[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)

Check out our new store at shop.leftypol.org!


 

Always thought he was underrated. And this quote is great whether he said it or not.

People give him shit because it all collapsed after he died, but then they'll go and act like the USSR was so much better when it collapsed around the very same time. Tito objectively did things wrong, but the USSR did too. Both got ratfucked by the US in the end.

He's arguably the coolest socialist. Not at all the "best" but very fuckin cool.

He did have aura. Him and Stalin should have just made up and been friends. What was their beef even about?

Probably the worst European socialist. Collaborating with imperialism to get loans to fund "market-socialism" and then it all collapsed anyway. Revisionist scum

>>2586999
Yeah, but the energy though.
Also, was he really worse than Ceausescu you think?

bottom 5 socialists oat

>>2587137
true but yugoslavia collapsed and now i live in a shithole

>>2586948
Worker co-operatives are a reactionary step backwards. They just have far too much managerial overhead and so requiring massive financialization in order to work. This is technically possible to solve with effective central banking but it is inefficient. In general, central planning is the way to go.

>>2587137
>>2586993
>>2586972
Fidel was by far the #1 communist aura farmer but Tito was definitely stiff competition.

Ethnic nationalism should have been mercilessly crushed in Yugoslavia. Any identity besides Yugoslav should have been viciously repressed.

Tito's softness on nationalism is a direct cause of the 1990s chimpouts. Life under him was excellent but he was extremely short sighted.

>>2587150
Worker selfmanagement isn't the same thing as coops. Also, in practice the workers didn't have much power, the (party appointed) directors were usually the ones making decisions. Yugoslavia's economy was more like a more extreme form of state capitalism.

>>2587317
The collapse became possible by any central power disappearing during the 80s after Tito's death. The collapse wasn't his fault but he could've made sure that the federal political structures were stronger while he was alive.

>>2588828
Even if that was possible, it doesn't matter since the rise of nationalism was a top to bottom thing and not a bottom to top thing. The collapse of Yugoslavia was caused by Slovenia, Croatia and Serbia looking out for their interests. The Bosnian war was because of nationalism, but I'm not sure about that.

File: 1765321573309.jpg (53.62 KB, 811x1181, Tito.jpg)

Look at him.

>>2586948
>>2590181
too Woke for his own good

>>2586948
I guess they all deserve to live in the absolute shithole Yugoslavia has turned into.

>>2586993
>im and Stalin should have just made up and been friends.
two napoleons (i don't mean this in a bad way btw) could never be friends lmao

>>2588828
The Balkan Peninsula, approximately the size of Germany but with only two-thirds of its population, is carved up into numerous independent states. In these tiny states, each possessing its own army, currency, and customs system, or belonging to this or that economic union or military alliance, live numerous nations and peoples, shattered into separate fragments. The borders between these dwarf states were not drawn in accordance with ethnic realities or national needs, but are the result of wars, diplomatic intrigues, and imperialist interests. The Great Powers have always had a direct interest in pitting the Balkan nations and states against one another, only to subject them to their own economic and political influence once they have mutually weakened themselves.

The petty dynasties of political compradors ruling these 'fragments' of the Balkan Peninsula have served, and continue to serve, as levers for European diplomatic intrigues. This entire mechanism, founded on violence and treachery, constitutes an immense burden that suffocates the Balkan nations and stifles their economic and cultural development. The peninsula, richly endowed by nature, is senselessly partitioned; people and goods constantly run up against the barbed wire of state borders. This slicing of nations and states into numerous strips prevents the formation of a unified Balkan economic space, which could serve as the foundation for a great expansion of industry and culture. On top of everything, there is debilitating nationalism, created to maintain division and generating the danger of wars fatal to the peninsula's progress.

The only way out of this national and state chaos is the unification of all the peoples of the peninsula into a single economic and political entity, based on the national autonomy of its constituent parts. Only within the framework of a unified Balkan state can an individual people connect into a single cultural community while enjoying the benefits of a common economic union. Only united Balkan nations can truly stand up to the predatory aspirations of European imperialism.

The state unity of the Balkans can be achieved in two ways: from above, through the expansion of the European Union, neoliberalism, and capitalism—this is the path of oppressing weak nations, a path that consolidates imperialism and militarism; or from below, through the rapprochement of the peoples themselves. This is the path of revolution, a path that signifies the overthrow of the Balkan compradors and the unfurling of the banner of the Federative Socialist Balkan Republic.

The masses, who have experienced the restoration of capitalism and live in precarious conditions, are too scattered, uneducated, and politically indifferent for one to expect spontaneous political initiative from them.
The Balkan compradors, artificially installed by European imperialism and lacking any historical roots, are too insignificant and insecure on their thrones to dare undertake a 'broad-sweeping' policy such as a Balkan federation.
The Balkan bourgeoisie is—as in all countries forced into the restoration of capitalism—politically sterile, cowardly, untalented, and saturated to the core with chauvinism. It is completely beyond its powers to undertake the task of uniting the Balkans. Because it cannot grasp that its historical mission should be the creation of a union of Balkan nations, and because it is incapable of rising above its narrow interests, it is split into many camps fighting among themselves, yet all willing to sell the freedom of the nations to the imperialists.

Only united Balkan nations can break the backbone of European imperialism. The Balkan bourgeoisie, that cowardly servant of foreign capital, is historically impotent. While the people suffer under the yoke of neoliberalism and uncertainty, the task of liberation and unification inevitably falls on the shoulders of the only force possessing the potential for change: on the shoulders of the class-conscious and politically mature Balkan proletariat.

File: 1765391643094.pdf (5.84 MB, 255x197, jossacuomo.pdf)

>>2586948
Based. He's exactly what most socialists should strive to achieve. His worker's self management objectively worked great and produced one of the "best" economies in the block in terms of consumers goods and quality of life.
The goal of a federated country with socialist self-management and macro-economic planning is probably the most viable path that we should aspire for

>but muh decline & unemployment

The decline and unemployment were initiated by the Party. In essence, the party would subsidize failing companies and incentivize them to hire workers even when they didn't do anything. This caused massive debt that the party couldn't fund and high taxation within the most productive republics, which eventually enflamed the nationalist tendencies.
Unemployment, which was pictured as an ontologic problem, wasn't as endemic as people tend to think. Slovenia, which was the most succesful republic, never had above 4% unemployment iirc. A competitive market alongside state-owned companies directing the economy could've guaranteed low unemployment for everyone.

>>2586993
Iirc Stalin got mad that he didn't get to manage and integrate Yugoslavia into his sphere of direct influence

>>2587150
>Worker co-operatives are a reactionary step backwards
Anon you can't have any more "workers' control" than with self management

>They just have far too much managerial overhead and so requiring massive financialization in order to work

This is even more the case with planned economies. If socialist co-ops deter incentives (like the "horizon problem" or the hiring problem) then socialist planning is probably even worse imo given the bureaucratization necessary (please, AI/Cybernetics can't do everything).
The problems are also very much overblown. This idea that workers wouldn't fire one another, or would never hire anybody by fear of losing profit control is a bit absurd. Not only is it empirically false (see Slovenia, or modern Mandragon), but it also ignores that every economic system needs some structure to work. Planned economies need good incentives to keep productivity high, and capitalist economies require redistribution and anti-trust laws to function properly.

But anyway, below is a list of the traditional issues facing co-ops :

>The Horizon Problem

Not an actual issue. Competitive markets apply pressure to deter these. But even then, all you need is an overarching structure (like the government or a federation of co-ops) to take a cut like 30% of the revenue and to essentially redistribute it in some form of low interest loan for developmental projects. This way, co-ops are incentivized to develop using the money they transfer to the federation/gov every year.
Again, this isn't fundamentally different than privately owned firm. The owner would prefer to take 100% of all profits, but he's forced to reinvest some to keep being productive.

>lack of hiring incentive

This is a bit dumb and not really that different than in a capitalist economy. If a worker can produce more than he takes in through the redistribution of revenues, then you hire him.

>lack of incentive to open a co-op

Ideally, profit wouldn't be the incentive to open a co-op firm. But even then, if the state was proactive in its firm creation, and potentially awarded revenues to "innovators" or "entrepreneurs", this would be probably be sufficient for people to not be deterred by a collective ownership

>disincentive to fire people/low productivity

Not an issue with big firms/co-ops structure and competitive markets. But even then, it wouldn't be hard for the state to create small co-ops charged with the task of minimizing unemployment by providing a form of "cushion" to those in need of work


Unique IPs: 14

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM / ufo ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]