Rankovicism

I found this article about a prominent Yugoslav politician. He seems to exemplify socialist nationalism. What do you think?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rankovi%C4%87ism

Rankovićism appears to be the exact opposite of the socialist nationalism I adhere to. Aleksandar Ranković staunchly opposed self-determination—which is an integral aspect of left-wing nationalism—for the nationalities which constituted Yugoslavia, thus the nationalism he espoused was chauvinist and imperialistic.

Celtiberian wrote:Rankovicism appears to be the exact opposite of the socialist nationalism I adhere to. Aleksandar Ranković staunchly opposed self-determination—which is an integral aspect of left-wing nationalism—for the nationalities which constituted Yugoslavia, thus the nationalism he espoused was chauvinist and imperialistic.

First, I partially agree with the flaws you stated, and find his pro-Serb attitude frustrating. I fully support his movement towards centralization and slavic patriotism however, as well as his dislike of liberalism. No politician is perfect, and I seek to isolate the "good" views that he had and learn from them. I would personally choose a united socialist Yugoslavia than a disjointed and highly decentralized state in which different nationalities have the final say in politics. Aleksandar was a Yugoslav nationalist and did not want to see the nation torn apart by internal racial strife caused by a Kosovoan nationalist movement. If Yugoslavia granted independence to all ethnic groups, it would cease to exist. There was never a Yugoslav Race, SFRY's populace was constructed of ethnic minorities. The entire focus of Yugoslavia (both communist and capitalist), was Panslavism and the unity of ethnic groups.
Your respectful comrade, Iron Vanguard

I think Aleksandar was more a Serbian nationalist than a Yugoslav one. If you're going to create any kind of Pan-Slavic nationalism, you can't start by repressing all of the nations except for the biggest one.
A properly constructed Yugoslavian nationalism would've seen the Yugoslavians holding an individual loyalty to their nation and a collective loyalty to the state (much as I would be loyal both to the German nation and a socialist Canadian state). Given the ethnic animosity in Yugoslavia, this would be much more difficult there, however.

Iron Vanguard wrote:First, I partially agree with the flaws you stated, and find his pro-Serb attitude frustrating. I fully support his movement towards centralization and slavic patriotism however, as well as his dislike of liberalism. No politician is perfect, and I seek to isolate the "good" views that he had and learn from them. I would personally choose a united socialist Yugoslavia than a disjointed and highly decentralized state in which different nationalities have the final say in politics. Aleksandar was a Yugoslav nationalist and did not want to see the nation torn apart by internal racial strife caused by a Kosovoan nationalist movement. If Yugoslavia granted independence to all ethnic groups, it would cease to exist. There was never a Yugoslav Race, SFRY's populace was constructed of ethnic minorities. The entire focus of Yugoslavia (both communist and capitalist), was Panslavism and the unity of ethnic groups.

Ethnic strife is indeed what destroyed Yugoslavia, and it played a central role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union as well. That is why a proper understanding of the National Question is so vital for the future of socialism and communism. Despite my admiration of its history, in many ways Yugoslavia was an artificial nation—just as contemporary Spain is. It takes a very long time and a great deal of coercion to forge new national identities, and Yugoslavia wasn't able to accomplish that. However, being that socialism is premised on the notion that mutual aid, cooperation, and egalitarianism are more conducive to human happiness and development than hierarchy, coercion, and competition are, the very idea of governments forging entirely new national identities stands in direct contradiction of the values we uphold.

The fact of the matter is, nations invariably resent being governed by foreign elites. It doesn't matter whether the justification is pan-slavism, religious solidarity, or what have you. Nations desire self-determination, and if they're denied that right, tension will emerge. If socialism is incapable of adapting to that reality, it will be unable to sustain itself for any appreciable amount of time. Fortunately, I don't believe there's any reason to suspect that socialism can't function well in a decentralized manner.

Celtiberian wrote:Rankovićism appears to be the exact opposite of the socialist nationalism I adhere to. Aleksandar Ranković staunchly opposed self-determination—which is an integral aspect of left-wing nationalism—for the nationalities which constituted Yugoslavia, thus the nationalism he espoused was chauvinist and imperialistic.

Yes, you are completely right. Ranković was against self-determination and against pro-national politics of nations in Yugoslavia. He was pro-state, Yugoslav nationalist and defender of serbian domination over other nations in Yugoslavia, this means that he was bourgoise nationalist and imperialist. He was thus for centralisation of the country and not for federalisation i.e. for stronger national states.

Iron Vanguard wrote:First, I partially agree with the flaws you stated, and find his pro-Serb attitude frustrating. I fully support his movement towards centralization and slavic patriotism however, as well as his dislike of liberalism. No politician is perfect, and I seek to isolate the "good" views that he had and learn from them. I would personally choose a united socialist Yugoslavia than a disjointed and highly decentralized state in which different nationalities have the final say in politics. Aleksandar was a Yugoslav nationalist and did not want to see the nation torn apart by internal racial strife caused by a Kosovoan nationalist movement. If Yugoslavia granted independence to all ethnic groups, it would cease to exist. There was never a Yugoslav Race, SFRY's populace was constructed of ethnic minorities. The entire focus of Yugoslavia (both communist and capitalist), was Panslavism and the unity of ethnic groups.
Your respectful comrade, Iron Vanguard

There were 2 main opposite currents:
1. Pro-centralisation + more socialist economic approach(Ranković)
2. Pro-federalisation + more liberal econimic approach (League of Communists of Croatia)

First current was anti-national in essence; while second was anti-social and trying to establish capitalism.

Tito was in the middle, and he try with compromises, his system was alredy half-capitalistic with centralised government.

Third main current was needed, one pro-national(de-centralisation) and more left in economical sence than Tito´s Worker self-management, but that current never existed in Yugoslavia.

Smersh wrote:his system was alredy half-capitalistic with centralised government

Tito's system was a rather successful attempt at market socialism, mixed with aspects of traditional state socialism which as I recall were mismanaged. By 'more left in economical sense' are you referring to central planning?
I'm interested to hear the input of a 'Yugoslavian', so to speak, regarding the conditions of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Smersh wrote:Tito was in the middle, and he try with compromises, his system was alredy half-capitalistic with centralised government.

I disagree with the characterization of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as being "half-capitalistic." It's true that Josip Broz Tito incorporated market relations alongside his policy of workers' self-management, but there has always been a segment of the socialist movement which isn't opposed to market exchange per se, and instead focuses its attention on the abolition of exploitation (see the work of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Ramón de la Sagra, Dyer Lum, and Thomas Hodgskin, for example). Simply put, if an economy no longer features capitalists (i.e., private owners of means of production who employ wage laborers), it cannot accurately be labeled "capitalist." You may still oppose a socialist market economy for a variety of reasons, as I do, but it's incorrect to claim it isn't socialist solely due to its retention of market exchange.

Third main current was needed, one pro-national(de-centralisation) and more left in economical sence than Tito´s Worker self-management, but that current never existed in Yugoslavia.

I agree that a left-wing nationalist current would have been ideal, but are you suggesting that workers' self-management isn't legitimately leftist? Or are you supportive of the idea, but favor its implementation within a planned, as opposed to market, economy?

Celtiberian wrote:Rankovićism appears to be the exact opposite of the socialist nationalism I adhere to. Aleksandar Ranković staunchly opposed self-determination—which is an integral aspect of left-wing nationalism—for the nationalities which constituted Yugoslavia, thus the nationalism he espoused was chauvinist and imperialistic.

Depends on the definition of nationality. I define it accoding to mutual intelligibility. During the kingdom of Yugoslavia, anti-imperialists (and revolutionaries) such as Gavrilo Princip declared themselves "nationalists" and by that they meant that Serbs and Croats should unite in a single nation. Today, there are not only the Serb and Croat nations, but Bosniak and Montenegrin ones, with their nationalists, and there is also a minute group declaring themselves Voivodinians. Where does it end? Voivodina then can be divided among some future nations of Banatians, Bachkians and Sremans, likewise can various regions of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia invent their own nationalities and seek "national self-determination". Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak and Montenegrin "languages" are just dialects of one language. There is 100% total and complete mutual intelligibility between them, literally- there can be no sentence on one of those "languages" that the speakers of the other "languages" would fail to clearly understand.

but are you suggesting that workers' self-management isn't legitimately leftist?

Yugoslavia never had workers' self-management. Ironically, there was more worker self-management in the village zadrugas before Tito, then after Tito- where all was nationalised, and the (sparse) rural and industrial worker councils only had co-determination with the party/state bureaucracy.

Leveller wrote:Depends on the definition of nationality. I define it accoding to mutual intelligibility. During the kingdom of Yugoslavia, anti-imperialists (and revolutionaries) such as Gavrilo Princip declared themselves "nationalists" and by that they meant that Serbs and Croats should unite in a single nation. Today, there are not only the Serb and Croat nations, but Bosniak and Montenegrin ones, with their nationalists, and there is also a minute group declaring themselves Voivodinians. Where does it end? Voivodina then can be divided among some future nations of Banatians, Bachkians and Sremans, likewise can various regions of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia invent their own nationalities and seek "national self-determination". Serbian, Croatian, Bosniak and Montenegrin "languages" are just dialects of one language. There is 100% total and complete mutual intelligibility between them, literally- there can be no sentence on one of those "languages" that the speakers of the other "languages" would fail to clearly understand.

So if we follow your mutual intelligibility the entire Indo- European speaking world could constitute a nation?.The fact that serbo-Croat speaking people's killed each other in large number is just one example of the fact that language isn't in itself isn't enough to bind different cultures and ethnicity's together.

TheocWulf wrote:So if we follow your mutual intelligibility the entire Indo- European speaking world could constitute a nation?

Does the entire Indo-European speaking world understand each other in their first language? No. So no.

The fact that serbo-Croat speaking people's killed each other in large number is just one example of the fact that language isn't in itself isn't enough to bind different cultures and ethnicity's together.

Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak 'nations' are built on religious lines- Serbs are Eastern orthodox, Croats are catholic, and Bosniaks are muslim. That's like if the German nation would divide in two "nations" - one protestant, and the other catholic, and they did have a history of killing each other.

Leveller wrote:Does the entire Indo-European speaking world understand each other in their first language? No. So no.

Well I understand American,Welsh,Scottish,Irish,Canadian ect ect and a host of other English speaking people's but are in no way the same nation or culture as me.

Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak 'nations' are built on religious lines- Serbs are Eastern orthodox, Croats are catholic, and Bosniaks are muslim. That's like if the German nation would divide in two "nations" - one protestant, and the other catholic, and they did have a history of killing each other.

The fact they have different religions and folk traditions separate history's and cultures would indicate they are not unified culture and never have been and probably never will,Yugoslavia is just one example of post imperial nations that only really existed for a small number of elites and created by powerful outsiders crayoning lines on a map with little regard for cultural realities on the ground.Your Germany example is similar Saxons,Bavarians,Prussians ect have only been Germans for what 200 years if you discount the Cold War period so I'd say the jury is still out if Germany as a nation will exist  and the same can be said of France and Britian.In the example of Britian Britishness has only every existed when the cultures of this island have faced outside threats mainly the two world wars,other than that Britishness only existed in the mobile middle class and the moneyed upper class becuse they follow wealth and jobs around the Island,and in the aristocracy becuse they are Anglo Scottish.It is in the indigenous working class that regional,cultural and folk identity are found.

TheocWulf wrote:The fact they have different religions and folk traditions separate history's and cultures would indicate they are not unified culture and never have been and probably never will

Only different religions. We're one people, one language. I find it idiotic to use dialect or religion as a cause for making a new nationality.

Germans all speak the same language, same as French, whereas in Britain there are different languages.

Go on then show me that all Serbo-Croat speaking are in fact interchangeable if you take religion out of the equation?

I speak the the same language as an American are we the same?.

Oh and the French don't all speak French.
Regional language(s)
(officially recognised):; Alsatian; Catalan; Corsican; Breton; Gallo; Occitan; Tahitian; some languages of New Caledonia
(not officially recognized): Basque; Dutch (West Flemish dialect); Franco-Provençal; Lorraine Franconian; French Guiana Creole; Guadeloupean Creole; Martiniquan Creole; Oïl languages (except French and Gallo); Réunion Creole

And Germany has a few regional languages aswell.
Official language(s) German (>95%)
Regional language(s) Low Rhenish; Limburgish; Luxembourgish; Alemannic; Bavarian; Danish; Upper Sorbian, Lower Sorbian; North Frisian, Saterland Frisian; Romani, Low German

TheocWulf wrote:Go on then show me that all Serbo-Croat speaking are in fact interchangeable if you take religion out of the equation?

We understan each other perfectly. I'm in Serbia and I watch Croatia's national TV, as well as Bosnian Al Jazeera Balkan, and I literally understand everything, there's not a single word I don't undestand, not a single pronunciancion that I have any difficulty understanding. Whereas I have relatives in far south of Serbia who I barely understand, and they speak more Macedonian/ Bulgarian then Serbian.

All those languages you mention, if they have people speaking them as first language, I'm for giving all those people self-determination if they want to. But French and German language speakers should live in the French and German nation-states, and not make up different nations on the basis of religion.

So Austria and Germany should be a nation because they speak the same language?England and America should be the same nation?Quebec and France despite being vastly different culture (religion being just one part of these cultures) ?.

TheocWulf wrote:So Austria and Germany should be a nation because they speak the same language?England and America should be the same nation?Quebec and France despite being vastly different culture (religion being just one part of these cultures) ?.

Austria and Germany actually have close ties to one another, and the idea of having Austria be a part of Germany was popular amongst German nationalists. Before the end of WW2, Austria was considered to be a region within Germany, as much as Prussia would be its own region in Germany. The problem being that Austria was united with Hungary in an empire that had more non-German land than German land.

Of course, the Nazis pretty much discredited the idea. Though, you can argue that the fall of the Austrian-Hungary Empire allowed for Germany to annex Austria without dealing with non-German lands and Hungary, and thus any government that was nationalist would have annexed the country anyways.

The latter two examples are perfectly fine though.

TheocWulf wrote:So Austria and Germany should be a nation because they speak the same language?

Yes.

England and America should be the same nation?

Yes. Just in two states, because of the geographical separateness. Same with France/ Quebec.

Leveller wrote:Yes.

Well good luck selling that.

TheocWulf wrote: they have different religions and folk traditions separate history's and cultures would indicate they are not unified culture and never have been and probably never will,Yugoslavia is just one example of post imperial nations that only really existed for a small number of elites and created by powerful outsiders crayoning lines on a map with little regard for cultural realities on the ground.

As a Serb I see no cultural,ethnic,social difference between Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks etc. When the Southern Slavs(Yugoslavs) settled in the Balkans there were no Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks etc we were all Slavs. The names (Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks) were latter invented by foreign religions when they divided the Yugoslavs into 3 different Religions. But you also have to remember that all Slavs had their own Pagan religion before foreign powers forcefully converted us to their religion.

The only difference between the Yugoslavs is that throughout history different foreign powers and foreign religions have oppressed and manipulated the Yugoslavs to divide among themselves. This division among Yugoslavs has and still is promoted by foreign Imperialists as part of their divide and conquer strategy of colonizing the Yugoslavs.

Secondly Yugoslavia was NOT created by outsiders it was created from national liberation wars fought in both world wars.