The Yugoslav Way to Socialism, Part 1, reel 1

The Theory and Practice of communism. A series of 13 lectures drawn from the

1967 Wisconsin Alumni seminar held at the University of Wisconsin

in Madison. Michael B Petrovich the speaker is a professor of history at

the University of Wisconsin and a specialist in Russian and Balkan history. He's the

author of several books and articles in today's lecture. Professor Petrovich

offers the first of a two part discussion of the Yugoslav way to

socialism.

Now Professor Petrovitch in 1947 I was all

prepared to write as a graduate student at Columbia and on the basis of ample

evidence a book which was to show that Yugoslavia was the most loyal

and most subservient of all of Russia's East European satellites.

One year later in June 1940 Stalin ordered Yugoslavia's

expulsion from the communist information bureau. The common

form. As the first step towards the extermination of Tito and his supporters

Tito's and seemed imminent and today nearly 20 years later

not only is Tito alive but he is flourishing. He has outlived

Stalin in May 1955 he had the delectable

pleasure of serving crow to Stalin successors Khrushchev and Bill Gandhi

and in Belgrade itself. Tito stands today as an example of a

communist who has rebelled against Moscow and who has not only lived to tell

about it but has prospered. What factors account

for Tito success. Undoubtedly the nature of the international

situation had much to do with Tito's ability to escape

Soviet retribution. Given the tension between east and west.

Stalin was probably not willing to risk violence in a region where any

Russian could release that pent up hatred of the oppressed millions in the satellite

states. Besides Stalin probably believed that Tito could not

withstand a general boycott by the Soviet Union and its satellite governments

especially if the West continue to be against Tito. But

Tito did withstand one of the most vicious campaign short of war ever

to be inflicted on a nation.

Let's remember that Peter was not one of those satellite leaders who first heard about the

liberation of his homeland on a Soviet radio and was then flown to worse our progress

so the Soviet plane Tito came to power at the head of

his own army while fighting against the German and Italian

occupiers of Yugoslavia and behind him was in this breed a car

forged in battle. Another in fact are of

immense importance in Tito's success in withstanding Soviet pressure was

aid from the United States. While giving aid to any

kind of communist dictator. Even when he is at odds with Moscow

disturbs many Americans. The fact is that few of our

American investments abroad have paid off as well. To

be sure we did not convert Tito from communism. As a matter of fact our

government astutely tied no strings to our help. And Tito

has expressed public gratitude for this. For example in his

address before the seventh Congress of the Communist Party in May 1958

Tito remarked I quote Our relation with the USSR are founded

on mutual respect cooperation on an equal basis and non interference

in internal affairs. We received economic and military

aid from America at a time when we were in most urgent need of it. That is

in a period of Stalin's political economic and propaganda pressure on our

country. This helped us a great deal in overcoming the tremendous

difficulties we were in then. Some people in the east wanted to take

advantage of this for propaganda purposes expressing the doubt that the

aid was given without any political or other concessions but facts are

facts. We did not make any concessions of that kind nor did

anyone with such conditions promise at the time and approach

even if at some future time Tito should turn against us which I

cannot imagine. Historians may still record that this aide was one

of the best investments our foreign aid program ever made because Tito ism

is one of the greatest shocks communism has had to suffer in its history. Its

effects in some ways have been more destructive to the Soviet might in the

world than anything the United States has accomplished to counter the Soviet

threat. Certainly an other reason for Tito

success was that his defiance of Moscow rallied about

him. Millions of Yugoslavs who had no love for communism but who

shared a national pride. This support within Yugoslavia

grew steadily as Tito relaxed some of the severity of his

regime and increased relations with the non communist world.

When Stalin died in one thousand fifty three it must have become obvious to his

successors it was fruitless for them to perpetuate one of their Master's greatest

errors. And yet though Khrushchev and Bill Gagnon

publicly humiliated themselves by their famous trip to Belgrade

we find today that the breach between Tito and Moscow is still far from

mended. Why has there not been a complete reconciliation.

What is the obstacle. The answer lies in the phrase Tito ism.

What is tourism.

Yugoslavia is of tremendous importance as a pacemaker in the

communist world today on three different occasions during the

last 20 years. Yugoslavia has charted for itself a course

which has affected the outlook and practice of communism throughout Europe.

The first of these occasions was Yugoslavia split with Moscow and its east

European satellites in 1948. Whatever the other point to the issue were

the central point was the contention of the Yugoslav Communist Party that

all the nations in the socialist camp were the equals of one another in the right to

conduct their own affairs. This claim of course struck

directly against the heliocentric theory that Moscow

was the capital and director of the world communist movement.

And for this heresy quote unquote Yugoslavia was

excommunicated by the common farm on June 28

1948.

This act was generally regarded as the first step toward the extermination of Tito and

his supporters. Indeed according to whose jobs very long speech that we spoke

about the other day Stalin boasted that all he had to do was to wiggle his little finger to

accomplish this. Yet Tito and his supporters not only

survived but Yugoslavia has been the most flourishing of the Communist nations of

Eastern Europe. It is not my purpose here today to retell

the story of Yugoslavia cism. Let us simply record that since

Yugoslavia split with the Kremlin for one reason or another the

theory of Moscow as the center of the Communist solar system has been

shattered. And that not even Moscow clings to this theory any

longer.

The new order of the Communist universe is poly

centric.

If one indeed can refer to any order amid the disarray of the

communist parties of the world the impact of the Polish

and uprisings and especially the rift between Peking

and Moscow has left its marks.

Yugoslavia's daring claim in 1948 of the quality

of the socialist nations and their right to mutual noninterference has

since become common place. The Soviet Union itself

indicated its acceptance when two years after Stalin's death Khrushchev

and Bill Gandhian visit to Belgrade. Today

all of these once exciting events seem almost old hat. And

if Yugoslavia's claim on our attention rested solely on its split

with Moscow in one thousand forty eight there would be little purpose to giving

Yugoslavia special treatment in this lecture series.

You can be as important today lies not so much in the cism which led

to Polly centrism as it does to the changes which took place in

Yugoslavia as a result of this ism. These

changes did not come all at once. Indeed for about a year

after the 1940 8 ex-communication. The Yugoslav

leaders who seem to be in a state of shock of voided doing anything

upsetting in the hope of healing the rift. It was only when they

came to realize the impossibility of this that they embarked upon a course

of their own.

There was no full blown program to put into operation and no ready

idiology on which to base it. The changes came piecemeal.

As responses to outer pressures and internal predicaments of all

kinds. Yet out of it all came a new system which

altered Yugoslavia's life profoundly between 1950 and

1964. Many of the important changes came out

of the devastating critique which the Yugoslav leaders leveled against

Soviet Stalin ism. Some changes came from Yugoslavia as

need to adjust itself to the noncommunist world on which it had to

rely after its ouster from the communist camp.

However the most significant changes came from the sheer necessity of

establishing a viable society and economy without giving up

one's national independence culminating in the constitution of

1963. The new system was a conscious departure

from the rigid centralism of Stalin ism especially in the area of

economics turning its back on the Soviet model of the

total planned economy. The new system vaunted the principle of

free competition in a market economy with autonomy for

Yugoslavia's enterprises and self management for its workers.

Especially as far as the rest of the communist world was concerned the most challenging

development to emerge from Yugoslavia as new system was the

institution of the workers councils in the factories and

communes as the basis of political self-government. Don't

the Workers Councils and the communes were based on the contention

the true social democracy meant that the producers

themselves had the right to manage their own political and economic

affairs directly. In an analysis of these

developments published in 1962 the Swiss journalist

and how Korean minimized the effects of the Yugoslav experience on the

other communist countries of Eastern Europe even in Poland and Hungary among

other things Haldeman remarked quote in Poland and Hungary almost the

only people to give evidence of a real understanding of Yugoslav teaching

were the theoretical economists at the universities. A group which is

assigned only slight political importance in the communist system.

I say this was published in 1962. Yet one need only

turn to say the works of print Professor Gregory Grossman in our own country

to see how important the role of the East European economists has been

in introducing changes in their countries which echoed the Yugoslav

experience in the Soviet Union itself. Similar

changes have become synonymous with the name of an economics

professor at the University of Hanukkah. You have say leap to mind.

It is hardly possible to assess how much influence the Yugoslav way has

had on various changes in East European countries in the past decade. After all there is

always the possibility of parallel development.

And yet it would be difficult to overlook the fact that you could be a initiated many of

these changes and that its experience stands both as a challenge

and as an invitation to the other communist countries of Eastern Europe.

Again the very fact that for one reason or other the other East European countries

have adopted some of the features of the Yugoslav system would seem to do away with the

need to deal with Yugoslavia separately. In any assessment of European

communism However Yugoslavia has not stopped being a pace setter

in July 1965 the Yugoslav federal assembly

passed some 40 laws decrees and recommendations which brought

further important and radical changes to the Yugoslav economic system.

These laws of July 1965 are known collectively as the

reform and these economic changes are even now leading

to another basic overhauling of political and social relations as

well though based in large measure on the already established

principles. These changes taken in their entirety and into relation

constitute a qualitative leap which weight may well result in a new

challenge and invitation to other communists. It is our

purpose to undertake three tasks here. First to

identify the main tenets of the Yugoslav communist ideology as

it has developed since 1948. Second to

examine the economic reform of the last two years. And third

to assess some of the political effects of that reform on the Yugoslav

Communist Party. Our overall aim is to help answer a crucial

question. To what degree is Yugoslavia offering an effective

answer to an important question in the 20th century.

Namely can a society be both collectivist and democratic.

It is tempting to try even in a brief summary of the Yugoslav communist

ideology to give a historical survey which would show how each Tenet came about

as a response to a given situation. Nevertheless for the sake of

brevity and convenience let me turn to the program of the League of

Communists of Yugoslavia as codified by its 7th Congress in one

thousand fifty eight. Despite certain changes of detail and

emphasis this 1958 program has never been repudiated

and still embodies the main premises of the Yugoslav idiology.

I should be paraphrasing from now on from this 1958

programme.

The Yugoslav communists see their own country as part of an

inevitable historical process in which the whole world is turning from

capitalism to socialism. However the development of

socialism is an even as the development of capitalism has been

and each must get to the goal his own way and in his own good

time. Meanwhile say the Yugoslav is no socialist

country is a perfect model and all have something to learn

from one another. No one has the right to interfere in the

internal affairs of the other since all are sought for it. The

equality is a prerequisite for true socialist internationalism.

Further more socialism is in itself no guarantee of purity.

Under Stalin socialism in the Soviet Union became de farm.

Though since his death it has been returning to a pure Marxism

Leninism. I hope everyone understands I'm still paraphrasing. However

China is now the heir to deformity of socialism.

As for the non communist world all countries consciously or

otherwise are on the road to socialism including the western

capitalist democracies which are adopting socialist forms

more and more and which are certainly not in the last stage of decay.

They're for active peaceful coexistence between the socialist and

capitalist systems is possible and on a lasting basis.

As for the nature of socialism socialism and democracy are not

only compatible says the Yugoslav programme but necessary

prerequisites for one another. Building socialism is a long

process which will require compromises and and

adaptations.

Thus Marxism is not a blueprint but a guide to be used

creatively.

The achievement of socialism is ultimately dependent on the attainment of a

proper material basis for social democracy.

Of the two dominant economic systems in the modern world one

based on private capital and the other on state ownership.

Neither is the true way. Both private and state

ownership of the means of production deprives the worker of

surplus value and his control over it.

Besides controlled by state bureaucracy brings the

economy to certain stagnation. The only true way to

social democracy say the Yugoslavs is by the direct

participation of the producers through Workers Councils and

the direct participation of citizens through social organisations

such as the Socialist Alliance the trade unions and others.

A socialist economy is not immune to the operations of the market.

While planning is necessary a centrally controlled economy does

not work and should be rejected. Its alternative is and now I

quote a free yet controlled market. Some of us are

smiling. This is precisely what we have in our country. They freak control

my kids. As for political power in a

socialist state says the Yugoslav program it should be

de-centralized and the state should wither away gradually

as its functions are no longer needed are taken over by

social organisations. Similarly the Communist Party should not

dictate but influence by persuasion. And it

too should gradually wither away. Social

democracy envisages freedom of expression and development both

for the individual and for social groups including various

nationalities.

Here then in a brief summary are the main tenets of the Yugoslav idiology.

Some call it heresy.

Others call it revisionism. Still others claim that it is true

orthodoxy and there are those who are regarded as sheer opportunism.

Much depends of course on what one regards as orthodoxy. From an

institutional viewpoint orthodoxy is whatever the central authoritative

body says it is. But the point is that there is no such central

authoritative body as existed in the 1930s when the Communist

International as Marxism Leninism Stalin is.

Today Stalinism is no longer. And even Leninism is

regarded in some quarters more as a guiding method than as a set of normative

principles. The very seat of communist Orthodoxy must go is

being denounced today by the Chinese communists. As for

Marxism itself it is becoming notoriously true even for

communists who regard themselves as models of orthodoxy. The

scriptures may be read in many different ways. There are even the young

Marx and the old Marx to consider. Indeed one may even recall to good

advantage that Marx himself declared. We found Marxist and not a

Marxist. From the viewpoint of the communists such a logical

considerations are not a matter of indifference to him.

They require a rationalization even if they may no longer evoke belief.

In the present non-dogmatic face of communism as Miliband g last calls it

when the communist ideology is being stretched and strained as never before to

suit the practical needs of a variety of communist states and parties. The

confrontation with the Yugoslav idiology is we submit of no small

importance even if idiology were dead in communist Europe

as it is increasingly fashionable to claim the Communists still feel the

necessity to provide their actions with an acceptable logical

justification. Whether they are right or not as long as the

Yugoslav communists cling to the claim that they are still being true to the spirit of

Marxism Leninism their idiology will be of interest to other communists

who may need similar theoretical justifications for their actions.

Humans have shown an almost infinite capacity for validating

their actions on a theological and moral grounds. No matter what these actions

have been.

As long as the Yugoslav communists maintain the position of being true

creative Marxists and not rebellious Protestants it does

not matter too much as long as their way shows results.

As the programme of the seventh Congress stresses the results are the only true

verdict.

There is scarcely a single tenet of the Yugoslav communist Creed which is

original in itself.

Each has been enunciated before by someone else and at some other time

it is their combination when declared by Sovereign communist power

and linked with a practical program of action which may be of enormous

interest to others that makes these tenets important. The

Yugoslav idiology stands not only as an indictment of both the Soviet and

Chinese models but is the basis for a new kind of socialist system

which commands attention.

As a practical alternative to both the private capitalism of the

West and the state capitalism of the Communist East.

Thus without dismissing the importance of the Yugoslav ideology it

is certainly more profitable to examine the actual workings of the Yugoslav

system.

One might well ask why the communist rulers of Yugoslavia have

embarked on a program whose avowed goal is the eventual disappearance

of their own power. It is axiomatic in the world of political

science that all power seeks to perpetuate itself and indeed to

multiply.

Without wishing to reject moral philosophical and psychological factors is

irrelevant. Let me simply offer the contention that the chief and

determining motivation behind the Yugoslav way to socialism has been and

is economic pressure. Somewhere along the line the

Yugoslav leaders came to the realization that their economic system if

it could ever be called a system was not getting them anywhere.

It would be superficial and be Wrone as to claim that the Yugoslav leader

simply learned what lots of people would have been glad to tell them that the communist economic

system is no good and doesn't work. After all that system or some

version of it has raised the Soviet Union from an economically backward

peasant state to the second most important industrial country in the world in just two

generations. That same system had brought notable economic progress to

Yugoslavia despite great sacrifices. In the decade

1952 to 62 Yugoslavia was second only to Japan in the

world in its overall rate of economic growth. Its per

capita national income rose from one hundred forty dollars just

before the Second World War. This is based on present purchasing power to over

500 dollars in 1964. Yes it was

precisely Yugoslavia's economic progress that made it impossible

to keep the system which could achieve that progress. For reasons

known only to economists the figure of $500 per

capita national income just cited is the dividing line

between an economically underdeveloped country and a developing country.

If so this means that in 1964

Yugoslavia made the transition the leap if you like from being the

most developed of the under developed countries to being the most undeveloped of the

developed countries.

Now this was no mere step forward but a qualitative leap into a new kind of

economic world. From the bush leagues into the big league

if Yugoslavia had made progress so rapidly up to that point.

It was because all the authority of a powerful state

controlled by centralized Communist Party had been brought to bear

on industrializing an economically primitive country whose

economy such as it was had been ruined during the Second World War.

However whether we choose to take the $500 figure seriously or not

the fact is that by sixty one thousand sixty four it was fairly

clear to a more sophisticated segment of the Yugoslav communist

leadership that the Yugoslav economy was approaching a data end and

that the same methods which had brought progress before might now bring ruin.

As the late body vice president of the Federal Executive Council

reported to the Federal Assembly in 1965 quote We have

reached a level of development at which the further progress and

advancement of the economy necessitates the expansion of the market

as one of the fundamental regulators of economic trends.