Caring for the worker emancipated Yugoslavia: Klasić for "Vijesti" on workers' rights under socialism

The attitude towards work and workers in socialist Yugoslavia marked the creation of a completely new, modern, emancipated society.

This was stated by a Croatian historian in an interview with "Vijesti". Hrvoje Klasic, assessing that, from today's perspective, the then model of protecting workers' rights looks "almost unreal".

“... I once taught my students and told them: 'You come from the countryside, almost without school, you get a job, then your factory, your company, gives you an apartment - to people who grew up without electricity, slept on straw, who never saw a doctor, let alone thought about hospital treatment or sick leave. What does that look like to you?' They say: 'It's not that we have a hard time imagining getting an apartment, it's that we have a hard time imagining getting a job'. So, we've taken two steps back...", claims Klasić.

He notes, however, that despite the positive aspects of the system, there were also undeniable flaws.

"The state, in a way, bought social peace and a good feeling among workers because there were no mass layoffs, there was no problem like in the West. That's why the state was borrowing abroad, and that's why salaries were lower. In fact, it never managed to find a balance on how to reconcile that," says Klasić.

How did May Day celebrations reflect the importance of work and the working class in socialist Yugoslavia?

It should be taken into account that every communist party is based, first and foremost, on the proletarians, or rather - the workers. And if anything is important, then it is workers' rights. Accordingly, the most important holiday internationally is - Labor Day. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia particularly valued this holiday because it was banned in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia almost from its founding, since 1920. Since it was not allowed to have its own gatherings, it was not allowed to have its own congresses, to attract people, etc., then, in fact, workers' gatherings were used, including May Day celebrations, festivities, and in a way, people were lobbied and approached at them. Along with Republic Day, May 1 was certainly the most important holiday in socialist Yugoslavia.

It was a country where the working class took power, and of course a lot of attention was paid to workers, their rights, and it had to be shown that the state had made a big step forward in comparison to workers' rights before World War II, but also in comparison to countries that were not socialist.

First of all, the possibility of getting a job was raised to a higher level, the possibility for workers to receive additional training, working conditions... It may sound incredible today, but when factories were built - care was taken to ensure that workers were satisfied, that they felt comfortable in their space, in addition to making a living. That the point was not in the capital that would be produced, but in the fact that those who produced - felt good.

The factory circles and factory halls were also adapted to this, but so were the places where workers lived. Until 1945, Yugoslavia was mostly an agrarian country, a country of peasants, and then it was necessary to create a working class, so that the masses of peasants would come to the cities. They had to be settled somewhere, to provide them with a different life in terms of healthcare, education, work, leisure time and everything else. In this sense, the worker was certainly the center of attention.

Does this mean that workers in Yugoslavia had a greater sense of security, dignity, and social inclusion than they do today?

Absolutely. Not only today, but also, at that moment, in countries that had already started some form of capitalist economy. There was a guaranteed annual vacation, guaranteed sick leave... Salaries were certainly not at the level of salaries in developed Western countries, but there was security and it increased from year to year. Of course, we should not forget that Yugoslavia went through different phases - from a euphoric, phase of large-scale construction, until somewhere in the early 60s, and then it entered a phase where it wanted to make a step towards the market. Not everything went without problems there.

That economic reform in the mid-60s, for the first time, brought into question whether we should think about the number of employees, the level of salaries and everything else. However, all of that was still much, much safer than it was in Western countries.

Some will say that perhaps this certainty is excessive, that it is the reason why this economy did not show the best results. When I say workers' rights, these are not just material rights. With the introduction of self-management in 1950, Yugoslavia wanted to show that it remained a socialist country, but better than the Soviet Union and other European communist countries.

In contrast to state ownership, they introduce the so-called social ownership. So, those who produce are the owners of the means of production. Workers' councils are created, workers' councils in which representatives of workers from direct production begin to participate in making decisions important for the business of a company. This will then even be implemented in this part outside of work - because self-management was not only in the economy, but also in everyday life.

Self-government also referred to the high level of citizen participation in making decisions important for their local community, municipality.

As contradictory as it may sound to some today, the Yugoslav one-party system, that self-governing socialism, implied, both in theory and in practice, much greater citizen participation than we have today in democracy, in a multi-party system. Today, when you have 30-40 percent in elections, that is taken as a good result of those who voted, and you actually had referendums all over Yugoslavia every weekend. In various ways, citizens participated in making some decisions, and those referendums generally had around 90 percent turnout. So, citizens directly participated in making important decisions for the community.

What did worker safety entail?

They made sure that the workers got enough rest. Today, when you live in a developed capitalist society, for example in America, industrialists don't even think about it. Let alone somewhere in Asia, they think about it... And back then you had a mandatory weekend off, then going on vacation - where it was suggested that the workers had to go on a summer vacation - and resorts were opened, people went on winter vacations. At first, this even caused resistance among some workers, because some who had a house and land were waiting every moment to work that land, so they didn't want to waste time, going to the sea, lying on the beach...

There were those who were embarrassed because they had never traveled outside their home in their lives, had never packed suitcases, had never eaten in a restaurant with many people, had no idea what to do at the reception...

This experiment was comprehensive. The attitude towards work and the worker actually meant the creation of a completely new, modern, emancipated society.

I would especially emphasize the role of women, who certainly gained greater rights in their private lives, but also in the right to work. Much greater than they were even at that time in the USA. In the West, for a long time, women could not have their own checking account or cards, but everything went to their husbands. A number of things were different. Many women were employed.

We can, of course, compare the situation with today's, but that's not the best way. What did people who, say, worked in Nikšić, Sisak, Zenica in the 60s - what did these people do just twenty years earlier, during World War II or before that, how and in what kind of societies did they live, and what did their families' lives look like in the 60s? It certainly didn't look like the most developed parts of France or Great Britain, but it progressed incredibly," says Klasić.

I must also mention this, so to speak, dark side, although it is not really dark: women gained greater rights and the possibility of new jobs - but, unfortunately, they were left with all their old jobs. In that patriarchal Yugoslav society, men did not take over most of the ironing, cooking and childcare - these were still mostly carried out by women, but they also went to the factories.

It is clear that this system had advantages, but what were its other disadvantages?

The disadvantages are, as with any socialist or communist society, a planned economy - where, in fact, it is not the market that determines the price of products, the price of labor, productivity. The state, in a way, bought social peace and a good feeling among workers because there were no mass layoffs, there was no such problem as in the West. Because of this, the state also borrowed abroad, and because of this, salaries were lower. In fact, it never managed to find a balance on how to reconcile this.

Famous economist and economic historian Ljubomir Madjar from Belgrade, said that the fact that some reforms were constantly being implemented means that something was wrong with it. Because when you have to constantly reform something - it means that something is wrong. The country adapted, and the economy adapted, but in principle - that one relationship always hung over the head. Many will say that when something is social, everyone's - it is no one's, and then, in fact, the relationship towards it is like that. So, yes, there were dark sides, but I would say that the potential was greater than could be realized. And for several reasons.

For example, I know that in the early 70s, conferences were held in Amsterdam, where political scientists and directors from Yugoslavia were brought in to lecture industrialists from Sweden, Great Britain, and Germany to see if self-management - a form of worker participation - could somehow improve work, could it satisfy workers. And they (foreigners) saw some potential in it.

In my doctoral thesis, I dealt with the fact that in 1965 Yugoslavia wanted to implement an economic reform that was supposed to be something between that planned state economy and a free market, but it did not have the personnel to implement it. According to some statistics, in the 60s, 30-40 percent of all financial directors had only primary education. The mass of them got positions because they had been in important positions during the war, or because they had simply participated in the war.

Today we often hear criticism of that system, of that practice. Today we don't need to think about those theories, and perhaps with today's knowledge and the experience we have, perhaps something could be done in that direction so that this is not so savage and so dehumanizing, as we see more and more of today.

How do you, from today's perspective, evaluate the socialist model of protecting workers' rights?

I think that is almost unreal from today's perspective. I will tell you just one fact - I once taught my students and told them: "You come from the countryside, almost without school, you get a job, then your factory, your company, gives you an apartment - to people who grew up without electricity, slept on straw, who never saw a doctor, let alone thought about treatment in a hospital or sick leave. How does that look to you?" They say: "It's not that it's hard for us to imagine getting an apartment, it's that it's hard for us to imagine getting a job."

So, we've taken two steps back. People often tell me that it was possible back then, because the state or factories built apartments. I tell them that today we have so-called tycoons, people who are very, very rich, who have large companies - so when someone thought of building a building with ten apartments and said: "Here, this is for the ten poorest or the families who are in the greatest need, the most children". It wouldn't mean anything to them. I would say that solidarity and a sense of community have disappeared. A sense of solidarity, that you are ready to sacrifice yourself for another.

We can, of course, compare the circumstances with today's, but that's not the best way. What did the people who, say, worked in Nikšić, in Sisak, in Zenica in the 60s - what did these people do just twenty years earlier, during World War II or before that, how and in what kind of societies did they live, and what did the life of their families look like in the 60s? It certainly didn't look like in the most developed parts of France or Great Britain, but it progressed incredibly.

When student demonstrations broke out in Belgrade in 1968, the students said, “We like the theory, we support the theory, but in practice you have gone astray,” and they took to the streets. I have studied the letters that Titus came from their parents and grandparents, especially those who had been in the war. They wrote to Tito and said: "Comrade Tito, we don't understand what these young people are rebelling against. So, can it be better than what we live in today?"

This needs to be taken into account. For those people who were born in 1920 in Pljevlja, in Berane, in Sisak or Zaječar - life changed incredibly in a very, very short time.

But even then, there were those who lived very poorly, despite all the advantages you mention?

There are probably some societies where there are no people who live badly. I must admit that I don't remember under socialism so many people digging in dumpsters, collecting plastic bottles, or living off of that, or that there were so many beggars.

It certainly was, of course it was, but I don't think any capitalist country can say that everyone lives better there. I wouldn't like to say now that our standard of living hasn't improved - in that sense, of course, the whole world is progressing, in terms of health, transportation, and everything else. But I repeat: we need to take into account the level of poverty that existed only 15-20 years ago, the level of health care, the level of educational opportunities...

I will just tell you the fact that in the mid-60s, Yugoslavia was the third country in the world in terms of the number of students per capita. Only the USA and Russia had more students per capita. Not Great Britain, not Germany or France - but Yugoslavia.

You could be from a very, very poor family and your child could not only finish high school, but also go to college and get a doctorate, without you having to pay for it the way it was paid for in the West. There have always been people who lived hard lives, and we have to take that into account and try to avoid all the bad things in some way. But all those things that at least in theory, and many of them in practice, looked good, should be taken into account and perhaps upgraded with the experience and knowledge that we have gained in the meantime.

And not what we did, at least we did in Croatia, which was that from 1945 to 1990 there was "absolute darkness", that everyone lived in fear, that everyone lived in insecurity, that everything was the worst... And then we started in 1990, so we actually made all the worst things that were during the communist period even worse: corruption, party affiliation, and robbery, and we decided to forget the good things.

They played a much bigger role in foreign policy than any heiress today

Your series about Yugoslavia will soon begin airing on Television Vijesti. Can you tell us more about the series?

The series has six episodes, it's called “Tito's Yugoslavia.” Why “Tito's Yugoslavia”? Because I didn't deal with the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, nor with the breakup of Yugoslavia. I deal with Yugoslavia from the end of World War II until the emergence of Slobodan Milošević.

The series does not follow the development of Yugoslavia chronologically, but thematically - from foreign policy, culture, consumer society, everyday life and everything else.

About forty PhDs participate in the series, talking about it. It was filmed from Goli Otok and Trieste, to Pristina and Montenegro.

I don't remember when a series was actually made that covered socialist Yugoslavia in such a comprehensive way. Many will be reminded of some things, and the young people who are my students, who are now in the 2006-2007 class, will certainly hear a lot of new things.

The series is not a lexicon, nor is it mythology, nor is it a nostalgic memory, but it also talks about the dark sides - from the showdown after 1945, Goli Otok, it also talks about problems, shortages and departures to Trieste, but also about the fact that Yugoslavia played a far greater role in foreign policy than any state that emerged from its disintegration could ever imagine.

In one entire episode, we cover how the life of an ordinary individual changed from 1945 to 1990.

We tried to emphasize that one specificity of Yugoslavia, which was socialist, but in which you had abstract art, in which you had Hollywood actors, in which you had American films... A country that had extremes, but what was somehow mainstream was very interesting and inspiring to many in the East and the West.