Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:48:12.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yugoslav Communist Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2017

Fred Warner Neal
Fred Warner Neal*
Affiliation:
Claremont Graduate School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One does not have to accept the Marxist claim to a unity of theory and practice to see that, as far as modern Communism is concerned, there is a striking degree of correlation. This does not mean that Communist politics invariably follow Communist theory in all its aspects. Nor does it mean that many Communist theories have not obtained primarily as rationalizations of situations occurring outside, or even contrary to, any theoretical framework. It does mean, however, that generally speaking ideology provides a binding orientation for the direction of society, a view of both tactical and strategic goals and a guide to the thinking of at least the leadership.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 1960 , pp. 42 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1960

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. Nacrt Programa Saveza Komunista Jugoslavije (Belgrade: Kultura, 1958). The Draft Program was distributed in March both in Yugoslavia and to leaders of foreign Communist parties. The final program is included in Sedmi Kongres SKJ (Belgrade: Kultura, 1958). For an English text, see Stoyan Pribechevich's translation, Yugoslavia's Way, The Program of the League of the Communists of Yugoslavia (New York: All Nations Press, 1958).Google Scholar

2 Kardelj, Edvard, “Povodom Nacrta Programa Saveza Komunista Jugoslavije,” Sedmi Kongres SKJ, p. 147 Google Scholar,

3 Cf. Fred Warner Neal, Titoism in Action: The Reforms in Yugoslavia after 1948 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958), pp. 2–3 Google Scholar, and Lee, Robert Wolff, The Balkans in Our Time (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 321 and p. 355Google Scholar.

4 Neal, pp. 3–5.

5 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 133 Google Scholar.

6 Ibid.

7 See Yugoslavia's Way, p. 65, p. 73 , and Neal, p. 18.Google Scholar

8 See Josip Broz Tito, “Zadaci Saveza Komunista,” Sedmi Kongres, pp. 35–36, and Kardelj, p. 173 Google Scholar.

9 Ibid. See also Yugoslavia's Way, pp. 39–40. The 1958 view repeats earlier analyses of the Soviet experience, although now blame is to some extent placed more directly on Stalin personally. However, see discussion of the “cult of the individual,” belowGoogle Scholar.

10 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 14, p. 24. See also Neal, p. 17 Google Scholar.

11 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 74 Google Scholar.

12 Ibid., pp. 148–49.Google Scholar

13 Ibid. See discussion on Party, below, and also Resolution of the Seventh Congress, Sedmi Kongres, pp. 443–57Google Scholar.

14 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 23 Google Scholar.

15 Kardelj, pp. 156–58Google Scholar.

16 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 106, pp. 111-14Google Scholar

17 Ct.ibid., pp. 74–75, and Kardelj, pp. 166–67Google Scholar.

18 Kardelj, pp. 164–65.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., p. 166, and Tito, Sedmi Kongres, p. 13 Google Scholar.

20 Yugoslavia's Way, pp. 70-77, and Kardelj, p. 166 and pp. 180-81. Except for such alterations, the difference between the Draft Program and that finally adopted was more one of tone than of substance, which, of course, was what annoyed the Russians. Cf. Borba, November 14, 1958, p. 1 Google Scholar.

21 Ct. Tito's remarks at Labin, in Istria, Borba, June 15, 1958, p. 1 Google Scholar.

22 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 67 Google Scholar.

23 Kardelj, pp. 159–60.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 126 Google Scholar

25 Cf. Kardelj, Medjunarodna Scena i Jugoslovenski Poloiaj(Belgrade, 1951), pp. 6–8. Google Scholar

26 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 30, p. 116. For a similar view, expressed earlier, see Jovan Djonljevic, “Some Principles of Socialist Democracy in Yugoslavia,” New Yugoslav I.atc, Nos. 3-4 (July-December, 1952), p. 16 Google Scholar.

27 Kardelj, p. 176 Google Scholar.

28 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 15, pp. 44–45 and p. 118. Whereas earlier pronouncements, especially those made by Milovan Djilas, stated flatly that the Soviet Union is an example of state capitalism rather than socialism, the present view avoids this judgment about the present, implying, without quite saying so, that it is no longer valid.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., pp. 118–19Google Scholar.

30 Yugoslavia's Way, pp. 124–25, p. 129, p. 140. For the earlier and more concrete formulation, see Neal, pp. 20-21. Djilas’ analysis was specifically aimed at Stalin's theory that the concept of surplus value is applicable only under capitalism. Although ignored in the 1958 Program itself, Djilas was sharply condemned by various speakers at the Seventh Congress.Google Scholar

31 Kardelj, p.. 161. See also answer to questions on this point in Mladost, Belgrade, March 6, 1957 Google Scholar.

32 For Yugoslav views spelling out these concepts, see Neal, pp. 20–21. These are embraced in the 1958 Program. Yugoslavia's Way, pp. 128–29 and pp. 133–34Google Scholar.

33 Cf. Neal, pp. 120–59. See also Charles McVicker, P., Titoism, Pattern for International Communism (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1957), pp. 61–106 Google Scholar.

34 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 155 Google Scholar.

35 See Neal, pp. 67–73 Google Scholar.

36 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 235. The present theory omits Tito's earlier linking of the withering away of the Party to the withering away of the stateGoogle Scholar.

37 Kardelj, p. 178 Google Scholar.

38 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 120, p. 165, p. 239. See also Kardelj, p. 178, and Neal, Ch. III Google Scholar.

39 However, democratic centralism explicitly remains the guiding principle of the League of Communists. See “Statut Saveza Komunista Jugoslavije,” Sedmi Kongres, P. «8.Google Scholar

40 Cf. Neal, Ch. III.Google Scholar

41 Kardelj, p. 178 Google Scholar.

42 Cf. Neal, pp. 208–10Google Scholar.

43 Yugoslavia's Way, pp. 130–31 and pp. 141–42.Google Scholar

44 Ibid., pp. 162-64, and Kardelj, pp. 171-72. For earlier rejections of “bourgeois democracy,” see Neal, p. 23 Google Scholar.

45 Yugoslavia's Way, pp. 165–75Google Scholar.

46 Ibid., p. 176 Google Scholar.

47 Ibid., p. 177. The agency for these activities is the so-called Stanbena Zajednica, or housing neighborhood, the development of which is currently a favor theme with Yugoslav Communists. See, for example, Borba, July 10, 1958 Google Scholar.

48 Yugoslavia's Way, pp. 178-79. See also reference to council of producers in the Resolution of the Seventh Congress, Sedmi Kongres, p. 448. For description of the council of producers, see Neal, pp. 96-98. Sharp discrimination against peasants results from the method of electing members of councils of producers. Cf. Neal, pp. 112–14Google Scholar.

49 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 238. McVicker, especially, is impressed with this “humane variety of Marxism” in Yugoslavia. McVicker, p. xii Google Scholar.

50 Kardelj, p. 172 Google Scholar.

51 Sedmi Kongres, pp. 87–88 Google Scholar.

52 Yugoslavia's Way, p. 183. See also Radomir Lukic, “Legality in Socialist Countries,” Review of International Affairs, October 1, 1958, pp. 8-11, and Kardelj, p. 172. For a ^more extensive exposition of this theme, see Neal, pp. 214–19, and McVicker, Ch. IX Google Scholar.

53 Yugoslavia's Way, pp. 254–55Google Scholar

54 Oskar, Davifo, “Two Kinds of Prejudices in Aesthetics and a Subjective Factor,” Review of International Affairs, November 16, 1958, pp. 12–15 Google Scholar.

55 For Yugoslav views on Bernsteinism, see Komunist, Nos. 1-2 (January-February, 1954), pp. 32–41, and Neal, p. 18 and p. 71 Google Scholar.

56 It should be remembered that in Poland and even in Hungary initially agitation for reform was begun not by anti-Communists but by “nationalists” among the Communists.Google Scholar

57 For instance, Prof. Marshall Windmiller of the University of California at Berkeley is of the opinion that in India there has been extensive Yugoslav influence not only on the Congress Party but also on the CommunistsGoogle Scholar.

58 Stalin, J. S., Voprosy Leninizma (Moscow: Gosizdat, 1934), pp. 299–300 Google Scholar.

59 During his visit to Poland in the fall of 1958, the writer was told repeatedly by Party and government officials that their reforms had no formal ideological connotations but were adopted simply because they would work better. Events of the fall and winter months of 1959 appear to bear out the less substantial nature of some Polish reformsGoogle Scholar.