Plastrik (Stanley/Judd) Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 26, 26 June 1950, p. 5.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
Upon those who maintain that Yugoslavia is a socialist or workers’ state, under the rule of the Yugoslavian working class and people, necessarily falls the main burden of proof. This holds particularly true for those among the socialist left – Trotskyists, revolutionary and independent socialists, etc. – who have arrived at this amazing conclusion only recently, i.e., within the brief period of time since Tito’s split with Stalin.
We say that theirs is the prime responsibility to prove that the Tito regime is a genuine democratic workers’ state, building socialism, not simply because these same people maintained anything but that until recently, but for additional reasons. Anyone, including the so-called Trotskyists, can be in error – although the chiefs of the Fourth International, who only a short time ago labeled the same Yugoslavia a “state capitalist, reactionary regime,” never acknowledge errors:
The burden of proof that a revolutionary change has taken place rests upon those who understood and who automatically accepted, until recently, the fact that this regime in Yugoslavia had risen out of the same historic and social processes which brought Stalinism to power in half a dozen countries (Poland, Baltic lands, Rumania, etc.) at the end of the war.
These people knew well that the head of the Yugoslavian Stalinist movement, Tito, was a bred-in-the-bone Stalinist of Moscow and GPU origin (ask the Spanish POUMists, who had dealings with him during the Spanish civil war); that his entire thought process, psychology and approach to politics and the socialist movement was Stalinist to the core; that the Yugoslav Socialist Party he created was in the typical and characteristic image of the Stalinist movement (that is, absence of democracy, leader cult, purge psychology, etc.); that the behavior and politics of the Yugoslav resistance movement during the war was Stalinist and Moscow-controlled.
In a word, the birth and coming to power of this regime, which took place when the Russian armies reached its borders and the Germans collapsed, was entirely of the Stalinist variety. We do not recall a single current supporter of the marshal who contended otherwise in 1945; we do not recall a single effort to differentiate the origins of Tito’s regime from those of Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.
Tito even maintained the semblance of a Popular Front (he still does, in fact), and he even followed his fellow marshals in Eastern Europe in quickly destroying the Trotskyists in Yugoslavia, physically. We dislike embarrassing the leaders of the Fourth International, but let them please tell us what happened to the Trotskyist organization in Yugoslavia. When did they last hear from it, or about it?
It will be maintained that the Stalinist-like birth of the Tito regime does not prove its Stalinist character today. Good; this is not our contention. We merely wish to point out that its birth and recent origins have surely had some influence upon its subsequent development. Those who now maintain it has developed in a different direction must offer us proofs, in detail, example and illustration. We must charge the discoverers of “Socialist Yugoslavia” with a failure to do so; with hardly even bothering to make the effort.
To prove the socialist character of the Yugoslavian state, you must show us that it is organized in a socialist manner, that it functions in such a way as to democratically express the will of the working people and the poor peasantry, that the various state institutions are democratically elected and operative, that the toilers participate actively in the operation and planification of industry, etc.
It may be said that some efforts have been made to offer proof. For example, doesn’t Tito, in his speeches and his various publications which are widely circulated, guarantee us his socialist intent and Leninist bona fides? Of course, we know that Stalin has personally assured us of the “classless and communist” character of his regime, and socialists in general (with the exception of those who simply must deceive themselves) have long since passed the stage of accepting the word of ruling groups at their face value. So we must be forgiven if we are somewhat skeptical of what Tito says about himself, even if he did receive 96.7 per cent (or was it 97.6 per cent?) of the votes in his plebiscitary election.
But others, particularly those of the revolutionary left, must be taken more seriously. The general argument advanced in such circles tells us of the “nationalization’ of Yugoslav industry (now complete in industry, commerce and banking), together with the alleged great success of Yugoslavia’s “Five Year Plan” for production. Belgrade is being reconstructed; a new highway from Belgrade to Zagreb; homes for 200,000 people in 1948, etc.
The first thought that occurs to one in reading this type of argument is: by what rhyme or reason are Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria, etc., also excluded from the category of “socialist states,” since nationalization is complete or virtually complete, and these countries are also experiencing characteristic bursts of reconstructions, industry prodution and so on? Hasn’t the city of Warsaw, according to all reports, also been rebuilt? Of course, for that matter, France has now practically completed the rebuilding of its ruined cities in Normandy, and the German cities are also experiencing reconstruction booms.
So far as the nationalization is concerned, this was recognized by us a long time ago, particularly in opposition to the Trotskyists who only discovered it recently and until last year tried to deny it or belittle it. The point is: what is the character and nature of this nationalization; under whose control and management does it operate; for whose benefit is it conducted? This is what the analysts of “Tito socialism” must tell us. This brings us, of course, to the basic test question in understanding the Tito regime – who is the master in the house, and how does he exercise his mastery?
Some Tito workshippers belabor us with the existence of the “Popular Committees” which were created during the resistance days. Good; let them inform us how these “Popular Committees” operate and, above all, how they were and are elected. A Trotskyist named Kamalesh Banerji, writing in Janata (April 23), publication of the Indian Socialist Party, compares these committees to the democratic soviets of the Russian Revolution. The man is ignorant.
The Yugoslav “Popular Committees” grew up during the Popular Frontist days of the war, when various political elements were represented in them. As Tito centralized the power in his hands from 1945 onward, these committees were steadily and constantly. purged, unfit they ended representing nothing but the Yugoslavian Communist Party, with all other elements (including Banerji’s own Trotskyist friends) thoroughly expurgated.
Another and characteristic fairy tale offered us by this individual is that concerning the free “trade unions” which are not a state institution. On paper, or in practice? Let us have some information regarding their right to strike or, more pertinent, details of the most recent working-class strike activity in the country. In fact, let us have some information about different political tendencies within the trade unions, the “popular committees” and other organs of the so-called “democracy.”
Or should we believe that “socialism” has been constructed with such astounding speed in backward Yugoslavia that a completely harmonious society now exists, in which there are no political or social differences? Let us kindly have some details about the rights of criticism (from working-class organizations, such as the Trotskyists, not bourgeois or Stalinists!); let us know about the elections that do take place, about rival candidates on differing platforms, about the right of Comrade Banerji or co-thinkers to demand the recall and removal of Comrade Tito, for example.
The point should be clear enough. Those who have permitted themselves to accept at face value the statements of the Tito propagandists must be called to order. Let them substantiate their claims by laying bare and proving, in detail and with proper reference, just how their non-existent “socialist” state operates. They must not be permitted to pass off their shoddy goods as the true cloth of socialism.
An objective examination of this state, which bases its theoretic approach on the idea that socialism can only be measured by the degree of control, administration, participation and regulation by the working class itself, through its democratic institutions and bodies, will convince anyone that we have another reactionary, bureaucratic and authoritarian state, stamped in the Stalinist image.
We give but another example of this. Another Trotskyist “thinker,” Ernest Germain,favorably reports the following incident: Milovan Djilas. secretary of the Yugoslav CP, called together all the intellectuals of Belgrade and told them: “I have called you together to give you one final directive. There will be no more government directives in the future.”
Poor Germain! He doesn’t grasp the irony of his story; he doesn’t realize that this one detail gives away the whole fakery of the newly found “freedom.” The intellectuals are called together to be “directed” to be free! Tito has commanded; henceforth you are “free.” Will someone kindly explain to Germain that such “freedom” is a fraud and can be rescinded by another meeting of Djilas on the morrow? Doesn’t he understand that the whole thing was done to take in independent radicals? Evidently not, since he fell for the act completely. May the socialist movement be spared from the glories of a regime which finds it possible to call people together aqd instruct them that they are henceforth “free”!
Lack of space makes it impossible to do more than suggest the line of our thought in rejecting the widespread tendency to capitulate to the myth of Titoist socialism. In detail and with greater frequency, we intend to return to this subject. In the meantime we reiterate our original statement that the burden of proof rests upon those making the claims.
Plastrik (Stanley/Judd) Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 23 January 2024