Tito-Communist Rebel or Capitalist Roader?

[Red7]

I'm sure this has been talked about before, but I can't find any posts. Anyway, I was wondering what everyone here thought of the man. Well, more importantly his ideas. I always thought it was pretty cool that he could push social order, AND stand up to Uncle Joe's Bureaucratic nightmare.

Still, I've also heard that Tito sort of slowly introduced a market economy to Yugoslavia. So, any help/info is much appreciated. Thanks, comrades!

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Clearly a Capitalist counter-revolutionary for daring to defy the USSR:rolleyes:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Clearly a Capitalist counter-revolutionary for daring to defy the USSR:rolleyes:

Actually, he allowed the markets to exist and the USA supplied them. I don't see how this is revolution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Actually, he allowed the markets to exist and the USA supplied them. I don't see how this is revolution.

Sense of humour failure perhaps?

[Thirsty Crow]

Actually, he allowed the markets to exist and the USA supplied them. I don't see how this is revolution.
I'm really fascinated how certain people who have no connection whatsoever with the country in question can pass judgement with such nonchalance.
Have you even bothered to read, for example, Daniel Guerin's study on Yugoslav system of workers' self-management?

But don't get me wrong, I do not wish to argue that Yugoslavia was the prime example of how socialism should function. It's just that your argument is severly flawed.

[Rousedruminations]

I think Lenin argued that different forms of socialism would appear at different countries all over the world, according to their idiosyncratic cultures...so it was a socialist, but it defied Stalin and the USSR at the time....

[Thirsty Crow]

I think Lenin argued that different forms of socialism would appear at different countries all over the world, according to their idiosyncratic cultures...so it was a socialist, but it defied Stalin and the USSR at the time....
Tito did "defy" Stalin, but in what way, with what ends in mind?
What happened in Yugoslavia was but a milder version of USSR.
Bureaucratic control, corruption, dictatorship of the party...if that's what socialism truly stands for, than I'm no longer socialist.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Tito's regime provides us with an excellent of what not to do.

Yugoslavia was made up of several nations that banded together toward the cause of socialism under communist leadership. But the leadership quickly demonstrated its desire to subordinate an array of other nations to itself (e.g. Albania). As a result, Yugoslavia was ultimately expelled from the Cominform. Tito went on to pledge that he wouldn't take the capitalist road, but chart a completely independent socialist course, explaining that socialist campism is wrong. Pretty much immediately thereafter, he began privatizing industry very broadly, both urban and agricultural, in a process that was completed by 1957 (cooperatives are for-profit private businesses), by which point the country had clearly fallen under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. By 1965, they had made their currency convertible into Western currencies such that investments might more easily flow in and profits flow out. By 1968, foreign direct investment had been legalized and Yugoslavia became the only "socialist" country to feature a stock market. Yugoslavia's working class became an export commodity for northern imperialist countries, with more than a million working abroad in this way by 1971 (half in West Germany). According to World Bank statistics, the wealthiest 5 percent of Yugoslav households earned 25 percent of the national income in the 1970s, while the poorest 20 percent of the population earned less than 7 percent -- a wider wealth gap than India featured at the time. Subsequently of course the country was to suffer an array of IMF crises.

Given all these facts, it's not difficult to see how the unity of the country fell apart. The sharply uneven development resulting from the capitalist model they followed yielded hostilities between the various Yugoslav nations. These hostilities ultimately boiled over and tore the country apart. Today, Yugoslavia does not exist. It was founded on the cause of socialism and destroyed by capitalism. So that's my opinion on Tito and his nationalist perspective.

[Bright Banana Beard]

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html

This is an another good read on Yugoslavia.

[Dimentio]

I'm sure this has been talked about before, but I can't find any posts. Anyway, I was wondering what everyone here thought of the man. Well, more importantly his ideas. I always thought it was pretty cool that he could push social order, AND stand up to Uncle Joe's Bureaucratic nightmare.

Still, I've also heard that Tito sort of slowly introduced a market economy to Yugoslavia. So, any help/info is much appreciated. Thanks, comrades!

Human beings are not black and white.

Tito was both.

Sadly, a disturbingly large group of revolutionaries from all ideologies in all eras have eventually degenerated down into breaking against their own principles. Therefore, the important thing is not the quality of the leaders, but the systems which are existing to prevent abuse of power. A system needs both norms and values which are focusing on service for others, and checks and balances to make abuse physically impossible.

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

Originally posted by Dimentio:
Human beings are not black and white.

Tito was both.

...Actually Dimentio, most people would say he was white (http://geografo.info/historia/balcanes/img/ebs6e.jpg). ;)


Sadly, a disturbingly large group of revolutionaries from all ideologies in all eras have eventually degenerated down into breaking against their own principles. Therefore, the important thing is not the quality of the leaders, but the systems which are existing to prevent abuse of power. A system needs both norms and values which are focusing on service for others, and checks and balances to make abuse physically impossible.

The idea that Jeffersonian "checks and balances" are the solution strikes me as quite a simplistic, mechanical formulation. Leaders in socialist societies take the capitalist road because the old ideas have not yet been fully uprooted, but continue to spring up when there remains unevenness precisely as a result of that unevenness. Permanent revolution (i.e. an orientation of continual revolution, including under socialism, on both the national and international stages) is "the answer" in the simplistic sense, but we need a correct understanding that that has to take a relatable, human form. It has to bring forward the masses to transform their own reality, not just attempt to impose a new reality on them. That's the task that hasn't yet been adequately done.

[punisa]

Tito's regime provides us with an excellent of what not to do.
Pretty good arguments, if only they were not made up.



By 1968, foreign direct investment had been legalized and Yugoslavia became the only "socialist" country to feature a stock market.


Regarding the phantom Yugoslav stock exchange:
It officially began trading on January 2, 1895 in the Hotel Bosna building. In 1953 it was formally closed as the stock exchange did not fit the new socialist economy of the country. It was reopened in 1989 (Yugoslavia collapsed very next year) as the Yugoslavian Capital Market, but after the breakup of the country it was renamed to Belgrade Stock Exchange.



But the leadership quickly demonstrated its desire to subordinate an array of other nations to itself (e.g. Albania). As a result, Yugoslavia was ultimately expelled from the Cominform.


Again, lies and made up stuff.
Yugoslavia was expelled for very different reasons.

Tito was thought of as a loyal communist leader, second only to Stalin himself in the Eastern Bloc. However, having largely liberated itself with only limited Red Army support, Yugoslavia steered an independent course, and was constantly experiencing tensions with the Soviet Union. Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav government considered themselves allies of Moscow, while Moscow considered Yugoslavia a satellite and often treated it as such.

In the end Yugoslavia was expelled for standing up for itself and refusing to subordinate to the crimson God - Joseph Stalin.
And you speak of Yugoslavia having "desire to subordinate an array of other nations to itself (e.g. Albania)".

So Albania is an "array of nations" now?
Speaking of Albania, did Tito invade it? Staged a coup? What subordination are we talking about?
Never happened.

Stalin expelled Tito and tried to kill him on numerous times simply because he was afraid that Tito will become the leader of reds worldwide. Recently declassified Soviet archive proves this in writing.

Tito was the founder and the president of the world's largest political-economic union, NAM (non aligned movement).

NAM members today:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/NAM_Members.svg/800px-NAM_Members.svg.png
NAM policy (direct Titoist ideology first hand):
The movement continues to see a role for itself, as in its view, the world’s poorest nations remain exploited and marginalised, no longer by opposing superpowers, but rather in a uni-polar world, and it is Western hegemony and neo-colonialism that that the movement has really re-aligned itself against. It opposes foreign occupation, interference in internal affairs, and aggressive unilateral measures, but it has also shifted to focus on the socio-economic challenges facing member states, especially the inequalities manifested by globalisation and the implications of neo-liberal policies. The non-aligned movement has identified economic underdevelopment, poverty, and social injustices as growing threats to peace and security.

Tito was one of the most influential people of the last century, but ever since the break up of Yugoslavia his name is pissed on from both political camps



According to World Bank statistics, the wealthiest 5 percent of Yugoslav households earned 25 percent of the national income in the 1970s, while the poorest 20 percent of the population earned less than 7 percent


Again bollocks. But I gotta hand it to ya - you really did try.
But you can't quite fool me, cause I'm a Yugoslav myself :laugh:
There was no poor/homeless/starving/exploited population in Yugoslavia, at least not while Tito was in charge.

Wages were tapped - meaning that no matter how high you rank, you might have been the general director, you could only earn x6 as the lowest paying worker.
Not a true equality, but some of the better ones all around.

Second - Tito died in early 1980. Yugoslavia went on to exist for next 10 years, and this is the period went things went seriously wrong.
But it was no "western conspiracy", simply leadership that arose after Tito was generally composed of stupid and low IQ people who started fighting for power as soon as Tito died.



Given all these facts, it's not difficult to see how the unity of the country fell apart. The sharply uneven development resulting from the capitalist model they followed yielded hostilities between the various Yugoslav nations. These hostilities ultimately boiled over and tore the country apart. Today, Yugoslavia does not exist. It was founded on the cause of socialism and destroyed by capitalism. So that's my opinion on Tito and his nationalist perspective.


Oh boy... you clearly know nothing of the South Slavic nations, but still feel very confident in giving in-depth analysis eh?
Do some research and you'll find out about centuries of ethnic hatred between these people.
Jews and Arabs in Middle East are a joke.
But Serbs and Croats, now that's one hell of a story.

Which all goes to show what an amazing leader Tito was.
Just imagine this for a momement - Croats, who were the closest ally of the Nazi Germany slaughtered 350.000 up to 1000.000 Serbs in concetration camps that Germans called "unhuman".
A year later Tito liberates the whole region and "forces" Croats and Serbs to live in a new made up country under the motto of "brotherhood and unity".
Imagine that.
And guess what? It worked for 50 years. And if it werenpt for warmongers who came to power after Tito died, this crazy but true story would continue.



Tito's regime provides us with an excellent of what not to do.


Good, remove the word "not" and you finally got a decent comment:cool:


Ok, now that we took care of the main leftist deadly sin - "revisionism", I can tell you just a quick story whille I like Tito.

Firts of all, I'm sorry that there is not a decent bio written in English. Most are just small facts.
I read many books, but my favorite if one written by a historian called Dedier, it's almost 2000 pages long with tiny font (!!!).

Tito was a true hero of the working class, one of the few communist leaders that actually were proletariet themselves - Tito was a locksmith.

Hi led an incredible, almost Inidana Jones Hollywood adventure life. For example, he traveled to Berlin on foot.
Was very self-educated. Hiw knowledge spans greatly, from Darwinsim to Marxism and beyond.

Was taken hostage in WWI and was deported to Russia.
There he managed to escape from a train going to Syberia.
He walked the syberian wood for more then 2 weeks and eventually hid in a small village.
He got married there and was around main hotspots for the October Revolution, even lead a brigade of the red army.

After returning to homeland started actively working as an underground communist. He was one of the best Moscow agents. Traveled the entire world with 30-40 different passports.
When the WWII broke out, in the occupied country he organized the firts resistance movmenet against Nazis in the world.
His partisans started a small group living in the forrest and eventually becoming one of the strongest militaries in the world.
Rest is history.

And above all - Tito had balls, big balls:laugh: He toyed around with Moscow AND Washington. He used his strategic, military and leadership skills to get all that he wanted.

But before someone accuses me of nurturing a cult of personality - let me just mention his biggest achivmenet: for a brief time, 40-50 years - Yugoslavia was as close to a socialist paradise as it gets. Especially if you compare it to the USSR, Cuba, China, Korea etc...
No, not from the theoretical textbook Marxist point of view, but from the point of view of those who matter - the working class !:star3:

http://www.yoursdaily.com/var/yoursdaily/storage/images/media/images/world_news/europe/serbia/josip_broz_tito/42473-1-eng-GB/josip_broz_tito_large.jpg

[btpound]

Bravo punisa, you've got moxy!

I would like to hear more about how the Titoist economy worked really. What sort of economic control did they exert? Was it esencially state capitalism? Did they have a market system to some degree?

Also, can you refer me to any books or pamphlets on Yugoslavia or Tito as a Leader?

[Dimentio]

The idea that Jeffersonian "checks and balances" are the solution strikes me as quite a simplistic, mechanical formulation. Leaders in socialist societies take the capitalist road because the old ideas have not yet been fully uprooted, but continue to spring up when there remains unevenness precisely as a result of that unevenness. Permanent revolution (i.e. an orientation of continual revolution, including under socialism, on both the national and international stages) is "the answer" in the simplistic sense, but we need a correct understanding that that has to take a relatable, human form. It has to bring forward the masses to transform their own reality, not just attempt to impose a new reality on them. That's the task that hasn't yet been adequately done.

Leaders in socialist countries take the route of corruption not because of some miasma luring in the background, but because that socialist societies tend to not know how to install socialism or know how to stay on their goals. "Socialist" societies have often been party-orientated, leader-orientated or military-orientated, when they in fact should be goal-orientated. What should matter is not who is sitting in a decisive position, but that the person in question who is sitting in that position is following the goals and doing as expected.

When explaining the degeneration of socialist experiments, socialists have most often focused on the leaders or the previous situation or the international situation, rather than the structure. Kim Jong-Il don't raise giant statues of himself because the USA is forcing him to do so, but because he is acting within a system which allows him to abuse the population of North Korea.

As for the reason that Yugoslavia dissolved - that process was starting already under Tito. There were different socialist parties in power in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia. These local party establishments managed to de-centralise power to the regional capitols at the expense of the federal structure, for example giving each region an own central bank in the 1970's. The only thing that kept Yugoslavia together was the role of Tito's faction.

The dissolution could have been peaceful though, if it hadn't been for nationalist ideologues.

[punisa]

"Socialist" societies have often been party-orientated, leader-orientated or military-orientated, when they in fact should be goal-orientated.
Very very true. This is/was lacking in many attempts at socialism.
Sure, the party always has certain "goals", but its usually just propaganda for the masses.
But as you put it, they are still party oriented.



The only thing that kept Yugoslavia together was the role of Tito's faction.
The dissolution could have been peaceful though, if it hadn't been for nationalist ideologues.
Yes - this is the biggest tragedy of Yugoslavia.
Since by the 1990, all preconditions were met for a peaceful dissolution.
Also, the possibility of separation by any state was included in constitution of 1973.

Tito was rather old when he died, 87. But to the last day he was perceived by the overwhelming majority of Yugoslav as a leader of the people.
While in reality many were already conspiring against him at the time.

I remember asking my mother why the whole nation went into an uncontrollable crying rampage once the news came that Tito died.
Were the people so emotionally tied with their leader? It would come as a surprise to me, cause Tito never had such image amongst the people. He was always perceived as "one of them".
What she told me was very honest and true: "at the moment Tito died we all knew one thing - we are screwed now."

It was an unspoken spectre among the working class - that Tito is the anchor of both domestic and foreign stability.

One of the main reasons why people looked up to Tito was the fact that he was not your regular leader who simply took power. He was a hero of the people, a partisan soldier who fought along his comrades during the WWII and was even wounded on a few occasions.
This is very very different from people like Lenin, Stalin or even Hitler.
I'd say Tito had a similar charisma of Fidel Castro for example.



I would like to hear more about how the Titoist economy worked really. What sort of economic control did they exert? Was it esencially state capitalism? Did they have a market system to some degree?

Also, can you refer me to any books or pamphlets on Yugoslavia or Tito as a Leader?


There are a handful of good books around, I tried to hunt down some english version from my collection, this one is rather good:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51SKGLrfc4L._SL500_AA240_.jpg
http://www.amazon.com/Tito-Vladimir-Dedijer/dp/B002B7L12G/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264874399&sr=8-13

Regarding the economy.
The propaganda attacks were centered on the caricature of Tito the Butcher (of the Working Class), aimed to pinpoint him as a covert agent of Western Imperialism. Tito was in fact welcomed by Western powers as an ally, but he never lost his communist credentials.

By the time Tito had a split with Stalin he already saw that development of USSR is not enough. He always claimed that Yugoslavia must be the leader of development, especially in branches like technology and similar.
This will be, according to Tito, the only way it will be able to preserve its socialist values. It must be as strong as it can be.
Especially in economy.

Tito as a founder of non aligned movement had enormous markets to export and trade with.
This trade went further then just goods and commodities.
I remember Zagreb in the early 80's, there were students from Libya, North Korea, even Cuba and many parts of Africa.
The exchange amongst the NAM nations was a very diverse one.

He indtrduced worker self-management. This is a form of workplace decision-making in which the workers themselves agree on choices (for issues like customer care, general production methods, scheduling, division of labour etc.) instead of an owner or traditional supervisor telling workers what to do, how to do it and where to do it.

The country's economy prospered under Titoist Socialism. Unemployment was low, the education level of the work force steadily increased. The life expectancy and living standards of Yugoslav citizens was equal to the life expectancy and living standards of citizens of "western" capitalist countries such as the United States.

Yugoslav companies exported to both Western and Eastern markets. Many carried out construction of numerous major infrastructural and industrial projects in Africa, Europe and Asia.

Unlike the Soviet Union Yugoslavia's socialist economy was not centrally planned.
Despite their common origins, the economy of socialist Yugoslavia was much different from the economies of the Eastern European communist countries. Rather than being owned by the state, Yugoslav companies were socially owned and managed with workers' self-management much like the anarchist communes of Spanish Catalonia.

The fact that Yugoslavs were allowed to emigrate freely caused many to find work in Western Europe, notably Germany. The emigration was mainly caused by force deagrarization, deruralization, and over-populating of larger towns. The emigration contributed to keeping the unemployment checked and also acted as a source of capital and foreign currency. The number of guest workers from Yugoslavia in West Germany was around 410,000.

I remember that one of the co-workers of my uncle who worked in West Germany came for a visit.
He said: "you and me, we both work very hard for our bosses back in Germany. But unlike me, you already have a house, a flat, a car, a boat and the summer residence at the coast ! And what do I have? nothing ! Just loans and mortgages and my family barely survives"

This is how it was back in those days. I didn't remember any Yugoslav workers complaining to much about exploitation in the west, because the cash they earned there made them live like kings back home.
Thus the official Yugoslav policy embraced it rather then tried to stop it.

The workers were organized into trade unions which spanned across the country. Strikes could be called by any worker, or any group of workers and they were common in certain periods. Strikes for clear genuine grievances with no political motivation usually resulted in prompt replacement of the management and increase in pay or benefits.

But after Tito, Yugoslavia aquired many loans from IMF.

And this was the very end:
In 1989, before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Yugoslav federal minister went to Washington to meet with President George Bush, negotiating for a new financial aid package. In return for assistance, Yugoslavia agreed to even more sweeping economic reforms, including a new devalued currency, another wage freeze, sharp cuts in government spending, and the elimination of socially owned, worker- managed companies.

Reagan administration targeted the Yugoslav economy in a "Secret Sensitive" 1984 National Security Decision Directive (NSDD 133), "Us Policy towards Yugoslavia." A censored version declassified in 1990 elaborated on NSDD 64 on Eastern Europe, issued in 1982. The latter advocated "expanded efforts to promote a 'quiet revolution' to overthrow Communist governments and parties," while reintegrating the countries of Eastern Europe into a market-oriented economy.

I believe such moves were surely made even while Tito was still in power. But Id' need full access to US classified files to prove it:cool:
Tito was a cunning fox during his time, he knew how to make things work the way he wanted to.
This attitude worked for him ever since the fight against the Nazis.

[btpound]

As for the reason that Yugoslavia dissolved - that process was starting already under Tito. There were different socialist parties in power in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Macedonia. These local party establishments managed to de-centralise power to the regional capitols at the expense of the federal structure, for example giving each region an own central bank in the 1970's. The only thing that kept Yugoslavia together was the role of Tito's faction.


Actually you have it a little backwards I think. They didn't set up banks because they wanted to break apart, they set up banks because they had already broken apart. The IMF, in accordance with a UN resolution from the US, said that they would have no more trade or loans unless they dissolved their national government and national currency and each country only dealt with the West directly. They hit them where they were weak.

No planned economy? That seems a little strange. How did they... ya know... plan the economy? And buisness wasen't state owned but publicly owned? So the state had no part in the running of the buisness sector? This seems a little strange to me, if you could elaborate.

[punisa]

No planned economy? That seems a little strange. How did they... ya know... plan the economy? And buisness wasen't state owned but publicly owned? So the state had no part in the running of the buisness sector? This seems a little strange to me, if you could elaborate.

I mentioned some details in that bloated post above:laugh:
in short, companies were owned by workers - not the government.
The system used was worker's self management.

Say you and me and 10 more comrades were working in a company that produced .. let's say glass bottles.
We'd meet up and together plan on where to export our finished goods - Italy, Egypt, Ghana or Canada?
You work and also manage and it the end share the profits.

Surely the government was not inactive, it was there to set up companies and factories in the first place.
This was made by huge "worker's actions" after WWII, people built everything - for free :lol: Schools, railways, factories, offices, shipyards.. all of it.

I was just talking to an elder guy who worked in a mid size company that produces sewing machines.
He told me stories about working atmosphere that was amazing. People were eager to go to work and enjoyed it.
He says the working community was very friendly as there was no "stabs in the back" like you have in capitalist system - simply because you didn't need to kiss ass to become in charge - you already where.

Also, the workers created the development strategies for the company and if there was extra profit at the end of the year (which usually was the case) all workers, including their families, got like 2 weeks of paid vacation in Hawaii :rolleyes:

Sure, there were flaws. Such as the obvious fact that if you were the member of the communist party, you would usually end up with better job and/or better benefits.
But overall the advantages were so numerous that it was very positive model.

This is by far very visible today, 20 years after the collapse of socialism. We all live like pieces of shit.
Of course, except a tiny ruling elite that is rich beyond wildest imagination.

Take me for example - I work days, I work nights. I work as robot and I'm barely paying my rent.
Actually I'm 20 days overdue as of today and I haven't got anywhere else to go. All of my friends/family are either in same or worse situations. So there is a good chance I'll end up sleeping somewhere under the bridge in some near future :crying:

[FSL]

I=Say you and me and 10 more comrades were working in a company that produced .. let's say glass bottles.
We'd meet up and together plan on where to export our finished goods - Italy, Egypt, Ghana or Canada?
You work and also manage and it the end share the profits.



You can imagine why this isn't considered socialism by most people though, right?

What about those other 10 comrades working in another glass bottle factory? What about everyone who consumes drinks and who won't like the fact that your profiteering will mean higher prices?

[Искра]

You can imagine why this isn't considered socialism by most people though, right?

What about those other 10 comrades working in another glass bottle factory? What about everyone who consumes drinks and who won't like the fact that your profiteering will mean higher prices?

LOL

Stalinist moralization :D ha ha ha hah a

[FSL]

LOL

Stalinist moralization :D ha ha ha hah a


No. Actually, marxists simply recognise that this day more than ever before production is a social phenomenon, a process encompassing everyone and not just individuals or even small groups. Producing glass bottles depends as much to the workers there as it depends to those supplying machinery or raw materials, those that built the factory, those that will transfer the products, those that will distribute them. Each person depends on a billion other professions for his health, his education, his amusement.

Which is why we oppose a craft-centered, narrow "trade-unionist" outlook, which is why we are internationalists, which is why we're arguing for the working class to take power, the working class as a totality shaped by the modern economy.


Next time you can just ask.

[punisa]

You can imagine why this isn't considered socialism by most people though, right?

What about those other 10 comrades working in another glass bottle factory? What about everyone who consumes drinks and who won't like the fact that your profiteering will mean higher prices?

What about those 10 other comrades?
You must understand that we are not talking about classic capitalism here. There is a spectre of the powerful communist party hovering every worker's enterprise.
There is no "other" glass bottle factory actually, at least not in a competition market oriented way.
There is no - oh my god, our competitors have lowered the price so we must too and work harder, longer as a result.

Ex-Yugoslav countries today import virtually everything, even food (which is complete nonsense considering the amount of fertile land available).
During the Tito era it was not the case, everything was home made - from cars, guns, bottles to toilet paper.

But I stated on numerous occasions that Yugoslav economic model was in no way an active implementation of Marxist though.
If judging by those guidelines, then no - it was not socialism.

If it wasn't for Stalin-Tito split, Yugoslavia would be as any other Moscow satellite.
But after breaking away from Stalin, Tito and some of his closest comrades took everything into their own hands and started building a model of their own - today we call it Titoism or Titoist model.

All "socialist" countries of the 20st century where largely experimental, USSR included.
Range goes from extreme hard line (say Pol Pot) to moderate (Tito).

But as you know, all of these are now history and we can only look at it in the historic context.
Classifying some as socialist or not socialist is of little use now.
We should carefully study all of these experiments and see where they failed.
The catastrophic failure of the left must not be repeated.
Capitalism is leading 1:0, time to get even :cool:

"memento mori" should be taken into account - leaders must be replaceable or otherwise it won't end up good. Yugoslavia has got scars to prove it

[Dimentio]

Actually you have it a little backwards I think. They didn't set up banks because they wanted to break apart, they set up banks because they had already broken apart. The IMF, in accordance with a UN resolution from the US, said that they would have no more trade or loans unless they dissolved their national government and national currency and each country only dealt with the West directly. They hit them where they were weak.

No planned economy? That seems a little strange. How did they... ya know... plan the economy? And buisness wasen't state owned but publicly owned? So the state had no part in the running of the buisness sector? This seems a little strange to me, if you could elaborate.

Uhm. In the 1970's, Croatia and Bosnia acquired their own central banks. That was well before the death of Tito.

[Red7]

Thank you very much, comrades! This has been very interesting and somewhat enlightening. Sorry its taken me so long, but you didn't need me. :pI'm not even sure anyone will see that I got back to this post. Anyway, thanks!

[Robocommie]

I mentioned some details in that bloated post above:laugh:
in short, companies were owned by workers - not the government.
The system used was worker's self management.

Say you and me and 10 more comrades were working in a company that produced .. let's say glass bottles.
We'd meet up and together plan on where to export our finished goods - Italy, Egypt, Ghana or Canada?
You work and also manage and it the end share the profits.

Surely the government was not inactive, it was there to set up companies and factories in the first place.
This was made by huge "worker's actions" after WWII, people built everything - for free :lol: Schools, railways, factories, offices, shipyards.. all of it.

I was just talking to an elder guy who worked in a mid size company that produces sewing machines.
He told me stories about working atmosphere that was amazing. People were eager to go to work and enjoyed it.
He says the working community was very friendly as there was no "stabs in the back" like you have in capitalist system - simply because you didn't need to kiss ass to become in charge - you already where.

Also, the workers created the development strategies for the company and if there was extra profit at the end of the year (which usually was the case) all workers, including their families, got like 2 weeks of paid vacation in Hawaii :rolleyes:

Sure, there were flaws. Such as the obvious fact that if you were the member of the communist party, you would usually end up with better job and/or better benefits.
But overall the advantages were so numerous that it was very positive model.

This is by far very visible today, 20 years after the collapse of socialism. We all live like pieces of shit.
Of course, except a tiny ruling elite that is rich beyond wildest imagination.

Take me for example - I work days, I work nights. I work as robot and I'm barely paying my rent.
Actually I'm 20 days overdue as of today and I haven't got anywhere else to go. All of my friends/family are either in same or worse situations. So there is a good chance I'll end up sleeping somewhere under the bridge in some near future :crying:

You have my deepest sympathies comrade, and I hope things turn out better for you. But this system you describe is fascinating to me because it sounds exactly like the kind of model I'd like to see enforced. I'm curious, what is it that changed in former Yugoslavia? What happened?