Talk:League of Communists of Yugoslavia

message: What was actually the status of the League of Communists of Kosovo and the League of Communists of Vojvodina? Were they parts of the Serbian branch or separate bodies? --Soman 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Opća enciklopedija (Zagreb, 1981, vol. VII pg. 307), they were parts of both SKY and SKS. It might have been different before, but it was so in 1981. Nikola 13:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kosovo and Vojvodina 

message: The part regarding Second World War is at least incomplete, if not incorrect. Yugoslav National Army liberated Yugoslavia with big help from Soviet Red Army.
RE: Pure lie. The red army came only in Belgrade and parts of Vojvodina, which all makes just a small percent of the Yugoslav teritory. 
and not only that, but Tito allowed only temporary stay of those Red army troops (yes, Tito could allow or not allow things as he wanted, unlike in EASTERN BLOC COUNTRIES like POland, Czech republic, Bulgaria, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia and rest of today's EU where Soviet troops stayed for half a century. Yugoslavia was liberated 99,103% with it's own forces and all that was recognized by the Allies (for example Sir Fitzroy Maclaine was in the british missions etc.)--Vbb-sk-mk 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Army 

message: :Image:Skjslov.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skjslov.gif

message: :Image:Skjmace.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skjmace.gif

message: :Image:Skjitaly.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skjitaly.gif

message: :Image:Skjhung.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skjhung.gif

message: :Image:Skjcroat.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skjcroat.gif

message: :Image:Skjalb.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Skjalb.gif

message: I'm asking about it was anything wrong with Tito's republic. After all (most) things I've heard, it was not as worst. 
Can someone come with good/bad things? (also those subjective)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.16.168.251 (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  O.K.? 

message: The ideological aspects listed are relevant, Stalinism and Titoism were significantly different, yet both still forms of Communism. Informbiro vs Yugoslavism? Saying that a communist organisation has a communist ideology may well be redundant, but describing its position on the spectrum of the left (as described in reliable sources) is entirely relevant. Regards, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 09:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Just one question: are we sure CPY is far-left? It may have been far-left at the beggining, but seems much more moderate in the overall. FkpCascais (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology in infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on League of Communists of Yugoslavia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928053218/http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/incs/home/data/pdf/INCS_18_ONLINE.pdf to http://www.mzes.uni-mannheim.de/projekte/incs/home/data/pdf/INCS_18_ONLINE.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article in to be clean up. Too many stuff doesn't categorized to simply history, need bot for this. Firman.Nst (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many section 

message: So I've looked at some of the recent additions to the infobox regarding ideology, and my question is this, aren't Socialist self-management, Market socialism and Yugoslav federalism just elements of Titoism? Also, can we really say for sure that Third-Worldism and military neutrality were actually part of their primary ideological line, as opposed to just general policies? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right regarding the socialist self-management and third-worldism being parts of Titoism. I don't think market socialism and military neutrality are even ideologies per se, likely only aspects of Titoism in the context of Yugoslavia.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They should only be listed as ideologies IF reliable sources call them that. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 12:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Peacemaker67.--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Peacemaker67 too on that. Vacant0 (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Key sources for the ideology of the Yugoslav communists include: Lampe and Mazower (2004), Johnson & Griffith (1972), Malesevic (2013), etc. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 08:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip. I have access to Lampe & Mazower and to Malešević. Can you tell me the title of the Johnson & Griffith source?--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The Transformation of Communist Ideology: The Yugoslav Case, 1945-1953. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 12:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm still going through the above and a few other books, so I'd rather say when I'm done with them. I'll post here on the matter asap.--Tomobe03 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay great, keep it up! Vacant0 (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell from the above and those used in the article Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Marxism–Leninism (although this seems a bit redundant) are certainly supported by the sources as KPJ/SKJ ideologies. Titoism is a bit strange as some authorities (including Tito) went on record to say it is not an ideology, but other did. I'd include it anyway (and I'll add a bit on that in the article in the context of Tito's death). Others, I'd say no. Those are either not ideologies per se (one could say some of them are policies) and should be omitted in the infobox and dealt with appropriately in the article (if relevant). For instance "self-governing socialism" is listed and linked to Socialist self-management - article which does not describe the phenomenon as an "ideology", but the article covers the topic. Similar applies to "market socialism". Yugoslavism as ideology certainly exists, but in the context of formation of (the kingdom of) Yugoslavia as also reflected in the Yugoslavism article. There was a Yugoslavism campaign in socialist Yugoslavia, but sources dealing with the matter do not describe that as an ideology, but a "campaign". The KPJ/SKJ article deals with the topic accordingly. Federalism and neutrality are certainly not described by any reliable source as ideologies. Sure they're policies, and the KPJ/SKJ article deals with federalism in that way. Neutrality should be (i think) dealt with through the non-aligned movement aspect. At any rate, militay neutrality certainly does not appear to be pursued from WW2 until mid-1950s (first obviously as the WWII went on, and then presence of Soviet advisers until 1948, and then alignment with Greece/Turkey). I could not see how neutrality would work in pre-1941 context. Anti-fascism is described by the corresponding article as an "official ideology in the Soviet bloc". Now, this means it could be mentioned, except I saw no particular source saying "KPJ adopted the ideology of anti-fascism", but since the anti-fascism (without explicitly saying it is a ideology or a policy) is amply sourced in the article, I would not be entirely opposed to listing it under the ideologies section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  So to sum up, Communism, Marxism-Leninism and Titoism should stay? Vacant0 (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say so, yes. If something else is sourced later, it can always be added.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, changed. Thank you!! Vacant0 (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree, infobox should only list key ideologies of a party, other cited ideologies can be instead added in different sections of an article. Vacant0 (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent ideological additions

message: I'm wondering what is the purpose of having the diagrams depciting seats held 1920 Constitutional Assembly of the Kingdom of SCS and the seats held in the Federal Assembly of SFR Yugoslavia in the infobox as presented there. I find the following issues problematic:
#I believe these diagrams are meant to present performance of active political parties, i.e. seats currently held forex in European Parliament, national legislature, number of country 1st level division heads out of the total number, number of mayors out of the total number in a given country etc. - none of which would apply here. Granted, the template documentation says nothing on this, but it just seems strange to have a bar chart depict SKJ holding 354 seats in anything now. But this is less important.
#The lower graph (354 seats) is incorrect for several reasons: the 1945 assembly had more seats - there were 354 in one chamber, and I believe (not sure right now) about 150 in another. Furthermore, not all of those were formally SKJ seats, at least some 50-ish were won by HRSS. The problem with ascertaining the number for 1945 elections is that the SKJ kept its membership secret until 1948 and it would be really impossible to determine SKJ share with any confidence except to say it was a great majority.
#The number of seats in the post-1945 assembly changed a lot. At one time, the assembly had five chambers, at other times a single chamber or two or three. Having a chart for each iteration would serve no purpose which could not be served in a hypothetical or actual article on given elections if there are such sources.
#The bar chart on the 1920 assembly is factually correct, but it seems out of place, at least to me per above and decorative at best.
In short, I'd like to remove those infobox fields if there's no particular reason to keep them.--Tomobe03 (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who added them but in my opinion, they can be removed since they're meant to represent the seats of modern-day parties. The number of seats in the Federal Assembly did change over time (I think) and you did give your explanation why they should be removed, so if you want to, you can remove them. Vacant0 (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seats held (infobox) 

message: In my opinion, it is worth adding national communism to the ideology of this party. There are sources that confirm that it was one of the most important elements. For example, this source: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/abs/origins-of-national-communism-in-yugoslavia/EDAED1ED8EE3880DEECB7A2A63DD894E Adijos08 (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: has already pointed out that the national communism is an aspect of Titoism which is already noted in the infobox. I have read the paper (it is used as a source of the wiki article and available through JSTOR), and I did not get the impression he was wrong or that your claim is confirmed by the paper. Could you point me to the exact page/passage directly confirming that this was one of the most important elements of KPJ ideology without WP:SYNTH?--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

text: And I have already responded that the source you offered is used in the article as a source. And Vacant0 and I have also noted that this is a part of Titoism.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

text: On a further note, Adijos08, you have not provided the exact page/passage in the first (or the second source) directly confirming that this was one of the most important elements of KPJ ideology without WP:SYNTH.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

text: Infobox represents a summary of elements, Titoism like Marxism–Leninism is made up of numerous ideologies and political stances, and those political stances are already mentioned on both of those pages respectively. Adding them here in the infobox is going to create more clutter and confusion for readers, if they are interested enough to learn more about Titoism they would go and read the page instead. --Vacant0 (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  National communism. 

message: I tried finding a source for the far-left position but I wasn't able to find any, were you able to find it? --Vacant0 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , I'm sure it shouldn't be problematic to find some source claiming KPJ/SKJ was far left - reliable sources might be a different thing. I have noted occassional additions to the infobox of the "far left" appelation. For the sake of anyone adding this, I wish they could add a source - at least in plain text here in talk page if unsure how else. I'd love to include any relevant information reliably sourced - I'm not cheering for a particular version of the article. I'll take a look though.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

text: On further reflection, It is meaningless to explain if the KPJ is left or far left in e.g. 1955 by asking "left of what in a single party system?" What would it be then further to the left from? Alternatively, there could be a reliable source assigning all communist parties to the far-left category regardless of specificities (i.e. equally to the French CP and the Cambodian one). We could try that maybe? It wouldn't be very informative, but the article would be more stable in that respect.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

text: At the peril of this becoming my musings: The situation is very complex to say the least. The picture was hardly uniform and it changed over time. For example, Banac, With Stalin Against Tito has a chart showing who's left, who's ultraleft, and who's centrist to varying degrees in 1933-1939 (p.66). According to Banac, ultraleftists are Marić, Kusovac, Miletić, Đilas and Ranković (at least in 1938-1939), leftists are Tito, Kardelj, Leskošek, Marinko, Kraš, Žaja, Petrović, but also Đilas and Ranković (until 1938), Centrists are Hebrang, Gorkić and Pijade, while Žujović and Čolaković are someplace between left and centre. It is concievable to add a sentence sourced to this reference saying that various KPJ members were at various times leftifst to varying degrees and that the divisions changed over time.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. It seems like an editor added a citation regarding that claim although I myself wasn't able to find the quotation for "far-left" or "extreme left". I've added the rq tag for now and if it isn't in the text then we can remove it. Cheers, --Vacant0 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

text:  More importantly, page number is missing making it difficult to verify.  could you please specify? Cheers!--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree completely. Another problem is that the party changed its ideological positions over its 70-year history wildly - except for the "communist" appelation - in response to circumstances. It was the closest ally to the USSR and its sworn enemy, it professed Yugoslav unitarism, federalism, advocated breakup of Yugoslavia and its preservation, attempted to reinterpret Marxism, "invented" variously defined Titoism for which Tito said it never existed, not to mention policies pushed by factions (Rankovićism, Đilasism etc.). Cramming all this into the infobox would defeat the purpose of the infobox and, as you said without context it is meaningless. I think ideologies prevailing from time to time should be noted in the prose only (at appropriate places in the timeline to give readers context), and only those most significant and nearly universally applicable presented in the lede and the infobox. IMO, ideologies adopted by the party but having little or no significant impact on the overall issue of the party history should not be given undue weight and should be presented in branching articles on specific events, periods etc. Needless to say, everything must be referenced to reliable sources. Cheers.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Left and right are metaphoric ends of the political spectrum in a multi-party democracy. In single-party states the entire political spectrum resides within the same party - the one which is by definition perennially in power. If you have a communist party in a multi-party democracy such as France or Germany then yeah, within that context these would have to be defined as left. But in an actual communist state the label is pointless - if it is left, then what is it left of? As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, lefties in the West traditionally saw the country as the least totalitarian version of communism available, especially compared to the Soviet Union and other countries behind the Iron Curtain. Paradoxically, they judged these societies by applying the criteria that liberal democracies use for themselves, i.e. by the level of personal freedoms enjoyed. And using that metric Yugoslavia was indeed the least lefty of them all. Timbouctou (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100% - I wrote the same thing back on 4 Aug above.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree. --Vacant0 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Far-left claim