“HUMANIST” MARXISM AND THE COMMUNIST REGIME WITH “SPARKLES” OF TOTALITARIANISM: THE YUGOSLAV COMMUNIST TOTALITARIAN EXPERIMENT (RESPONSE TO FLERE AND KLANJŠEK)

This paper is a response to the article “What Typological Appellation is Suitable for Tito’s Yugoslavia” published by Sergej Flere and Rudi Klanjšek in Istorija 20. veka, in which the two authors responded to our criticism of their previously published article. Unfortunately, the two authors saw our paper as an attack, either on them personally or on their academic merits and research, which was neither the aim nor desire of our response. In this article, we contest and dispute the arguments and claims made by Flere and Klanjšek, and especially their attempt to discredit us by actually fabricating our words. Instead of engaging in an open academic debate, Flere and Klanjšek attempt to derail this debate from its core by focusing solely on some minor mistakes, thus trying to show that we were superficial and counter-factual. Our decision to reflect on some of their statements served the purpose of demonstrating that Flere and Klanjšek’s response was far from an expected academic debate. In fact, in their response Flere and Klanjšek avoided addressing the crucial issues pertaining to the question of totalitarianism and the occurring dynamics of the Yugoslav communists’ idea on how to structure, rule, and supervise Yugoslav society. On the contrary, they decided to resolve this issue by introducing new views on the subject and new “solutions,” which deliver little substance to the key issues of this debate. However, our article reveals that the majority of their arguments is questionable or can be outright refuted by taking into consideration contemporary views on totalitarianism and the existing empirical data. This is evident with regard to the questions of historical dynamism, secret services, unified foreign policy, the role and position of the individual, Tito’s role and power, and Flere and Klanjšek’s distorted view of communist legitimacy. In our conclusion we point to the key aspects that need to be taken into consideration when discussing the nature of Tito’s Yugoslavia. Namely: (i) citizens were unable to cast their votes in free elections and were thus denied the opportunity to have any impact on the political, social, or economic politics that influenced their lives; (ii) the only “legitimate” way to exert individual influence in the political, social or economic area was to conform to and accept the prevalent idea of the communist interpretation of Marxism, the communist worldview, and the political power of the communist party; (iii) any attempt to openly oppose and/or criticize the regime was met with repercussions and punishment; (iv) any such activities were suppressed by the state apparatus on the republic and federal levels; (v) every individual or group active within the political structures was aware of Tito’s power to remove whomever he and his closest associates deemed “dangerous” or “destructive” elements; (vi) the communist leadership in the federal republics was faced with forceful removal and suppression when their policies were evaluated as non-compliant or dangerous; (vii) from an early age, individuals were immersed into the collective where they had to learn what it meant to be a “proper” and “respected” citizen. All these aspects were in force until the breakdown of Tito’s Yugoslavia. In conclusion, the occurring changes and dynamics never altered this totalitarian experiment’s core idea and its primary goal: to establish a socialist/communist society ruled by one party, the LCY, supervised by its police, secret service, army, and guided by a single ideological framework of the communist interpretation of Marxism.