and I'll try to make these questions specific since I know that broad and general questions would be difficult.) And I'll try to avoid asking you about Tito's application of Marxist theory in general because that might be a bit complicated if you are not a marxist yourself (I assume so at least).

Nope, no marxist, but I've managed to learn a lot about the marxist theory, and if not, I can always ask for reinforcements from my dear family, who know A LOT about it... Was obligatory. I can preview the life under the regime quite well though, if you're interested in the human part of it.

After Tito, how was the power situation that developed inside the party? What were the general changes that happened? What in your opinion was the cause of the break-up and the extreme nationalism that now exists?

Heh, better first during Tito. Obviously, he was a dictator. The party was… More of an image, since it never really worked. Sure, there were parliaments and referendums/elections, but the winner was always well known. In fact, there were 8 republics, 8 presidents, and those had the power, and reported to Tito directly. He was worshiped by the people, and those who didn’t worship him… Had a nice time on the Goli Otok (an island, basically a pile of rocks in the Adriatic sea where his enemies were sent to). So, after his death, the party tried to work under the same ideas, only get a new dictator instead. Naturally, there was no one smart enough to keep stealing money from the world (loans… sure), so the party broke.

Extreme nationalism, if I even want to try to explain it, has to be explained from a purely historical point of view. You have to know that you’re dealing with regions of the world that had no independence since the 15th century. The west of the Former YU was under Austria, north under Hungary and the rest under the Turks.

After WWI, the Serbs, Croatians and Slovenians formed a joined state, as an attempt of escape from completely foreign rule. There was some interest from the big countries involved, some interest from the royal dynasty, and the hope of the people that they really would have a better life. It wasn’t really better, since living under a monarchy with such different people… Is basically unbelievable. Especialy when the religious division is so strong (catholic church in Croatia, muslims in Bosnia and the orthodox church in Serbia…)

The break-up happened, because everyone wanted out, when things started falling apart. The only thing that kept us together was Tito. I still claim we were never meant to be together in one country, maybe as a confederation, but this way… Nuh-uh. But that’s generally my opinion, no historical facts to back that one up

(and sorry if this sounds like propaganda to you, I just hear what some people have said about Albanians and it's like "woah" you know. But I don't know what your opinion is either.)

Propaganda… Of what? We are nationalists, everyone knows it. And with the Albanians it’s a whole different story, the nationalism between the ex-YU republics and this one with Serbs and Albanians is quite different, has a different nature.

So, there’s my piece of mind, if I missed something, or didn’t clear it up enough, just ask.

You made it just... Just seconds later!

I'll edit

Better yet, I deleted!

[wheelchairman]

1. Nope, no marxist, but I've managed to learn a lot about the marxist theory, and if not, I can always ask for reinforcements from my dear family, who know A LOT about it... Was obligatory. I can preview the life under the regime quite well though, if you're interested in the human part of it.



2. Heh, better first during Tito. Obviously, he was a dictator. The party was… More of an image, since it never really worked. Sure, there were parliaments and referendums/elections, but the winner was always well known. In fact, there were 8 republics, 8 presidents, and those had the power, and reported to Tito directly. He was worshiped by the people, and those who didn’t worship him… Had a nice time on the Goli Otok (an island, basically a pile of rocks in the Adriatic sea where his enemies were sent to). So, after his death, the party tried to work under the same ideas, only get a new dictator instead. Naturally, there was no one smart enough to keep stealing money from the world (loans… sure), so the party broke.


The break-up happened, because everyone wanted out, when things started falling apart. The only thing that kept us together was Tito. I still claim we were never meant to be together in one country, maybe as a confederation, but this way… Nuh-uh. But that’s generally my opinion, no historical facts to back that one up

1. Well if you wouldn't mind, I would like to know what kind of theoretical debates happened in the party? Cause I really don't know much about that.

Also the human element would be nice to know. What were the material conditions like under Tito and after? What was the level of repression on dissension? Did repression depend on the kind of dissension (such as if a person a complete right-wing nut, or just wanted some party reform or something, or even less)? Also what you can offer about everday life would be interesting.

2. Was there any form for recall of elected leaders? I know that in the USSR, while you didn't have much of a choice between people you could vote for, if the people were unsatisfied it wasn't unheard of that there would be recalls.

[Izie]

1. Well if you wouldn't mind, I would like to know what kind of theoretical debates happened in the party? Cause I really don't know much about that.

Also the human element would be nice to know. What were the material conditions like under Tito and after? What was the level of repression on dissension? Did repression depend on the kind of dissension (such as if a person a complete right-wing nut, or just wanted some party reform or something, or even less)? Also what you can offer about everday life would be interesting.

2. Was there any form for recall of elected leaders? I know that in the USSR, while you didn't have much of a choice between people you could vote for, if the people were unsatisfied it wasn't unheard of that there would be recalls.

Erm, theoretical debates? None that I ever knew of, but then again, none of the people I know was ever a member of the party. There couldn't have really been debates, there was no one to debate. No one could ever confront Tito, about anything.

All the bourgeois were:
a) killed in 1945 when Tito sent them to the front
b)sent out of the country
c)sent out to the prisons
d)killed
Others as well, all of those who were pro-russian, also sent away to prisons, and the same happened to those who belonged to the party but disagreed. Not necessary to say not many people disagreed.

That's the disgustingly awful part.

The economy was strong, based on a military industry and neverending loans from both the east and the west, whom Tito systematically lied to. It was a fairy tale. Everyone had enough money for summer and winter holidays, a new car every two years, we needed no visas for almost anywhere, and the nation was bombed by visions of bliss and progress. bliss, yes. Short-term though.

After him it all fell apart because we had to pay back loans we had no money to pay back, and the whole system of the planned, gonverment-controlled economy just didn't work, which is why we had the loans in the first place.

Other reality... Well, existance of pioneers, the absolute necessity of belonging to the party if you wished to progress in your job, reposession of anything you owned prior to the war (nationalization), bombing with Marxistic theories, and usualy economical theories that didn't work... Oh yeah, religion was basically banned. You went to jail for baptising your children. Nice.

40 years of dreams and 10 of the cruelest reality possible.

You can’t blame me for not liking them…

[Arabian Knight]

As long as the economy was functioning, the eight local bureaucracies went on quite well. In the beginning of 1980 things started going downhill. Several wrong investments were made in the past, and the foreign debts increased. Inflation was on the rise, and the paychecks decreased. On several occasions people were not payed for several months. The workers syndicate started organising mass protests from 1979 on. After Tito's death, the bureaucrato-revisionist clique started seeing their interests elsewhere, and they clearly saw the protesting working class as a threat to their own survival. They had to resort to their hidden ace to disrupt the workers movement (which suffered from bad leadership, and was unable to resist the anti-Marxist attacks of the "red bourgeoisie") and to preserve their positions - their decision was to blame others for the economic mistakes - so in the last years they started spreading lies about how the Serbs/Croatians/Albanians (depending on the republic you lived in), etc. were to blame. The Slovenian and Croatian bureaucrats eventually got the support of foreign imperialists, and they started carving up new borders.

[Arabian Knight]

Izie, stop writing lies.

Oh yeah, religion was basically banned. You went to jail for baptising your children. Nice.

Yugoslavia was not Hoxha's Albania. Don't be ridiculous, both my mother and I were baptised, and no-one went to jail for that. Religion was not "basically banned" as you say.

reposession of anything you owned prior to the war (nationalization)

The means of production were nationalised, and it was very correct to do so. It is incorrect of you to say that "everything you owned prior to the war" was nationalised since my grandmother has owned a forest for over 60 years now.

[Izie]

Yugoslavia was not Hoxha's Albania. Don't be ridiculous, both my mother and I were baptised, and no-one went to jail for that. Religion was not "basically banned" as you say.

In the countryside where some of my family lived, they did go to jail. If it was done blatantly in public. If you secretly brought a priest to your home and did it, it was allright. At least there. It depended on the local authorities.

The means of production were nationalised, and it was very correct to do so. It is incorrect of you to say that "everything you owned prior to the war" was nationalised since my grandmother has owned a forest for over 60 years now.

And yet again, over 100ha of my family's land was nationalised. And so was all the land in the north (Vojvodina). I'm still waiting for them to give it back. Nice to hear about your grandma though.

[wheelchairman]

I think what Arabian Knight is objecting to, is that you made it sound like these were things that were homogenous throughout Yugoslavia, while he is providing examples where they obviously were not true. (such as not all private property was expropriated.)

[Izie]

I generally had info for Serbia (pretty much the north), and that's what I said too. I didn't point it out though :/

My fault, it's just logical for me when I talk about "my views and expiriences" to talk about the things I actually experienced/ had my family experience. And those tend to happen in the area where I lived, thus the capital/the north.

And of course it must have been different with 8 republics and a lot of local authorities. Then again, I never said I knew everything about all of it.

[wheelchairman]

Hey don't worry about it. I was taking that(the federalism of the SFRY) into consideration when I read both of your opinions (by both I mean yours and Nair's).

Besides it's also interesting to get points of views as well. You know?

Nair, why didn't they expropriate your Grandma's forest? If it were me, I would've.