73
In the first years after World War II a thesis was politically enforced that the new Yugoslav
(Slovene) authority was building a new system following the model of the SU (a system of
people's democracy), which would ensure justice and a good life to all the working people,
and that there would be no more exploitation as had been experienced in the Yugoslavia of
that time. There would be no more exploitation. At the same time, particularly in the west, the
anti-thesis was present that Yugoslavia (Slovenia) had become a communist state and the
most loyal ally to the SU.
After a dispute with the Information Bureau in 1948 and the introduction of self-
management in companies, the view changed. The Soviet version of socialism had
become just as exploitative as capitalism, while the true decision-making by the people,
progress and a just society could only be guaranteed by self-management. The anti-thesis,
especially in the circles of political emigration, was that self-management had not changed the
essence of socialism in Yugoslavia and that it was still a Bolshevist model of society.
In the seventies, after dealing with »liberalism«, a new myth was created that the delegational
system, which is founded on the so-called pluralism of the self-managing socialist interests, is
the most democratic system in the world; more democratic than real socialism and classic
parliamentary systems, since it enables decision-making to the widest possible circle of
people, while at the same time guaranteeing a high personal and social standard. The opposite
thesis was that the system is merely covering up the fact that society is actually governed by a
communist union or a narrow leading class of »comrades«.
After the end of socialism (communism) an altered view began to appear, saying that
totalitarianism had ruled Slovenia for forty-five years and in all of its existence basically
remained unchanged. The objection against this was that socialism had indeed been
totalitarian in the first post-war years, but was later (particularly from the sixties onwards)
mainly a good system, with open borders, enabling high social protection of the people, equal
possibilities of schooling, full employment and a relatively good standard.
The Origin and Creation of Myths and Anti-Myths or Theses and Anti-Theses
With the creation of a communist party in Slovenia in April of 1920 and its inclusion in the
Communist Party of Yugoslavia in July of the same year, a party began functioning in
Slovenia with a clear revolutionary program, whose goal was the establishment of an
74
authoritative monopoly of the working class (a dictatorship of the proletariat). Already in
December of 1920 the operation of the Communist Party was banned (the so-called
Obznana), and in August of 1921 communist activity was declared criminal by the
decree on the protection of the state.
68
Before the ban, in the restless and revolutionary
post-war circumstances, it had achieved some success at the elections (at the elections to the
constituent assembly it received 12.36 percent of votes and was, judging by strength, the
third party in the country)
69
, however in the twenties it did not have a large influence on
politics. The CP operated illegally after the ban and the Catholic camp immediately branded it
as its worst adversary, under the influence of the revolutionary circumstances of the time and
the explicit opposition to communism, which was coming from the Vatican after the October
Revolution. »The sole serious adversary, with which we must concern ourselves, is, in my
point of view, only the Communist Party. The struggle of the future will only be a struggle
between Christian democracy and socialism«.
70
In the twenties the opponents of communism
were politically and propagandistically significantly more successful; thus the anti-myth was
more successful than the myth. In the middle of the thirties the CP became stronger and at that
time the advocates of communism (socialism) and its opponents had the most powerful
confrontation. It was a direct political and propagandistic struggle between the left-wing and
the right-wing, which had reached one of its peaks at the time of the Spanish civil war. At that
time the combative anti-communism reached a stage when the right-wing newspapers called
for the establishing of a rural watch as defense from the communists,
71
while the leading daily
newspaper of the Catholic camp wrote: »The only one that is fighting for the future, in
addition to Catholicism, is communism. During its operation, communism had been given so
many shapes that it is hard to recognize; the newest form is the People's Front, which has also
appeared among the Slovenes. Only two things are possible today: either the future is
Catholic, or it is communist.«
72
Continuously between both wars, especially in the thirties, the
newspaper Slovenec, carefully and frequently reported on what was happening in the SU –
particularly on the position of the Church, the anti-religion policy, the rise of Stalin to power
68
Jurij Perovšek, Nastanek komunistične stranke na Slovenskem, in: Slovenska kronika XX. stoletja (1900-
1941), volume 1, Ljubljana 1995, p. 240, 241.
69
Zgodovina Zveze komunistov Jugoslavije, Ljubljana 1986, p. 77.
70
Govor dr. Antona Korošca, predsednika Slovenske ljudske stranke, na zboru strankarskih zaupnikov [Speech
by Dr. Anton Korošec, President of the Slovene People's Party, at a Convention of Party Confidants], Slovenec,
8. 4. 1920.
71
Kaj pa komunisti?, Domoljub, September 10, 1936, No. 50, p. 770.
72
Slovenec, 26. 7. 1936.
Dostları ilə paylaş: |