Revolution of Yugoslavia's people

[RoniCommunist]

The first person of the revolution was J.B. Tito. The revolutioners was called Partizans. In them revolution they had many problems with Germanian nazi's Croatian nazi's and Serbian chetniks(nazi). They won and they created a socialist country - YUGOSLAVIA. There was living Macedonians, Bosnians, Albanians, Serbians, Croatians, Albanians. Tito united three religions, 5 kind of people, 4 languages in one country - Yugoslavia. The live in Yugoslavia was good. It was one pasport and you had to walk anywhere what you want. If you had done some wrong guest they sent to ,, Goli Otok `` a kind of jail. Now the countries are democratic.. And the life in they countries are disaster.. No jobs for the people.. Drugs.. and anything what didn't have in Yugoslavia..:(:(:(:(

[Bandito]

If you had done some wrong guest they sent to ,, Goli Otok ``Is it wrong to be a real communist, and still finish your life in Goli Otok.
All of Yugoslavia's true revolutionaries, those who carried out the glorious struggle in WW2, became victims of Tito, Ranković, and other spineless ****s.

However, the title "Revolution of the Yugoslavian people" is a good title. Yugoslavian partisans carried out good battles and produced lots of good revolutionaries (most of them assasinated in Goli Otok after the liberation).

[RoniCommunist]

ya... but аt goli otok goes people who were versus communism and Yugoslavia... :rolleyes:

[The Author]

ya... but аt goli otok goes people who were versus communism and Yugoslavia...

He's right. Too many good communists were thrown into Goli Otok, and not only that, but the Titoites are also responsible for funding weapons to the Batista regime in Cuba, harassing the People's Republic of Albania on numerous occasions, making reconciliationist attempts with the West as a member of "the Free World" in order to boost trade, and having the League of Communists pull out of Cominform because they felt they were immune from criticism of policies from other communist parties which belonged to that group. That, plus the abysmal "worker's self-management" and "Marxist humanism" all were negative aspects of Yugoslavia.

[Manifesto]

Nice to know know that with me being very Croatian.:(

[RoniCommunist]

He's right. Too many good communists were thrown into Goli Otok, and not only that, but the Titoites are also responsible for funding weapons to the Batista regime in Cuba, harassing the People's Republic of Albania on numerous occasions, making reconciliationist attempts with the West as a member of "the Free World" in order to boost trade, and having the League of Communists pull out of Cominform because they felt they were immune from criticism of policies from other communist parties which belonged to that group. That, plus the abysmal "worker's self-management" and "Marxist humanism" all were negative aspects of Yugoslavia.

of course i'm right :lol:

[RoniCommunist]

Tito was legend and all of the people were love him and have a lot of respect for him.
Expecialy the kids.

[RoniCommunist]

Tito was legend and all of the people were love him and have a lot of respect for him.
Expecialy the kids.

:cool::cool:

[mykittyhasaboner]

Can you stop spamming? Oh yeah and fuck Tito. If he was loved by everyone why was my grandfather (a military prosecutor in Slovenia, and a committed Marxist-Leninist who fought in the war) purged from his position for opposing the split with the Soviet Union? He had to go to Goli Otok every time someone important came to visit in Serbia where he lived, since he was a "dissident". I'm asking because this is the story of many people, not just my grandfather.




Titoites are also responsible for funding weapons to the Batista regime in Cuba
I didn't know this, could you elaborate? Maybe give one or two sources?

[RoniCommunist]

I really don't know.. ask you grandfather if he isn't dead :blushing:
And don't say Fuck Tito.. it's so stupid to say that.. :(

[mykittyhasaboner]

I really don't know.. ask you grandfather if he isn't dead :blushing:

He is.


And don't say Fuck Tito.. it's so stupid to say that.. :(Maybe it is, but so is "everyone loved Tito". The guy was one of the most revisionist leaders of the socialist movement; he fits right up there with Pol Pot, Deng, and Khrushchev.

[RoniCommunist]

I'm sry.

[Ismail]

The only reason people care about Tito is because his right-hand man Kardelj uttered the words "workers self-management" and then pseudo-socialists took it seriously and not as a buzzword which was designed to hide the state-capitalist nature of Yugoslavia. Also, social-democrats dig his break with Stalin even though he patched up relations with the USSR after Stalin died.

This is a decent read: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html

Enver Hoxha's Yugoslav "Self-Administration" - A Capitalist Theory and Practice is also reputed to be quite good.

A friend summed him up nicely: "His concept of Socialist economics was the New Deal of FDR, his concept of 'Socialist Democracy' was Serbo-Slovenian and Croat chauvinism, his concept of 'Revolution' involved being Social-Democratic, he was one of the worst revisionists who ever lived. He is in the Revisionist pantheon alongside Bernstein, Kautsky and others."

[The Author]

I didn't know this, could you elaborate? Maybe give one or two sources?It was actually Fidel Castro who mentioned Tito's collaborationist efforts with Batista in 1959, during the Cuban revolution. Fidel mentioned this during a speech he made regarding the 1968 Czechoslovak invasion, and comes from here:

http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1968/19680824.html

This is the particular reference to Tito and Batista which I source from that link:


Some will say that (?I err, but) I am going to show at least some facts.
Tito was received as a hero in Prague a few weeks ago. Th is was the result
of what? Of the ideological weakening, of the political weakness in the
consciousness of the masses. And were we not saying, how this can be? And
to what extremes we are going, when this element--known to be revisionist,
condemned historically by the revolutionary movement, which has taken the
role of an agent of imperialism--was received by a nation practically as a
hero? Now, of course, Tito is one of those most scandalized by this event
of the participation of Warsaw Pact countries in Czechoslovakia.

Cuban Purchase of Yugoslav Arms

I was saying that some will ask why have we been so tenacious in our
attitude toward the Yugoslav League of Communists. We want to point out a
fact, a very important fact from the beginning of the revolution regarding
our relations with Yugoslavia. It was in the year 1959, when our country
had already made the first laws, when not only had we begun in our country
the agrarian reform that brought us into confrontation with imperialism,
but also, in the United States, the first plot against us was already being
hatched.

At that time we did not have relations as yet with the USSR or with other
countries of the socialist camp. And we had to buy our arms in some
capitalist countries. We made our first purchases of arms in Belgium and
Italy. Because of pressure by the imperialists, and first not by pressure
but by CIA conspiracy, there was an explosion on one of the ships coming
from Belgium with arms, which resulted in around 80 victims. Later, the
Belgian Government, under pressure from the U.S. Government, stopped
selling arms.

Meanwhile, the United States was preparing its mercenaries against us and
on the other hand was carrying out its policy of blockading our purchase of
arms. The Italian Government at that time was under such pressures. We
recall that we were trying to buy 16 mortars--16 mortars from Italy, and
they had already sold us four and (?some parts) of the other 12. But under
pressure of the Yankee imperialists, they stopped the sale of the 12
pieces. That left us practically with four pieces and (?parts) of the
others, but without the cannon.

In this situation, we turned to the Yugoslav Government to try to buy some
arms, including the 12 cannon and some 120 mortars and some other pieces.
And here we have a report by the comrade in charge of that mission, Maj
Jose M. Fernandez Alvarez.

And here is it in synthesis; I am going to read this information. It says:

In 1959, as the Batista tyranny was defeated, after the defeat of the
tyranny, military equipment had to be acquired. This equipment was needed
urgently and immediately to defend the revolution, whose laws and measures
in process of being promulgated would surely cause hate among its logical
enemies, who would try to destroy it.

On a tip that was given us, we got in touch with the ambassador of the
Yugoslav republic at the end of 1959 and at the beginning of 1960, in a
very superficial manner. Later, we went to visit him in the Yugoslav
Embassy on 42nd Street and (Tercera) Miramar, accompanies by Maj Raul
Castro. On this visit, the minister of the armed forces informed the
ambassador of Cuba's interest in buying arms and equipment, especially
light infantry arms, rifles, machineguns, rocket launchers, mortars, and
ammunition. The ambassador was evasive in general, and when the minister
said something about payments, he said that the matter of arms was a
different matter in regard to payments and that many details (?were
involved). The minister indicated to the ambassador that I should stay in
contact with him to learn about prices and the arms available, and to carry
forward negotiations in this regard.

It as extraordinarily difficult to carry out this task since the lists were
delayed. Evasive answers were constantly given us. It was said that there
were no arms available and that they had to be manufactured, that the
prices had not arrived; and when the prices were finally in our possession,
they dealt especially with small caliber arms at extraordinarily high
prices, even on the international market. Before this and afterward, when
we tried to get arms in Yugoslavia, some comrades went to Yugoslavia and
also tried to arrange for the purchase of arms with the same results, with
the presentation of other obstacles.

We can say that in no operation could we make progress, despite our
negotiations and great interest, since the Yugoslav representation here in
Cuba did not make it feasible. As a conclusion to the foregoing, we can say
that Yugoslavia's attitude was markedly opportunistic, since it wanted to
be paid in dollars and at black market prices for the few lines that it
offered, and said that the total amount of the operation did not justify
the difficulties that they would have with the United States over selling
us arms. And they were reluctant to give us the lists and prices. They
proposed that discussions be carried out through a private Yugoslav
commercial company as a screen, in order that the operation should not
appear under that country's name, and in general little cooperation was
shown. But it appeared that Yugoslavia did not want to make the sale to us,
and on the other hand it appeared opportunist or at least intended to
dissuade us from the conditions stipulated.

This was the attitude of that socialist, communist, revolutionary country
when our country, in the face of the first dangers of imperialist
aggression, wanted to buy arms from it, and that is why there is not one
Yugoslav bullet here.

Imagine our surprise some months later when, one day, poking around in the
archives, in the archives of the Batista government, we found the text of
this document:

"From the military attache to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico, Mexico, D. F.,
13 December 1958; Gen Francisco Tabernilla Dolz, (?MP), Military City,
Marianoa.

"My dear friend, I enclose various photographs which have been given me by
the Yugoslav ambassador in this country--a great friend of mine. On a
certain occasion I talked to him when I had been told that private
negotiations were taking place about the possibility of acquiring
armaments. He tells me that in fact he can supply us with various types of
armaments that we might need, such as .30-06 rifles and so forth, and he
talked about a type of boat like those in the photographs that could be of
great use to us.

"He explains that he has an ample quantity of these torpedo boats, which
would be very economical, since they produce with very cheap labor and have
the best naval shipyards today, after the English. These boats have a speed
of over 40 kilometers an hour. They have two antiaircraft machineguns, an
antiaircraft gun, and torpedo launchers. There is also a great abundance of
these torpedoes, which are very cheap. Although I explained to him that at
this time the negotiations for any kind of armaments were suspended because
we had acquired enough in other places, he told me that at any rate he
would give me a list with exact specifications, cost, date of delivery, and
freight charge to our ports. As soon as he gives me these data, I shall
send them to you immediately."

After talking about other matters, he signs it "Col Chief A. P. Chaumon,
military attache."

Those who have read the history of Moncada know that this Chaumon was
precisely the officer who perpetrated tens of assassinations in the Moncada
garrison after the attack. He was the most criminal of all the officers,
who assassinated tens of prisoners, and he was later sent to Mexico and was
a "great friend" of the Yugoslav ambassador, to whom, 18 days before the
triumph of the revolution in December 1958, when thousands of Cubans had
been here--we had been fighting for 2 years--this ambassador, in the name
of Yugoslavia, and after consulting, was offering all kinds of arms--cheap,
economical, launches, everything.

How great, I say, was our indignation and surprise when we found this
document in the archives, signed by the person who signed it, especially
when we needed arms to defend ourselves from the imperialists, and they had
put all kinds of obstacles in our way and did not sell us a single weapon,
and they were offering arms to Batista just as the war was ending. As we
are not going to hold the worst opinion, we are not going to have the worst
concept of the role that this party played, when even the imperialists
would not sell arms to Batista, when not even the Yankees would sell them
arms, these gentlemen were offering good and cheap arms.

The communist movement for a long time--with much justification--kept that
party ostracized. An infinity of articles written by all the parties
appeared in publication against that movement, denouncing it, pointing a
finger at it.

Afterward, naturally, some parties forgot this, and the friends, followers,
the unconditionals, began also to forget this in the face of all the
political preaching about the ideological resurgence of the revolutionary
movement, which has led to these most dolorous situations.

And we wonder whether, perhaps, this bitter experience with Czechoslovakia
will not lead to a rectification of these errors, and whether the party of
the League of Yugoslav Communists will cease to be accepted as a communist
party, as a revolutionary party, and will cease to be invited to mass
meetings and the political organizations of the socialist camp.

[punisa]

A friend summed him up nicely: "His concept of Socialist economics was the New Deal of FDR, his concept of 'Socialist Democracy' was Serbo-Slovenian and Croat chauvinism, his concept of 'Revolution' involved being Social-Democratic, he was one of the worst revisionists who ever lived. He is in the Revisionist pantheon alongside Bernstein, Kautsky and others."
You need to find yourself new friends comrade.



I'm sry.

You need to learn some English (and stop spamming about Tito)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

To aproach Tito as a subjective topic is always wrong, there are so many aspects one should analyze before coming to a conclusion.
Obviously I'm not the pillar of objectivity this board needs when it comes to Tito (since I've put him as my avatar, lol).

BUT, one thing stands, no matter if you liked or disliked the marshall of Yugoslavia:

Quality of life for an ordinary citizen during Tito's rule: BETTER
Quality of life for an ordinary citizen after Tito's rule: WORSE

Now, if some of you fine socialists can argue my claim, be my guest.

[punisa]

It was actually Fidel Castro who mentioned Tito's collaborationist efforts with Batista in 1959, during the Cuban revolution. Fidel mentioned this during a speech he made regarding the 1968 Czechoslovak invasion, and comes from here:

http://lanic.utexas.edu/project/castro/db/1968/19680824.html

This is the particular reference to Tito and Batista which I source from that link:

This is all true, one of the greater mistakes Tito made. There is no excuse for that, Tito had to know who he was supporting, and all the blind Titoists who today claim how he "didn't know" or didn't "realise" are just a bad bunch to have a debate with.

But on the lighter side - I think the old man Fidel needs to stick to his guns :lol:
Busteeeedddd ! :laugh:
http://www.dittatori.it/tito-castro.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/12/18563346_146d577191.jpg
http://www.geopolitica.info/images/tito_castro.jpg
http://slobodnajugoslavija.com/forum/files/tito_-_castro_136.jpg
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/1/568167-Fidel_Castro_and_Marshal_Tito-Brijuni_National_Park.jpg

[The Author]

Busteeeedddd ! :laugh:It was no surprise to me that Fidel made reconciliationist visits to see Tito, based on diplomatic maneuvers. I'm a "Hoxhaist."

That doesn't excuse Titoism, however.

[gorillafuck]

The guy was one of the most revisionist leaders of the socialist movement; he fits right up there with Pol Pot, Deng, and Khrushchev.
Tito is similiar to Pol Pot?:confused:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Tito is similiar to Pol Pot?:confused:

Apperently so. :rolleyes: Only thing I can really say was leftist about Pol Pot were his economics. Other than that he was just cruel with his ambitions to "cleanse" Cambodia.

[khad]

Maybe it is, but so is "everyone loved Tito". The guy was one of the most revisionist leaders of the socialist movement; he fits right up there with Pol Pot, Deng, and Khrushchev.
Oh come on. I know you have an animus against Tito, but I would not put him in the same category as Deng Xiaoping, who was a Friedmanite neoliberal.

[Ismail]

Oh come on. I know you have an animus against Tito, but I would not put him in the same category as Deng Xiaoping, who was a Friedmanite neoliberal.I would put him in the same category as Deng Xiaoping. Tito was a capitalist, just like Deng. I'd actually separate Khrushchev, Brezhnev, etc. with Tito and Deng in a way because the former were state-capitalists, the latter however wanted to mix market-capitalism with state-capitalism.

"There is no fundamental contradiction between socialism and a market economy. The problem is how to develop the productive forces more effectively. We used to have a planned economy, but our experience over the years has proved that having a totally planned economy hampers the development of the productive forces to a certain extent. If we combine a planned economy with a market economy, we shall be in a better position to liberate the productive forces and speed up economic growth."
(There is no Fundamental Contradiction between Socialism and a Market Economy, October 23, 1985 in Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, vol. III)

"Why do some people always insist that the market is capitalist and only planning is socialist? Actually they are both means of developing the productive forces. So long as they serve that purpose, we should make use of them. If they serve socialism they are socialist; if they serve capitalism they are capitalist. It is not correct to say that planning is only socialist, because there is a planning department in Japan and there is also planning in the United States. At one time we copied the Soviet model of economic development and had a planned economy. Later we said that in a socialist economy planning was primary. We should not say that any longer."
(Planning and the Market are both Means of Developing the Productive Forces, February 6, 1987 in Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, vol. III)


Quality of life for an ordinary citizen during Tito's rule: BETTER
Quality of life for an ordinary citizen after Tito's rule: WORSEApparently a higher quality of life means socialism. And that's why the US is totally socialist. Glenn Beck was right all along!

[mykittyhasaboner]

Tito is similiar to Pol Pot?:confused:
No, but both betrayed the international socialist movement respectively, that's what I was getting at with Deng, Khrushchev, etc.



Oh come on. I know you have an animus against Tito, but I would not put him in the same category as Deng Xiaoping, who was a Friedmanite neoliberal.
I don't have an "animus" against Tito, I have a problem with revisionism; particularly the kind of "market-socialist" crap both Tito and Deng are associated with. They are in the same category, in my view at least, as far as treacherous pricks go.

[RoniCommunist]

You need to learn some English (and stop spamming about Tito)

Who is spamming and what I spamming?? :ohmy::cursing::cursing::cursing:

[punisa]

No, but both betrayed the international socialist movement respectively, that's what I was getting at with Deng, Khrushchev, etc.

I don't have an "animus" against Tito, I have a problem with revisionism; particularly the kind of "market-socialist" crap both Tito and Deng are associated with. They are in the same category, in my view at least, as far as treacherous pricks go.

Betraying the international socialist movement? revisionism?
I think that from all the forrest you can not see the trees my comrade.

To liberate a coutry from fascst/nazi scumm and then become a Soviet satellite was not acceptable.
To poetically make my point - I'd rather have Yugoslavia ruled by scientology loonies then by Stalin.

Hard line ideology can not be a rule to judge the historical events.

Tito as a socialist leader was probabbly the best you could pick out of the rather silly bunch of people that fall into that category.

You sir are "treacherous prick" and your argumentational limitations makes you one.

[Ismail]

To liberate a coutry from fascst/nazi scumm and then become a Soviet satellite was not acceptable.To try to create a satellite Albania wasn't very nice for Tito to do either. Also, Tito had much more to worry about with Khrushchev, who actually introduced things like "Comrade nations, orient your economies around the glorious Soviet Union for PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!"

Albania resisted being a Soviet satellite, but it didn't sell itself out to the US/Western Europe nor did it adopt a state/market-capitalism hybrid 'ideology' in response to breaking with the USSR to show how independent Yugoslavia was. Of course, after Stalin died, Yugoslavia patched up relations with the USSR and essentially still remained in COMECON and generally enjoyed good relations with the Soviets. Khrushchev (the same person who renounced proletarian dictatorship and invaded Hungary) praised Tito to the skies.


Tito as a socialist leader was probabbly the best you could pick out of the rather silly bunch of people that fall into that category.Best by what standard? Not being socialist is a pretty bad start.

[Bandito]

I'd rather have Yugoslavia ruled by scientology loonies then by Stalin.

And I'd rather have Yugoslavia ruled by workers.
Was it? No.

[punisa]

And I'd rather have Yugoslavia ruled by workers.
Was it? No.

Never has any attempt of socialism in the history gone all the way up to become ruled by workers. So that comment of yours is totally true - we'd all love that YU was a pure working class rule. But if you took time to point that out just so you could discredit the Yugoslav communist party then you're wasting space.

Companies and factories in Yugoslavia actually were much more dependent on what the workers had to say then for example in USSR.

[punisa]

To try to create a satellite Albania wasn't very nice for Tito to do either. Also, Tito had much more to worry about with Khrushchev, who actually introduced things like "Comrade nations, orient your economies around the glorious Soviet Union for PROLETARIAN INTERNATIONALISM!"

Albania resisted being a Soviet satellite, but it didn't sell itself out to the US/Western Europe nor did it adopt a state/market-capitalism hybrid 'ideology' in response to breaking with the USSR to show how independent Yugoslavia was. Of course, after Stalin died, Yugoslavia patched up relations with the USSR and essentially still remained in COMECON and generally enjoyed good relations with the Soviets. Khrushchev (the same person who renounced proletarian dictatorship and invaded Hungary) praised Tito to the skies.

Best by what standard? Not being socialist is a pretty bad start.

No offense to Albanian comrades, but the state that Albania was in during its socialist phase was not anything near what you are describing.

And when you speek of "trying to create satellite" you must ditinguish this for the other readers.
USSR made Hungary a satellite and invaded their country.
Yugoslavia never ever invaded anyone, although it had one of the strongest military forces of its time.

"We did not know that the Yugoslavs, under the pretext of 'defending' your country against an attack from the Greek fascists, wanted to bring units of their army into the PRA [People's Republic of Albania]. They tried to do this in a very secret manner. In reality, their aim in this direction was utterly hostile, for they intended to overturn the situation in Albania."
- Joseph Stalin

And as you know, Yugoslavia was not with good relations (to put it mildly) with USSR during Stalin's rule.

Unfortunatly, the situation that arose is not an ideological one, it had more to do with geopolitics.
Albania was too small and had to have a steady partner in development, naturally this had to be Yugoslavia.
What Yugoslav communist failed to realize was that IF they screw up Albania, Albanians will have to find next best friend - the USSR.
Did they screw it up? Yes, big time.
They hoped that Albania would be either a part of YU or at least a colony.
This deserves a high rank among the "TOP mistakes of the Yugoslav communist party list"

But to say that Yugoslav socialism was worse then Albanian .. now that theory can not fly and would be heavily revisionist.

Tito was a cunning fox that learned the way to exploit US and USSR for its own interest. Ofcourse, if you're hard line marxists, you have all the right to call him a bad socialist (and who were good?)
But when we talk about Tito as the statesman, he was a genious.
With such power, historic circumstances and other elemnts, Yugoslavia could have been the worst corrupt dictatorial shithole on earth,
still it was always something else - a place where working men and women lived in dignity and lived a good life - something that none of the experimental capitalist nor socialist countries ever managed to provide.

A guy or a girl who started working in 1945 and died in 1989 lived a great life in solidarity and freedom. Protected from inequality and life uncertanties.

If I percieved socialism just as what is written in scriptcures, I'd probabbly hate Tito, its communist party and the whole Yugoslavia.
But for me the "S" word still stands for people, their lives, progressivism and similar values.

[Ismail]

And when you speek of "trying to create satellite" you must ditinguish this for the other readers.
USSR made Hungary a satellite and invaded their country.
Yugoslavia never ever invaded anyone, although it had one of the strongest military forces of its time.So? The USSR never invaded East Germany, Romania or Bulgaria either during their existence as 'socialist' states. Does that mean that they weren't satellites?


Albania was too small and had to have a steady partner in development, naturally this had to be Yugoslavia.It sought aid to build up its economy. It got it from the Soviets and the Chinese. The Yugoslavs however forced the Albanian economy to pretty much revolve around Yugoslavia's. Also, thanks to Chinese aid, Albania was able to go it alone without a major trading partner.


But to say that Yugoslav socialism was worse then Albanian .. now that theory can not fly and would be heavily revisionist.The Albanian government made considerable progress considering the position of Albania in 1944 and its position in 1985. A look at the Hoxha wiki article would show this, or just buying the book A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha.



If I percieved socialism just as what is written in scriptcures, I'd probabbly hate Tito, its communist party and the whole Yugoslavia.
But for me the "S" word still stands for people, their lives, progressivism and similar values.Yes, it stands for "X leader improved the quality of life of the country, ergo he/she is a socialist."


Companies and factories in Yugoslavia actually were much more dependent on what the workers had to say then for example in USSR.Yet it was still capitalist. Do we say that Sweden a few decades earlier was socialist too? Or any country where labor unions are strong and factories know they cannot piss off workers too much or else the state, to save face, will intervene?

[punisa]

So? The USSR never invaded East Germany, Romania or Bulgaria either during their existence as 'socialist' states. Does that mean that they weren't satellites?

It sought aid to build up its economy. It got it from the Soviets and the Chinese. The Yugoslavs however forced the Albanian economy to pretty much revolve around Yugoslavia's. Also, thanks to Chinese aid, Albania was able to go it alone without a major trading partner.

The Albanian government made considerable progress considering the position of Albania in 1944 and its position in 1985. A look at the Hoxha wiki article would show this, or just buying the book A Coming of Age: Albania under Enver Hoxha.

Yes, it stands for "X leader improved the quality of life of the country, ergo he/she is a socialist."

Yet it was still capitalist. Do we say that Sweden a few decades earlier was socialist too? Or any country where labor unions are strong and factories know they cannot piss off workers too much or else the state, to save face, will intervene?

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding springs up.. You must be talking about some different Albania.
The one I was reffering to is the one just south of Yugoslavia.

The "progress" that Albania reached up to 1985 was not even comparible to the Yugoslavia. And Yugoslavia and Albania had similar starting lines back in 1945.

But if you are talking about the same country, oh well.. as a comradie comrade, I invite you to PM me so we can arrange your visit. I'll be happy to give you 3,4 days tour around ex-yugoslavia and ex-socialist-Albania.
We'll meet various people and try to chat it up as much as possibe, young n old.
After that we can re-start our debate. Cause till then, let's be honest, you're just taking wild guesses and have little to back it up.

I had that privilage to do a lot of traveling around ex-yu, political as I am, I always somehow made people disacuss these topics with me.
Luckily I worked for two years in Monte Negro (Budva and Podgorica) and had several trips to Albanian capital, as well as countryside.

Oh and "it was still capitalist" comments are as childish as "my father is stronger then yours".
It may be called "wugi bugi republic" as far as I - and 24.000.000 Yugoslav workers - care.

Again, the point is - not to get your country tangled up in fancy names ("Democratic republic of Congo", "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "German Democratic Republic") - the point is that you do your best in order for your people to live the best.

If you follow Marx, you know that socialism, and in the end - communism, was never ment (or possible) to be achieved until capitalism starts to crumble.
In the years after WWII capitalism was at its strongest, any nation that tried to follow pure socialism whille fighting that huge powerful imperialist octopuss was destined to fail (and did).

If Tito was a hard line Marxist (and he wasn't) his country would be swallowed by either US or USSR no later then 1950.
There was NO way to avoid that destiny - the only way was Tito's way.

And now when you (and others) claim that he was a traitor, it is the same as saying "I wish 23 million Yugoslavs did not live happily for half a century, I wish they were miserable".

Only USA could've stopped Stalin and Red Army from crushing Yugoslavia. Tito knew this and thus offered a friendly hand to the US.
As skilled manipulator, he soon learned that he could also align with Moscow, which he did. As soon as the old Joseph passed away.

In the end Yugoslavia was a rare blend of east and the west. But it never was either Social democracy, it never was capitalist, it never was market socialism and it never was purely socialism. It just was and it was fine.
He was actually the greatest internationalist of all times - having been able to cope with so much different East and the West. And let's not forget all other sides of the world, Tito being the founder of Unaligned Movment.
Small, somewhat silly, fact - but still a fact - that contributes to this statement is that Tito was the only president in history to whom all statesmen, kings, dictators and presidents showed up on funeral.

The only big thing I blame him for, was the fact that he did not take a harder stance against nationalists.
If nationalism could've had been extermined, Yugoslavia would still stand today.

As for real socialism, socialism without fabrications and deviations - now is the time.
Capitalist model reached its peak, whatever they come up with - they're screwed. It got to the point of no return, and now - whille it goes down - we socialists, all around the world, can expect real socialist countries to start emerging.

The 20th century was a very wierd experimental phase for socialism, and we shold be greatful for it. All of these experiments, including Yu, Albania, USSR and all the others - they showed us the good and the bad. Its potentials and it weaknesses.
On these lessons we can build the 21st century socialism, that will be a real red one :thumbup1::star3:

[khad]

I don't have an "animus" against Tito, I have a problem with revisionism; particularly the kind of "market-socialist" crap both Tito and Deng are associated with. They are in the same category, in my view at least, as far as treacherous pricks go.
Look, I'm not saying that you can't dislike his revisionism, but compare how workers are beaten, starved, and murdered in today's PRC and workers' lives in the former Yugoslavia. Let's try to speak without hyperbole.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Look, I'm not saying that you can't dislike his revisionism, but compare how workers are beaten, starved, and murdered in today's PRC and workers' lives in the former Yugoslavia. Let's try to speak without hyperbole.

You may have a point here, but it doesn't take away from the fact that Tito and the Yugoslav government had serious revisionist distortions of ideology and political economics. I know all about the decent standard of living in Yugoslavia, and that was one of the good parts of it, since the majority of the social wealth in Yugoslavia was publicly owned and controlled. There are always good and bad sides to any given context, I actually admire the SFRJ greatly as a whole. So I don't think that Tito was as bad as Deng or today's PRC but I still find some of the actions of Tito and the Yugoslav government to be worthy of opposing.


Betraying the international socialist movement? revisionism?
I think that from all the forrest you can not see the trees my comrade.
Where did the trees go? :ohmy:



To liberate a coutry from fascst/nazi scumm and then become a Soviet satellite was not acceptable.
I agree, but resisting "satellite state" status doesn't excuse "market socialism" or anything like that.

To poetically make my point - I'd rather have Yugoslavia ruled by scientology loonies then by Stalin.
Scientologists over Stalin? Let's be reasonable.


Hard line ideology can not be a rule to judge the historical events.
I'm sorry but I don't use 'hard-line' ideology to judge historical events comrade.



Tito as a socialist leader was probabbly the best you could pick out of the rather silly bunch of people that fall into that category.
As a leader he was certainly up to par, but politically he could use a slap in the face. Excuse my crudeness.


You sir are "treacherous prick" and your argumentational limitations makes you one.
Harsh.

[Ismail]

Ah, I see where the misunderstanding springs up.. You must be talking about some different Albania.
The one I was reffering to is the one just south of Yugoslavia.

The "progress" that Albania reached up to 1985 was not even comparible to the Yugoslavia. And Yugoslavia and Albania had similar starting lines back in 1945.Albania had a similar starting line? Really? Was Yugoslavia tribal, with virtually no literacy, no real independence, and had a situation wherein bicycles could lead to clan conflicts because many saw them as Satanic?

Of course, it was Yugoslavia's job to "civilize" Albania I guess. Just like Europe "civilized" Africa.


But if you are talking about the same country, oh well.. as a comradie comrade, I invite you to PM me so we can arrange your visit. I'll be happy to give you 3,4 days tour around ex-yugoslavia and ex-socialist-Albania.Yeah, Albania is poorer than Serbia, what's your point? Pretty sure an illiterate serf under a clan lord dying of malaria at the age of 38 in 1944 is pretty shitty compared to dying at the age of 60 of natural causes as a literate, independent person in a collective farm in 1960, or dying at the age of 71 as a proletarian factory worker in a developed area of the country in 1985.

Also, I'm pretty sure a sudden transition from socialism to market-capitalism, and a ponzi scheme causing economic collapse in 1997, also contributes to Albania having a pretty bad position right now.


Oh and "it was still capitalist" comments are as childish as "my father is stronger then yours".
It may be called "wugi bugi republic" as far as I - and 24.000.000 Yugoslav workers - care. That's nice, but as a Communist I feel that the goal of a socialist state is to practice socialism.


Again, the point is - not to get your country tangled up in fancy names ("Democratic republic of Congo", "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", "German Democratic Republic") - the point is that you do your best in order for your people to live the best.When did I ever mention the name of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania? When did I ever indicate that a name makes a country socialist? The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was capitalist, just like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics after the 1950's.


If you follow Marx, you know that socialism, and in the end - communism, was never ment (or possible) to be achieved until capitalism starts to crumble.
In the years after WWII capitalism was at its strongest, any nation that tried to follow pure socialism whille fighting that huge powerful imperialist octopuss was destined to fail (and did).Defeatism, nice. Poor 'backwards' Albania pulled it off though.


If Tito was a hard line Marxist (and he wasn't) his country would be swallowed by either US or USSR no later then 1950.
There was NO way to avoid that destiny - the only way was Tito's way.Instead his country got into such heavy debt to the USA and Western Europe that its economy began to tank in the 80's. Awesome.


And now when you (and others) claim that he was a traitor, it is the same as saying "I wish 23 million Yugoslavs did not live happily for half a century, I wish they were miserable".He was a traitor to socialism. FDR was a 'great leader' for the US, but his New Deal (which was necessary to save capitalism) effectively undermined the power of the communists in the US. Once again, higher quality of life ≠ socialism.


Only USA could've stopped Stalin and Red Army from crushing Yugoslavia. Tito knew this and thus offered a friendly hand to the US.
As skilled manipulator, he soon learned that he could also align with Moscow, which he did. As soon as the old Joseph passed away.So he was an opportunist. Yawn.


He was actually the greatest internationalist of all times - having been able to cope with so much different East and the West. And let's not forget all other sides of the world, Tito being the founder of Unaligned Movment.Most of the Non-Aligned Movement countries were fairly pro-Soviet anyway, like India and Egypt under Nasser. Hoxha correctly noted that the Non-Aligned Movement was a joke, there was no coherency nor were most of the states in it (like the DPRK) non-aligned.


Small, somewhat silly, fact - but still a fact - that contributes to this statement is that Tito was the only president in history to whom all statesmen, kings, dictators and presidents showed up on funeral.Well yes, all the capitalists and revisionists loved him. What's your point? Many reactionaries mourned Reagan's death too.

Your entire line of argument is "Tito made progress." Well yeah he did, but the point is that he wasn't a socialist, had imperialist ambitions vis-à-vis Albania, and sold his country out to the West rather than take an actual socialist line at any point. Sure, he was better than the monarchy that preceded him, but that just makes him economically progressive. It doesn't make him a socialist and certainly not someone to emulate either ideologically or in practice.

[punisa]

Albania had a similar starting line? Really? Was Yugoslavia tribal, with virtually no literacy, no real independence, and had a situation wherein bicycles could lead to clan conflicts because many saw them as Satanic?

Of course, it was Yugoslavia's job to "civilize" Albania I guess. Just like Europe "civilized" Africa.

Yeah, Albania is poorer than Serbia, what's your point? Pretty sure an illiterate serf under a clan lord dying of malaria at the age of 38 in 1944 is pretty shitty compared to dying at the age of 60 of natural causes as a literate, independent person in a collective farm in 1960, or dying at the age of 71 as a proletarian factory worker in a developed area of the country in 1985.

Also, I'm pretty sure a sudden transition from socialism to market-capitalism, and a ponzi scheme causing economic collapse in 1997, also contributes to Albania having a pretty bad position right now.

That's nice, but as a Communist I feel that the goal of a socialist state is to practice socialism.

When did I ever mention the name of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania? When did I ever indicate that a name makes a country socialist? The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was capitalist, just like the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics after the 1950's.

Defeatism, nice. Poor 'backwards' Albania pulled it off though.

Instead his country got into such heavy debt to the USA and Western Europe that its economy began to tank in the 80's. Awesome.

He was a traitor to socialism. FDR was a 'great leader' for the US, but his New Deal (which was necessary to save capitalism) effectively undermined the power of the communists in the US. Once again, higher quality of life ≠ socialism.

So he was an opportunist. Yawn.

Most of the Non-Aligned Movement countries were fairly pro-Soviet anyway, like India and Egypt under Nasser. Hoxha correctly noted that the Non-Aligned Movement was a joke, there was no coherency nor were most of the states in it (like the DPRK) non-aligned.

Well yes, all the capitalists and revisionists loved him. What's your point? Many reactionaries mourned Reagan's death too.

Your entire line of argument is "Tito made progress." Well yeah he did, but the point is that he wasn't a socialist, had imperialist ambitions vis-à-vis Albania, and sold his country out to the West rather than take an actual socialist line at any point. Sure, he was better than the monarchy that preceded him, but that just makes him economically progressive. It doesn't make him a socialist and certainly not someone to emulate either ideologically or in practice.

Well, all in all - nice little debate.
An observer will soon notice that you are biased, but then again I might be too.

Thing is - if you collect all the critiques about Tito, you can claim that he was not a good socialist rolemodel.
Again, if we adopt the same methodology and implement it on all the other figures that were related to socialism - we'll come to the same conclusion, all of them betrayed socialism, at least the socialist values that we preach.

There were a few good theoreticians, but if you browse the database of leaders: From Castro, Stalin, Guevara .. all the way to Tito, Hoxa, Kim or Mao..
can you say that any of these men were good socialists? And that their faults were smaller then those commited by Josip Broz Tito?
Stalin never collaborated with the US for example, did that fact make him good?

As for Hoxa, that you so openly admire, you must know.. well not you actually, cause you seem like a type that doesn't really like to change its views, but the readers of the debate.

(copy/pasted - compared and commented)
- The regime denied its citizens freedom of expression, religion, movement, and association although the constitution of 1976 ostensibly guaranteed each of these rights.
- this has never been the case in YU, and its citizens were allowed to travel where they want, when they want, preach what they want and where they want.

- In fact, certain clauses in the constitution effectively circumscribed the exercise of political liberties that the regime interpreted as contrary to the established order. In addition, the regime denied the population access to information other than that disseminated by the government-controlled media.
- No literature was forbidden in Yugoslavia, many families also owned a copy of the "evil" Croatian grammar book. Media in Yugoslavia was free, be it TV programme, foreign music, movies or whatever you may put into the media category. Whille the people's freedom and acces to information in Albania more resembled a fascist dictatorship then a proletariet paradise.

- The Sigurimi (Albanian secret police) routinely violated the privacy of persons, homes, and communications and made arbitrary arrests.
Internally, the Sigurimi made sure to replicate the repressive methods of the NKVD, MGB, KGB, and StaSi. Its activities permeated Albanian society to the extent that every third citizen had either served time in labor camps or had been interrogated by Sigurimi officers.
- Yugoslavia too had the secret police and agencies - Ozna, Udba etc.
Political oponnents were also jailed and did time, no way that all of them were guilty. Yugoslavia was too a country where innocent people could've ended up in dreadful places if they said something "wrong" or just if someone didn't like them too much.
But the number of people arrested over political reasons in YU can't even be compared to Albania.
The amount of harm Albania's rule forced upon its on people is like a Stalin's wet dream.

To eliminate dissent, the government imprisoned thousands in forced-labour camps or executed them for crimes such as alleged treachery or for disrupting the proletarian dictatorship. Travel abroad was forbidden after 1968 to all but those on official business. West European culture was looked upon with deep suspicion, resulting in arrests and bans on unauthorized foreign material.
- again, uncle Joseph could only be proud - and was proud on how Albania liberated its working class.

The justice system regularly degenerated into show trials. "...[The defendant] was not permitted to question the witnesses and that, although he was permitted to state his objections to certain aspects of the case, his objections were dismissed by the prosecutor who said, 'Sit down and be quiet. We know better than you.'." In order to lessen the threat of political dissidents and other exiles, relatives of the accused were often arrested, ostracized, and accused of being "enemies of the people."
Torture was often used to obtain confessions.

In September 1952 a new law is introduced requiring the death penalty for anyone over 11 years of age found guilty of conspiring against the state, damaging state property, or committing economic sabotage.

- Are you sure Albania was not the Stalin's sock puppet? Cause it damn seems like one.
These things never happend in Yugoslavia, at least not after it firmly established itself as a country (let's say circa 1950.). Prior to that - two or three years after WWII Yugoslavian leaders did indeed cleanse the nation of Fascist and Nazi collaborators. Hundreds of thousands of its own people were killed - mostly Croat Ustashas and Serb Chetniks.
Were there innocent folk amongst those Hitler lovers? Indeed, probabbly thousands.
But once the aftermath of WWII was over, Yugoslavia was a relative stable country. Although it had to cope with terrorism, mostly led by Fascist survivers abroad.

- in 1947 Albania recieved:
US$26.3 million from the United Nations and US$20.4 million from the US
- Did Hoxa suddenly forgot that US moolah is an evil thing? Or he well spent in on building his palace.

- 1948 - By the start of the year the Albanian communists are proposing a complete merger of the Albanian and Yugoslav economies and armed forces. However, the situation turns on 28 June when Yugoslavia is expelled from Cominform (an organisation of Soviet, East European, Italian, and French communist parties) because of it's unwillingness to accept all Soviet demands. Albania cancels all agreements with Yugoslavia, expels Yugoslav advisers, and denounces Yugoslav leader Josip Broz Tito. Albania now turns to the Soviet Union, which quickly agrees to compensate Albania for the loss of Yugoslav aid.

In November, and on the suggestion of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, the Albanian Communist Party renames itself the Albanian Party of Labour. The party is purged of Tito sympathisers, with 14 members of the 31-member Central Committee and 32 of the 109 People's Assembly deputies being executed. As well about 25% of the party's members are expelled.

- Can you spell GeoPolitics? It is all too obvious that Albania was under a complete control of the Moscow.
If Tito and Joseph remained good pals, Joseph would've loved Yu and Albania to merge - much easier to control and USSR would get one of the strongest military bastions on the planet.
By controlling the Adriatic sea, you could easily control the Europe.
Again, it is not I who blame Hoxa for its dependence on Moscow, just as it is not I who accuse Tito for becoming all nice and friendly with Washington.
But it is you who wants picture Hoxa as a lone rider, free from all the tyranny. And when you do that - in the absense of nicer words - you lie.

- 1956 - When Stalin and his policies are denounced by Nikita Khrushchev, first secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, at the 20th party congress in February, Hoxha comes to the defence of the former Soviet dictator. At the same time, Hoxha magnifies his rhetoric against Tito, a stance that along with his criticism of the Soviet Union will continue for the remainder of the decade. Nevertheless, the Soviets continue to support Albania, cancelling about US$105 million in outstanding loans and providing about US$7.8 million in additional food assistance.

- Hoxa absorbs Stalin's hate for Tito like a sponge absobrs water.
Beacuse the chances of getting aid is still higher if sucking it up to the remainder of Stalin's fans in Moscow then acting "forget and forgive" with Yugoslavia. But do read on..


- 1960- After Albania begins to receive large amounts of aid from China. Albania sides with China when a split between the Soviets and the Chinese becomes public, an action that results in the Soviets cutting wheat shipments to Albania. The shortfall is made up by the Chinese. Hoxha now amplifies his criticism of the Soviet Union, publicly attacking its leadership of the international communist movement during a conference of the world's 81 communist parties held in Moscow in November.

- Hoxa was a good manager, or so he was thinking back in the day. After uncle Joseph passed away, he was quick to make Moscow a "New Belgrade". He also knew that despites everything, Albania is still a strong strategic locatian, and China - so far to the East - could well use an ally in Europe.


- 1961 - Soviet Union cancels aid programs and lines of credit to Albania. In December the Soviets finally break diplomatic relations. All Soviet economic advisers and technicians are withdrawn from Albania and shipments of supplies and spare parts are halted. China again makes up the shortfall.
- 1970s - As China starts to wind back its aid, Albania begins to broaden its contact with foreign governments, opening trade negotiations with France, Italy, and Asian and African states. In 1971 relations are normalised with Yugoslavia and Greece. Nevertheless, the fragile Albanian economy goes into decline, reportedly resulting is widespread purges.
- So there you have it. This paragraph explains all what I stressed out before.
No small socialist nation was able to function on its own. Yugoslavia had the advantage because it had Tito. A leader that had forseen this since the end of WWII. The reason why Yugoslavia had economic ties with both world from the start.
Hoxa figured this out the hard way - and the cost was suffering of its own people.
Maybe he was a better socialist - but he was not a better leader.
If things played out differently, Albania today with be up there with Croatia or Serbia when it comes to development.
Unfortunatly today it is slipping further away and its people slowly degrade back into the hands of religious freaks and alike.

Today 30% live bellow the poverty line. And many many Albanians flee the country. This was especially huge once multi party system was implemented in 1990.

To observe and conclude:
It made me think this morning, what is it with many red debaters like yourself - glorify for instance Albanian socialism?
Then I figured it out. It's the whole spectre that surronds this discussion board, something that is much less prevalent in other debates I had.

People here have a rather strange tendency when it comes to measurment of "who is more revolutionary" and "who was more socialist".
In that light, for example - a coal miner is presented on a pedestal of a revolution. While a guy in a suit slaving his days under an equally exploitable boss is greeted as a suspicious member of the working class.

Similar happens in Yugo-Albanian debate.
Yugoslav people were far better off then any socialist, semi-socialist, revolutionary or capitalist nation in the world. A lot of suspicious factors.

Offtopic:
FDR?
New Deal, Executive Order 9066, advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor, Morgenthau Plan.
A capitalist savior that saved it only beacuse of the WWII.

[Ismail]

Stalin never collaborated with the US for example, did that fact make him good?I'm pretty sure Stalin wasn't known for some alternate history situation wherein he was the Soviet Foreign Minister to the USA or whatever, so it's irrelevant. If Tito was an awesome Marxist, implemented a truly socialist economy unlike any seen in the world at that point, condemned Khrushchev, etc. then some collaboration with the USA would be forgiven because he kicked so much ass at advancing the international communist movement.

Alas, that didn't happen.


- The regime denied its citizens freedom of expression, religion, movement, and association although the constitution of 1976 ostensibly guaranteed each of these rights.
- this has never been the case in YU, and its citizens were allowed to travel where they want, when they want, preach what they want and where they want.They were allowed to travel to the West in order to work as wage-slaves because Yugoslavia had to pay off its debt. I'm not too fond of Hoxha's religious policy, though I can understand why it occurred.


- In fact, certain clauses in the constitution effectively circumscribed the exercise of political liberties that the regime interpreted as contrary to the established order. In addition, the regime denied the population access to information other than that disseminated by the government-controlled media.
- No literature was forbidden in Yugoslavia, many families also owned a copy of the "evil" Croatian grammar book. Media in Yugoslavia was free, be it TV programme, foreign music, movies or whatever you may put into the media category. Whille the people's freedom and acces to information in Albania more resembled a fascist dictatorship then a proletariet paradise.Yugoslav Media was "free"? I somehow doubt that. Define "free." Also, comparing Albania to a Fascist state is juvenile.


To eliminate dissent, the government imprisoned thousands in forced-labour camps or executed them for crimes such as alleged treachery or for disrupting the proletarian dictatorship. Travel abroad was forbidden after 1968 to all but those on official business. West European culture was looked upon with deep suspicion, resulting in arrests and bans on unauthorized foreign material.
- again, uncle Joseph could only be proud - and was proud on how Albania liberated its working class.Most of the executions occurred in the period of 1945-1950 against Beys, etc. Also yes, Western European culture was associated with degeneracy and anti-communism, the former being somewhat up for debate.


- in 1947 Albania recieved:
US$26.3 million from the United Nations and US$20.4 million from the US
- Did Hoxa suddenly forgot that US moolah is an evil thing? Or he well spent in on building his palace.1. Yugoslavia received plenty of UN aid too. How could it not? It was post-war reconstruction aid.
2. Unlike Albania, Yugoslavia had quite a bit of debt to US banks and the IMF as a whole. Bit of a different situation there.
3. Trading with the West or US is not inherently bad. In Albania it was done on a barter basis, which cannot really be faulted. Then again, if Hoxha literally didn't trade with anyone you'd condemn him as an evil Stalin sock-puppet.


Again, it is not I who blame Hoxa for its dependence on Moscow, just as it is not I who accuse Tito for becoming all nice and friendly with Washington.
But it is you who wants picture Hoxa as a lone rider, free from all the tyranny. And when you do that - in the absense of nicer words - you lie.Actually, it was more like Hoxha being able to purge Titoists due to the Soviets would not reprimand him, since the Soviet break with Yugoslavia allowed him to do just that with Soviet support.

This also ignores the point that Hoxha believed Stalin was a genuine Communist. He didn't claim to be "free from tyranny," he simply refused to be associated with a revisionist and social-imperialist leadership that took over after Stalin died. And he broke away quite easily, too, at a time when Khrushchev was replacing various "Stalinist" leaders across the Warsaw Pact.


- 1961 - Soviet Union cancels aid programs and lines of credit to Albania. In December the Soviets finally break diplomatic relations. All Soviet economic advisers and technicians are withdrawn from Albania and shipments of supplies and spare parts are halted. China again makes up the shortfall.
- 1970s - As China starts to wind back its aid, Albania begins to broaden its contact with foreign governments, opening trade negotiations with France, Italy, and Asian and African states. In 1971 relations are normalised with Yugoslavia and Greece. Nevertheless, the fragile Albanian economy goes into decline, reportedly resulting is widespread purges.
- So there you have it. This paragraph explains all what I stressed out before.
No small socialist nation was able to function on its own. Yugoslavia had the advantage because it had Tito. A leader that had forseen this since the end of WWII. The reason why Yugoslavia had economic ties with both world from the start.
Hoxa figured this out the hard way - and the cost was suffering of its own people.
Maybe he was a better socialist - but he was not a better leader.
If things played out differently, Albania today with be up there with Croatia or Serbia when it comes to development.
Unfortunatly today it is slipping further away and its people slowly degrade back into the hands of religious freaks and alike.

Today 30% live bellow the poverty line. And many many Albanians flee the country. This was especially huge once multi party system was implemented in 1990.I'd say modernizing your nation is a pretty good accomplishment. Albania never had a good start, and considering that Yugoslavia and the USSR did try to overthrow him and create actual puppet governments (Yugoslavs through people like Koçi Xoxe, Soviets through Koço Tashko and Liri Belishova, the latter's still alive and had a normal life under Hoxha even after opposing him FYI), and even the Chinese tried to make him change his ways by cutting off aid, Hoxha didn't have much of a choice besides being a puppet for the Soviets or in debt to the Chinese. Either of these you would have condemned as "SOVIET/CHINESE SOCK-PUPPET!"

Yugoslavia was more advanced socially, larger, and in a better economic position than Albania ever was.

As for poverty and such now that capitalism's back, see this: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=952546&postcount=1


Offtopic:
FDR?
New Deal, Executive Order 9066, advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor, Morgenthau Plan.
A capitalist savior that saved it only beacuse of the WWII.FDR's goal was to pretty much discredit laissez-faire capitalism (not that it didn't do a good job on its own) and assert that there could be a sort of "people's capitalism" via something approaching Social-Democracy. Saving capitalism was the big issue for the capitalist states (obviously) and all of them responded by asserting that they could either reform capitalism or "surpass" it, the latter being the Fascists and Nazis.

[punisa]

Funny thing is that I agree with you Ismail on many different points. I'd be the first one to applaud your critique of Tito, as they more-or-less point out my own critique of his rule.
But the whole story about Hoxa, a true communist, betrayed by its larger neighbours and partners can not be justifed, although you do try to go to great lenghts to prove me wrong.
Simply, history can not offer evidences that the period of the second half of 20th century benefited the Albanian people as much as it could've had.

In the end there were benifts, nobody can argue that, I don't even wanna think what kind of crazy place Albania would be today if communists were not in charge. Surely, we'd compare it to Afghanistan and similar nations.
Also I still believe that Yugoslavia and Albania could've had been a great pact, only if political reasons did not go sour.

So if you want to critique Titio and its ways, be my guest, I'll even back you up on all of the facts I know are true. But Tito - Hoxa comparison is not the way to go.

As for Yugoslavia's debt - take a look at this (taken from wsws.org):
When the break with Stalin took place in 1948, the leadership of the Fourth International, the world Trotskyist movement, explained in an Open Letter that there were three roads open to the Yugoslav leadership.

First - There was the possibility of a rapprochement with the leadership of the Russian Communist Party, acceptance of the criticisms of the Cominform and the elevation of a new leadership to restore unity. This course, the Fourth International explained, would be a tragic error both for the Yugoslav and Soviet working class.

The second course, the letter continued, consisted of "retiring into Yugoslavia, repelling the attacks and the eventual violence and provocations of the Cominform and its agents, and attempting to 'build socialism' in your own country, while concluding trade relations with the powers of Eastern Europe as well as those of the imperialist West."

This course, it explained, would be just as pernicious as the first and it would be impossible to manoeuvre for a whole period between the US and the USSR.

"Finally, there remains the third road, the most difficult, bristling with the most obstacles, the genuine communist road for the Yugoslav party and the proletariat. This road is the return to the Leninist conception of socialist revolution, of a return to a world strategy of the class struggle."

In the event, the Tito leadership took the second path. Faced with opposition from the Cominform, the perspective of a socialist federation of the Balkans was rapidly abandoned and the regime sought to come to an accommodation with imperialism. In 1950, the Tito leadership indicated its readiness for an accommodation with imperialism when it gave its support to the Korean War.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Although the third solution was the way to go, as said in this latter, it was by far the most difficult one.
Considering that the communist party of Yugoslavia was filled with rather young and inexperienced partisan soldiers, who knew little or none about Marxist study.
I think Tito understood that it would prove to be a mission impossible so to speak.

One, or a handful, of men could not pull it off.
Yugoslav territory was indeed very backwards before communist party took it over. Maybe not as high as in Albania, but illiteracy was very high.


Probabbly the most important fact that many seem to forget is that Albania was rather homogeneous. Yugoslavia was far from that.
This is the region that many still call "powder keg", nationalities that have for centuries waged wars on its closest neighbours.
Region where hate was cultivated in people from the day they were born.
Clash of civilizations and religions, Orthodox, Chatolics and Muslim.

The whole place is a history book.

Even during the WWII these 3 groups tried to extermine one another, even homogeneous groups killed each other. For example Croat Ustashas and Croat Partisans.
To unite them all looked like complete utopia to any historian observing the situation in 1941 (or any time earlier).
Still, we can say what we wish about economy, but all of these people were united under socialist values, the values of "Brotherhood and Unity".

Enforicng the third way (mentioned in the letter above) would crack open the holes for nationalist wars much sooner then 1991.
In some wierd way, Tito had to keep its people as happy as possible, as there were probabbly at least a million of those who were just waitting to start tearing Yugoslavia apart.
Virtually all republics in the federation had its nationalist elements with an eager wish to expand its national interests.
Thus Serbia wanted huge parts of Bosnia and Croatia. Croatia wanted half of Bosnia. Even Montenegro tried to claim parts of south Croatia. And so on..

During the existance of Yugoslavia, there were many things put in motion to stop nationalism from emerging. An example would be a board of managers in a company, it had to include (or rotate, depending on the indsutry) all nationalities and minorities (including Albanian).

Btw, your comment on Yugoslavs being slave workers in Germany and other nations is completely false. I spoke with many who worked in West Germany during Yugoslavia and your claim is simply not true. To further justify my statement, I also spoke with many Germans from the same time and they all agreed on one thing - while doing the same amount of work, producing same amount of labour - Yugoslavs used to aquire luxuries back home, build huge houses, vaccation houses etc etc. While their working class buddies in Germany owned little or nothing, had mortgages or lived by paying rent.
Nobody was forced to work in Germany, but if you wanted - go break a leg comrade.

To understand what Tito did, why he did it and why his way was the only way (again - unfortunately) to lead Yugoslavia, you need to know much more about this part of Balkan peninsula.
Cause it's as complicated as it gets :drool:

[Ismail]

Simply, history can not offer evidences that the period of the second half of 20th century benefited the Albanian people as much as it could've had.Once again you're condemning Hoxha for not selling out and putting quality of life above socialism.


Although the third solution was the way to go, as said in this latter, it was by far the most difficult one.
Considering that the communist party of Yugoslavia was filled with rather young and inexperienced partisan soldiers, who knew little or none about Marxist study.
I think Tito understood that it would prove to be a mission impossible so to speak.Besides Hoxha, most of the Albanian partisans were not very knowledgeable about Communism either. They learned as they fought, and learned more once they won. Also, many of these partisans were in their 20's, 30's and 40's.


Probabbly the most important fact that many seem to forget is that Albania was rather homogeneous. Yugoslavia was far from that.Albania isn't totally homogeneous, there's a significant Greek minority in the south with a separatist sentiment. It obviously does not compare to Yugoslavia though.


Btw, your comment on Yugoslavs being slave workers in Germany and other nations is completely false. I spoke with many who worked in West Germany during Yugoslavia and your claim is simply not true. To further justify my statement, I also spoke with many Germans from the same time and they all agreed on one thing - while doing the same amount of work, producing same amount of labour - Yugoslavs used to aquire luxuries back home, build huge houses, vaccation houses etc etc. While their working class buddies in Germany owned little or nothing, had mortgages or lived by paying rent.They were under wage-slavery. Not slavery. Look up the former. The Yugoslavs simply had a choice of which capitalists to work under, and preferred the West European variant due to better conditions and pay.

[punisa]

Once again you're condemning Hoxha for not selling out and putting quality of life above socialism.

Yes I am.

You're an ideologiest, I'm a humanist. Obviosuly we're world apart. As far as I'm concerned, having all the elements brought up, this debate might continue to +infinity.
So let us both be smarter then that and leave it.

[RoniCommunist]

DEATH FOR FASCISM! :cursing:
FREEDOM FOR THE PEOPLE! :cool:
COMMUNISM FOR LIFE!
I WANT YU BACK! :(