ID: Photo of a pink felt heart on a slightly paler pink background, overlaying is stylised text: “make the world a better place punch a nazi in their face”

  • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comMEnglish
    1·
    2 hours ago

    basically all of (south) eastern europe + all (now ex-)soviet republics until the 1990s

    the bullet part: civil war in ussr (the whites were proto-fascist af) and ww2 in the rest of (south) eastern europe

    + fascists were perpetually heavily persecuted by the agencies of state socialism

    now the movement part: socialism builds around solving the issues of the working classes first and foremost changing the material basis of society. It provides solutions which take the problem by it’s root (e.g. nor reforming capitalism – which is the root cause of poverty, homelessness, hunger etc. – but eliminating it)

    facism (partially) uses a perversion of leftist rhetoric to fool and garner support from working people.

    after said state socialisms found their ends, the following bourgeois “democracies” failed to address the needs of working people, allowing for fascist rhetoric to capture the minds of many. and ofc the rigorous persecution stopped too

    the former territory of the GDR provides one of the best examples of the combination of the two

    western and southern europe (mainly France and Italy; with the exception of Spain, which had a continued fascist presence long after WW2) had momentary violence against fascists, which was not upheld after ww2 (or after the revolution in Portugal’s case), but still had flourishing socialists movements (talking about real socialism, not the french “socialist” party), mainly strong communist parties. after their disintegration in the 90s, fascists had a much easier time and we are seeing the effects today just as well in the rest of euorpe as in Germany

    • frankenswine@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 hours ago

      so what, all that nationalist, fascist scum in yugoslavia war in the 90ies just materialized from nothing in no time?

      • алсааас [she/they]@lemmy.dbzer0.comMEnglish
        1·
        1 hour ago

        no of course not, but the breakup of Yugoslavia is a special case…

        Although you could argue that the SFRY in (especially late) 80s was hardly socialist anymore, since they had to implement exceedingly more wide-reaching reforms dictated by the IMF. Thus giving rise to material conditions which could be exploited by fascists as soon as the strong suppression of fascism stopped (which started much sooner relative to other ex-socialist countries, thanks to said reforms).

        Or even that it had stopped being socialist with the beginning of depper implementations of “self-managment socialism” (to judge that is out of the scope of this comment), giving more time for the sentimenrs to foster.

        Ofc the sudden rise of fascist and (ultra-)nationalist forces wasn’t only bc of material reasons, even if they fed the spread of it. Culture, questions of ethnicity and nationalism played a huge role for both historical and structural reasons.

        Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic state with deep interwoven ties between it’s peoples. A part (or result or reason for, again out of scope) of that was a either a confused dispersion, or deep regiobal integration of said ethnicities, depending on how you put it.

        Here is a map based on the 1981 census

        Picture of ethnic map of the SFRY

        To cut things short, ethnic tension was one of the main problems the '74 constitution tried to solve. It didn’t succeeded, but was able to prolong it’s “explosion” for quite a while.

        With the gradual weakining of the central government – aggrevated by Tito’s death – nationalism was allowed to spread or even cultivated inside of the individual republics…

        Edit: another thing (aside from western intervwntion ofc) that enabled the dream of unity and brotherhood between the southern slavs to turn into a nightmare:

        It’s military doctrine of “Total Defence”

        The JNA adopted the concept of total defence (as did a number of other small European and neutral countries). Yugoslavia based its defence doctrine upon the total war concept of “Total People’s Defence” (sh. Opštenarodna odbrana / Općenarodna obrana) which drew upon Yugoslavia’s successful partisan history during the Yugoslav People’s Liberation War during the Second World War. “TND prepared the entire population to contest the occupation of the country and finally to liberate it. The Territorial Defence Forces would mobilize the population for this purpose. The combat readiness of the TDF meant that the steps of organization and training could be bypassed after the start of hostilities. The TDF would supplement the YPA, giving it greater defensive depth and an armed local population ready to support combat actions.” The entire Yugoslav population was to be engaged in armed resistance, armaments production, and civil defence under this concept. It was believed by the Yugoslav planners to be the best method by which a smaller nation could properly defend itself against a much stronger invader, specifically, NATO or the Warsaw Pact.

        also:

        yet another reason was the liberlization of religious policies which led to more freedom for the catholic church and of muslim organizations, which fostered nationalistic oppition in both Croatia and Bosnia

        (those are the instances I know of, might be that religious orgs of other beliefs did the same and/or additionaly in the other republic)

        Edit1: writing this comment made me wanna rewatch the following video: History of Yugoslavia through music ♪♫.
        It always manages to make me tear up, especially “Samo da rata ne bude” at 12:30 which practically devestates me. every. fucking. time. after that still but less so

        Here is the full version with eng translation: “Samo da rata ne bude” - Yugoslav Anti-War Song [Just let there be no war]