Titoist Yugoslavia is the prime example of worker-coop based MarSoc - no capitalism there, workers run the economy, the economy is democratic and social ownership rules the land. Not a single privately owned business - all horizontal, democratic worker-coops.

Yet, markets still existed

I thought you were saying markets aren't consistent with capitalism

markets are consistent with socialism and capitalism, ultimately. you can have markets in both a framework of social ownership (say, a market economy founded solely on worker-coops and their industrial federations under the purview of the socialist republic) *or* in the context of private ownership of the means of production, that is private companies under the purview of the state

for any nationalist worth their salt, if you had to choose one society with markets in them, the MarSoc is obviously better for the interests and purposes of the nation than the capitalist alternative

Yes I know

I studied Yugoslavia extensively when I was a commie scumfuck

then you know of the awe of Yugomarxist socialism and the purity of their praxis! 😁 time to come back to it m8, we'll take you back promise 🤞

tbh Tito made lots of mistakes along the way, wtf was that guy doing with IMF

used to be a Titoist myself some time ago. for a couple of years. but ultimately I became convinced of the Soviet position, the Khrushchevite one to be exact

yugo economy was unsustainable, it was getting into debt to be lifted out of debt. the jew interest rate was never going to allow something like that to exist

and tito was a butcher but that's besides the point.

it was, ultimately, unsustainable for the ambition that it had. It should've taken a more gradual plan to develop the economy, and I'd say that there was too little direct state planning involved. I appreciate the entirely worker-centric economy that they had, in some sense a *very pure form of socialism* rarely seen in other examples (and I still love SFRY to death to be honest, glory to Tito) but the way they went about it - the tactics - were very off and ultimately doomed the country to the grim fate it experienced (although the Serbian powergrab ops towards the end of 1980s were a major factor as well)

>serb power grab

tito was explicitly anti-serb

when observing through national lense, the serb got fucked in yugoslavia

he started importing albanians ultimately to replace the serbs

> Tito was a butcher

.....mmkay. In the late 1940s, I'd say that's an apt characterisation. Yugoslavia did undergo a brief Stalinist phase, this is oft ignored by yugo enthusiast and lots of mistakes were made in that period. To be sure, you had fascist insurgencies that needed to be quelled but nothing really justifies the estimated 150K death figure. Imo. Then again, considering what the Independent State of Croatia - the fascist lackeys of the third reich - did during WW2 (killing 660K civilians), it might have been unavoidable.

dude, the full extent of the tito crime hasn't even been uncovered

just like russia, serbia keeps it locked behind a key

unmarked graves etc. its why the post balkanazation was such a mess, because they started uncovering the graves tito made

The full extent of 20th century crimes in general will never be known. 19th and 20th centuries were *fucked,* man. Absolutely fucked. There may be entire millions of people dead from both centuries who'll never be accounted for. So while that might be true, its not necessary *uncommon* for the century in question.

they tried to pin that on serbs too

yeah that's true

anyway got to go

talk later

yeah sure ttyl

@Xinyue ```the only non-capitalist movements are socialist ones, because socialists are the only people who reject private ownership of means of production. therefore yours is not in any way a movement skeptical of capitalism, merely a more mixed form of it```


I would go with Socialism if it worked better, I'm not ideological when it comes to Economics, Capitalism isn't a high value where I derive all my other Politics from...

i miss all the discussions involving xinu every time :D

Interesting. In my view, the Economic and the Politics are irrevocably intertwined - politics is economy, and vice versa. So in my own ideological terms, I cannot separate the two - so for me communism, in both its economic and political dimension, becomes an existential choice in its own right.

And yea yea stormfag, I bet u do

😁

You say that because you're a Materialist, you see Socialism and Capitalism both as ideologies are Materialistic.. this is why I'm not ideological regarding either, i don't want to preserve a pure free market or try to work out Socialism for the sake of Socialism itself..
Economics to me is a means to a goal, not a goal in and of itself, economics is supposed to support a People, but when you get ideological about it, you just throw people at your favorite purest Ideology

well, Communism in the Marxian sense is *necessarily ontologically materialist,* whereas various other socialist and capitalist schools of thought *might be* such but aren't necessarily. But beyond that, the economy - in a sense - *is the people* and their activities in a very real and direct, intimate sense. Economy is the collection of the creative, productive and servicing activities of the whole people and in this respect economy can't be really separated from the notion of the People. So any ideological approach to the people must in the final analysis have a firm stance on economics.

I think there's far more to *a People* than Economics

and the stance on economics, while it can assume millions of forms, ultimately flow from the very foundational duality of whether or not

a) private ownership of means of production, *or*
b) social ownership of means of production

is pursued as primary. The group A of solutions define the right-wing, whereas the group B of solutions define the left-wing.

A Nation can be Richer whilst being comparatively Poor in terms of how much money and resources it has

well sure, I don't mean that you can *reduce* the People to the Economics, but that nevertheless the economics is directly, intimately and immediately connected to the being of the People

maybe, but i think you guys overemphasize it

well, you say that,

but we put great emphasis on economics because economics is the *creative, productive activity of men* and we view labour as an ontologically important, near-divine (though it would be perhaps inappropriate to use that term) attribute of man

that is sexist