By: Gašper Blažič
“You could simply answer that a socialist tries to lead us to disaster with reckless words, while a communist might attempt to take us there through violent actions.”
This is how British statesman Winston Churchill once responded to the question about the difference between socialism and communism. Naturally, quotes like this stem from the period after the end of World War II, when it became increasingly clear how the British – at the cost of the blood of countless innocent people, who, partly due to their actions, ended up in the clutches of communist regimes, including Tito’s – realised just how deeply they had been deceived. This was particularly evident when Tito’s regime began brutally cracking down on “British spies”, among whom was Ljubo Sirc.
This quote should be presented primarily to all those naïve individuals (if they truly are naïve) who claim that Slovenia never experienced communism, only socialism, without even understanding the difference or stepping out of the ideological bubble of the past regime. This regime, on the one hand, paternalistically satisfied the needs of the masses, while on the other, it ruthlessly suppressed anyone who strayed outside the narrowly defined party framework. Churchill, as usual, was brutally honest and did not mince words when evaluating socialism either. According to him, socialism is “inextricably intertwined with totalitarianism and servile worship of the state”. He stated, “There must be one state to which all are obedient in every action of their lives. That state is supposed to be the chief employer, the chief planner, the chief administrator … Socialism, in its essence, is an attack on the right of the ordinary man or woman to breathe freely, without the sharp, clumsy, tyrannical hand slapping them across the mouth and nostrils.”
Many might wonder how to categorise present-day Slovenia, which is formally a democratic and lawful state. But into such formalities, one can pack all sorts of content. Imagine wrapping feces in golden cellophane. The wrapping does not change the essence – feces remain feces. Or, as our southern neighbors would say: “Same sh*t, different packaging.” How this manifests in practice today was evident in the response of the largest ruling party to the protest in front of the Celje court. It appears the authorities will do everything in their power to ensure no such protest occurs again. In the name of democracy and freedom, they will suppress both. Freedom and democracy, it seems, apply only to those who agree with the ruling elites. Because they are in power now, and “if it is not us, that would mean someone else, but that is not the case right now, and it never will be.” This sentiment echoes the tirade of a famous mushroom-picker from the Yugoslav political elite in Split over half a century ago.
The current tragedy of Slovenia lies primarily in a misunderstanding of the true meaning of words. After all, socialism throughout history presented itself as a movement for the rights of the common man, and there were always enough people who naively believed in it. Just as today, half a million people in Slovenia still believe that the current government or coalition is a guardian of the people against “Janšism”. The question arises: why such demonisation of Janez Janša? Perhaps primarily because he is practically the only representative of the independence generation whom they have repeatedly tried to remove – unsuccessfully each time. This is not merely about Janez Janša as an individual but about everyone who found themselves, in one way or another, “on the wrong side of history” – at least in the eyes of a clique rooted in the legacy of UDBA’s “revolving doors”. And not only on the wrong side of history but also, evidently, on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall.
If Janez Janša is convicted in the Trenta case (and such a ruling is likely to come, at least at the first instance), it would symbolically condemn the entire Slovenian Spring as some sort of hooliganism. Yet, fundamentally, this is about the “technology of power”, as one of the interrogators during the UDBA torture of young Jože Pučnik inadvertently admitted. Similarly, in the Patria case, it was known that the verdict would be overturned at higher levels. However, the masterminds behind it used convictions in lower courts to gain enough time and influence public opinion, allowing elections to proceed and the “democratic decision” that “criminals” must not govern.
So now you know the difference between socialism and communism: in socialism, at least formally, the people decide – they raise their hands for what the central committee dictates. Do you understand the difference?
