4 ms·

> I just could not see anything in my memories that had to deal with collectivization, killings, political trials, endless bread lines, imprisoned free thinkers

> I just could not see anything in my memories that had to deal with collectivization, killings, political trials, endless bread lines, imprisoned free thinkers The author’s memory is OK. There were little to no such things in communist Yugoslavia. Unlike Warsaw bloc countries, Russian army did not occupy Yugoslavia. The country remained independent, and human rights situation was much better than in Russia. > he had mainly good memories—of “long dinners discussing politics,” the “excitement of new books,” “languid sunsets, whole-night concerts, epic soccer games, girls in miniskirts.” In soviet Russia, a long dinner discussing politics would cause the participants to be sent to Siberia, there were no whole-night concerts, and miniskirts only appeared on girls after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

citation_please 8y ago
Should we interpret your comment as support that it doesn't necessarily matter what the leading political ideology of the country is, rather who is the one enforcing it?
- Const-me 8y ago
  I don’t know the answer to your question. The history is more complicated than that. I think what matters most is the culture. It’s much deeper, and much harder to change, than ideology or politics. Historically, people living here were free, and they were and still are willing to fight for their freedom. They accidentally started WW1 this way, but that’s another story. I think that’s the root cause why Yugoslavia refused to become a satellite state of USSR. And also why the regime here was way more relaxed: the borders were open, small businesses remained in private hands, it was OK to discuss politics, miniskirts were available, etc… Another reason is west and international politics came in. It was politically beneficial for the west to maintain good relations with Yugoslavia despite the ideology.
  - omgomgomg2 8y ago
    Sure, culture matters, but it’s small fish once money gets involved. The above are all economic questions with economic answers. Communism is not a political structure, but an economic and social structure. You are both thinking far too American.
- omgomgomg2 8y ago
  No! But it might mean that it doesn’t necessarily matter what the leading political ideology of the country is, rather the economic system enforcing it.
  - s-shellfish 8y ago
    It's very clear you think money is the primary shaper of societies, but this simply isn't true. There are multiple forms of social capital which can be equally, if not more so, disruptive, than pure economics. A political ideology is only as strong as the society that enforces it. That includes the economic framework and all its superstituous nuances defining feedback loops of behavior being accepted dogmatically as the backbone of a society. If it aligns with your values, literally, of course it's going to be something you see as true, because questioning it would be too challenging to manage. But there are plenty of intelligent people out there who can afford to question it, and it doesn't imply a breakdown in society. It can imply progress. But only if you want to see things that way. That honestly depends on whether you can hit the middle understanding that your philosophy on societies and all the fears that are attached as a consequence of an economic loop you believe you have control over are actually true. Lots of people don't have control over it. They aren't stupid or lacking in skill. Assuming they are is flawed. Assuming you aren't being taken advantage of because you've been indoctrinated into believing the economy is the strongest principle defining a society is additionally, flawed. These things actually matter when the economy is the only thing guiding a society and there is a literal breakdown of morality, ethics, values, belief systems coming from the head. They influence behavior, which influences beliefs, which influences awareness, which influences actions. All of this propagates across all the smaller 'heads' of a society when those are the rules that define and enforce ideologies. That is a breakdown in society and it happens because people have nothing besides finances to hold onto to tell them about their own self. Who wants to feel like a bag of money and then just die? Who actually wants that to be a life? There is no problem with a hierarchy. Not every person has the experience to know how to lead and not every person has the desire to own that responsibility. There is a BIG BIG BIG problem with it when it sends the wrong message.
BerislavLopac 8y ago
The memory is OK, but his reality was quite painted by state management of information. Many elements of totalitarian control were definitely present -- collectivism, single party, total control of media, education and international travel, Goli Otok, suppression of certain civil movements etc -- but overall it was definitely better than in Soviet Union at the time.
- Const-me 8y ago
  > but overall it was definitely better than in Soviet Union at the time. Yes, dramatically better. I grew up in Soviet Union, but I’ve been living here in Montenegro for many years already, and I have friends who remember life in SFRJ. That’s how I can compare things.
- extralego 8y ago
  >Many elements of totalitarian control were definitely present. This is misleading. It was not a totalitarian state. Benevolent dictatorship is even an exaggeration. Yugoslavia had a very liberal socialist economy. Trade with the west was very common. International travel was allowed. Collectivism was common but it’s misleading to suggest this is an element of totalitarianism. Strikes were more legal in communist Yugoslavia than they are in present-day United States. Control over the media is accurate. It’s off topic but citizens also had free access to healthcare.
  - BerislavLopac 8y ago
    > It was not a totalitarian state. It most definitely was, without any doubt. However, it was achieved not by physical force like in most other cases, but by management of ideological education and control of all aspects of life, carefully choosing what will be allowed and how. This control was very subtle and by necessity needed to be carefully adapted with time, but without it the country would have fallen apart much sooner than it actually did, with catastrophic consequences. Everything you write is exactly the result of this information control, and is what things seemed like at the surface.
    - 8y ago

citation_please 8y ago

Should we interpret your comment as support that it doesn't necessarily matter what the leading political ideology of the country is, rather who is the one enforcing it?

Const-me 8y ago
I don’t know the answer to your question. The history is more complicated than that. I think what matters most is the culture. It’s much deeper, and much harder to change, than ideology or politics. Historically, people living here were free, and they were and still are willing to fight for their freedom. They accidentally started WW1 this way, but that’s another story. I think that’s the root cause why Yugoslavia refused to become a satellite state of USSR. And also why the regime here was way more relaxed: the borders were open, small businesses remained in private hands, it was OK to discuss politics, miniskirts were available, etc… Another reason is west and international politics came in. It was politically beneficial for the west to maintain good relations with Yugoslavia despite the ideology.
- omgomgomg2 8y ago
  Sure, culture matters, but it’s small fish once money gets involved. The above are all economic questions with economic answers. Communism is not a political structure, but an economic and social structure. You are both thinking far too American.
omgomgomg2 8y ago
No! But it might mean that it doesn’t necessarily matter what the leading political ideology of the country is, rather the economic system enforcing it.
- s-shellfish 8y ago
  It's very clear you think money is the primary shaper of societies, but this simply isn't true. There are multiple forms of social capital which can be equally, if not more so, disruptive, than pure economics. A political ideology is only as strong as the society that enforces it. That includes the economic framework and all its superstituous nuances defining feedback loops of behavior being accepted dogmatically as the backbone of a society. If it aligns with your values, literally, of course it's going to be something you see as true, because questioning it would be too challenging to manage. But there are plenty of intelligent people out there who can afford to question it, and it doesn't imply a breakdown in society. It can imply progress. But only if you want to see things that way. That honestly depends on whether you can hit the middle understanding that your philosophy on societies and all the fears that are attached as a consequence of an economic loop you believe you have control over are actually true. Lots of people don't have control over it. They aren't stupid or lacking in skill. Assuming they are is flawed. Assuming you aren't being taken advantage of because you've been indoctrinated into believing the economy is the strongest principle defining a society is additionally, flawed. These things actually matter when the economy is the only thing guiding a society and there is a literal breakdown of morality, ethics, values, belief systems coming from the head. They influence behavior, which influences beliefs, which influences awareness, which influences actions. All of this propagates across all the smaller 'heads' of a society when those are the rules that define and enforce ideologies. That is a breakdown in society and it happens because people have nothing besides finances to hold onto to tell them about their own self. Who wants to feel like a bag of money and then just die? Who actually wants that to be a life? There is no problem with a hierarchy. Not every person has the experience to know how to lead and not every person has the desire to own that responsibility. There is a BIG BIG BIG problem with it when it sends the wrong message.

BerislavLopac 8y ago

The memory is OK, but his reality was quite painted by state management of information. Many elements of totalitarian control were definitely present -- collectivism, single party, total control of media, education and international travel, Goli Otok, suppression of certain civil movements etc -- but overall it was definitely better than in Soviet Union at the time.

Const-me 8y ago
> but overall it was definitely better than in Soviet Union at the time. Yes, dramatically better. I grew up in Soviet Union, but I’ve been living here in Montenegro for many years already, and I have friends who remember life in SFRJ. That’s how I can compare things.
extralego 8y ago
>Many elements of totalitarian control were definitely present. This is misleading. It was not a totalitarian state. Benevolent dictatorship is even an exaggeration. Yugoslavia had a very liberal socialist economy. Trade with the west was very common. International travel was allowed. Collectivism was common but it’s misleading to suggest this is an element of totalitarianism. Strikes were more legal in communist Yugoslavia than they are in present-day United States. Control over the media is accurate. It’s off topic but citizens also had free access to healthcare.
- BerislavLopac 8y ago
  > It was not a totalitarian state. It most definitely was, without any doubt. However, it was achieved not by physical force like in most other cases, but by management of ideological education and control of all aspects of life, carefully choosing what will be allowed and how. This control was very subtle and by necessity needed to be carefully adapted with time, but without it the country would have fallen apart much sooner than it actually did, with catastrophic consequences. Everything you write is exactly the result of this information control, and is what things seemed like at the surface.
  - 8y ago