Josip Broz Tito

[GrungeGestapo]

I recently read a book on Josip Broz Tito, who was a World War II-era revolutionary who fought for and led the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. He was known as a shadowy figure, and his comrades referred to him only as Tito. In the outside world there was so much confusion about his identity that some people thought Tito stood for a Terrorist Organization, and others believed the guerilla was a young woman, a Ukrainian Jew, A Russian General, even an American citizen who had once been an organizer in the U.S Communist Party.

He had traveled under at least two dozen aliases. In his time as a revolutionary, he went through many fierce battles against Nazi Germany. At one point he even caputered a dog from a German Colonel and it became his companion, soon learning to obey his commands in Serbo-Croatian. He named him Tiger. After the war he became President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which he rightly deserved for his patriotism in wartime.

In my opinon he deserves to be put in the same category as Che Guevara. After reading about him I really think his story is remarkable.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Tito was great, before leadign the brave partisans defeating the nazis, he was a commander in the Yugoslavian divison in the International Brigade in the spanish civil war. He wanted to give his people more freedom so we denied to become a servant to Stalin. Yugoslavia seems to have been a good place to live in during Titos time at the power, but it was poor, therefor many people left theire country to for work and saving some money, many came to Sweden. Here is the song Posumama i Gorama to an honour for the partisans!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AEvrzwjO8

[Roach]

Tito was terrible!Fighting Fascism is good, of course.But Churchill also fought Fascism ,Roosevelt too, same with Charles DeGaulle.If fighting Fascism guarantees a progressive status to x leader, so I think that pseudo-fascist president Getúlio Vargas was progressive too.:laugh:

Tito's internal policie's were the archetype of state capitalism hidden under the name of socialism.The labour of Yugoslavs was sold cheaply to West Germany.Yugoslavia had debts with IMF(while socialist contries like Albania from 1944-1985 and Soviet Union from 1922 to 1956 never owed nothing to them).

His external policies were not good either.Sometimes I think ''social-imperialist'' is too left for him.Tito tried to annex Albania, there were considerable drops of life standard when you compared the opressed Kosovars to the Eslovenes that lived in Yugoslavia's banking center.He only moved away from Stalin to throw the Yugoslav people to the westen imperialist gripe.

The biggest mark that Josip Broz Tito left on history probably was during his re-estabeleshiment of diplomatic relations with Kruschev,without him the political and economical transition of socialism-being-built to state capitalism would have happened in a far more long space of time.
If you want a real marxist-leninist view about him read Enver Hoxha's work on Yugoslavia avaible at marxists.org

[Red Commissar]

It depends on who you ask. From history he's been called everything from a fascist, council communist, a Stalinist, a Trotskyist, a good man, or a revisionist state-capitalist.

Same goes with almost any other figure that has called himself Communist.

[fa2991]

I recently read a book on Josip Broz Tito, who was a World War II-era revolutionary who fought for and led the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. He was known as a shadowy figure, and his comrades referred to him only as Tito. In the outside world there was so much confusion about his identity that some people thought Tito stood for a Terrorist Organization, and others believed the guerilla was a young woman, a Ukrainian Jew, A Russian General, even an American citizen who had once been an organizer in the U.S Communist Party.

Which book? I've been looking for a quality, sympathetic biography of Tito.

[TwoSevensClash]

Tito was great, before leadign the brave partisans defeating the nazis, he was a commander in the Yugoslavian divion in the International Brigade in the spanish civil war. He wanted to give his people more freedom so we denied to become a servant to Stalin. Yugoslavia seems to have been a good place to live in during Titos time at the power, but it was poor, therefor many people left theire country to for work and saving some money, many came to Sweden. Here is the son Posumama i Gorama to an honour for the partisans!

l7AEvrzwjO8
That was an awesome video.

I don't know much about Tito after WWII but the Yugoslav Partisans fight against the Germans was one of the most inspiring things I ever read in my life. Tito actually fought and was injured in battle.

[fa2991]

That was an awesome video.

I don't know much about Tito after WWII but the Yugoslav Partisans fight against the Germans was one of the most inspiring things I ever read in my life. Tito actually fought and was injured in battle.

The two coolest Tito stories I've ever heard:

1. While he was fighting for the Partisans, a bomb landed right next to him. It would have killed him, but his dog jumped in front of the bomb, saving Tito's life.

2. Some police came looking for him in a factory when he was still organizing steelworkers, and as they were getting closer to him, Tito all of a sudden stood up and yelled "Can't you fools see he isn't here!" They left after that.

I can't vouch for the validity of either story, but they're still pretty cool. :thumbup1:

[Weezer]

Tito was a legitimate communist revolu...say wait? He was a revisionist? This changes EVERYTHING.

Tito was an anti-working class fascist Trotskyist. He collaborated with the Nazis, and proof of it is in an obscure document with questionable authorship.

[Devrim]

It depends on who you ask. From history he's been called everything from a fascist, council communist, a Stalinist, a Trotskyist, a good man, or a revisionist state-capitalist.

I don't think that he was any of these things. He was, though, the only high ranking communist leader every to become an international chess grandmaster.

My grandfather met him in the 1930s in Paris.

Devrim

[Roach]

Tito was a legitimate communist revolu...say wait? He was a revisionist? This changes EVERYTHING.

Yes this changes everything when revisionist also means treating workers from his country like shit and trying to annex other nations for economicaly exploit them.
Also nobody says that he ever colaborated with the nazis.

[28350]

I think Tito had the wrong strategy in terms of strengthening Yugoslavia, but that doesn't mean I won't defend him as a communist.
Also, Josip Broz Tito?
Awesome.

[fa2991]

Yes this changes everything when revisionist also means treating workers from his country like shit and trying to annex other nations for economicaly exploit them.

How were the workers treated worse than in any other M-L country? I would think the existence of workers councils would suggest that their opinions, at least, were taken into consideration.


Also nobody says that he ever colaborated with the nazis.

He tried to sign a pact with Hitler while they were fighting each other but Hitler sent him back a message saying something to the effect of "I don't negotiate with communists."

[TwoSevensClash]

Tito was a legitimate communist revolu...say wait? He was a revisionist? This changes EVERYTHING.

Tito was an anti-working class fascist Trotskyist. He collaborated with the Nazis, and proof of it is in an obscure document with questionable authorship.

Are you sure you don't mean the Chetniks. They resisted the Nazis at first but then had some collaboration with them.

[TwoSevensClash]

He tried to sign a pact with Hitler while they were fighting each other but Hitler sent him back a message saying something to the effect of "I don't negotiate with communists."

I thought the leader of the Chetniks said that when their leader and Tito had talks about working together?

[EddieGunner]

woah
Titio never worked together with Nazi's, lots of people mistaken Tito's Partizans with Chetniks, in first at start of WW2 and german occupation Serbian king as most of king pussys run away to england, and chetinkis stayed in contact with him and at first they were saying they r those who fight against nazi's etc.... stupid propaganda but then England realized that they r not what they sayin, cause only one who was fighting vs Naz's in Yugoslavia were Tito's partisans,

Yugoslavia was poor but one but not poor as Romania, Checoslovakaia and other neighbours, for them we were a paradise on earth, So Tito did do somethign with destroyed country after ww2 and he kept serbian and croatia nationalist under one roof, and those 2 were strong ustashe and Chetniks but he kicked them they msotly run away to Canada, Australia, USA, Latin america, thats why now there is strong serbian and croatian in those parts of world, cause Tito and comunistic party kicked them away......

shit i wrote a lot for my first post on this forum,
sorry for some typos im sleepy :)

[Weezer]

The "Tito collaborated with the Nazis" statement was sarcasm. :lol:

[Ocean Seal]

Tito was indeed a hero at least in wartime, and while I wouldn't consider myself a Titoist, he did make a good point that socialism cannot be developed in the same fashion everywhere.

[Vampire Lobster]

Tito was terrible!Fighting Fascism is good, of course.But Churchill also fought Fascism ,Roosevelt too, same with Charles DeGaulle.If fighting Fascism guarantees a progressive status to x leader, so I think that pseudo-fascist president Getúlio Vargas was progressive too.:laugh:

Fair enough. It would be naïve to consider everyone fighting fascism to be some kind of a progressive. It's a regrettably common misconception, however, especially among anti-imperialists today.


Tito's internal policie's were the archetype of state capitalism hidden under the name of socialism.The labour of Yugoslavs was sold cheaply to West Germany.This, in the other hand, is rather questionable. I would really like to hear how Yugoslavia was supposed to be state capitalist as the socialist system there was seriously one of the last ones who actually took workers' self-management seriously, actually allowed strikes and where workers' councils were still somewhat relevant. The system did, however, have certain market socialist traits, which always isn't bad (see NEP) but really doesn't have to do with state capitalism.

Also, yeah, I wouldn't consider Yugoslavs working in the West Germany as something that shows us the decadent nature of the system here. Seriously, how could I blame the Yugoslav government for actually allowing emigration? That's pretty amazing spin, really, there. "You're oppressing the workers by allowing them to move wherever they want yarrr". Anyways, following deruralization the big Yugoslav cities were getting pretty crowded and they actually started to have problems with employment. Allowing them to sell their labour in Germany if they wanted to was problematic from an ideological point of view, but surely was pragmatic enough for me not to care.



Yugoslavia had debts with IMF(while socialist contries like Albania from 1944-1985 and Soviet Union from 1922 to 1956 never owed nothing to them).In other words, the Soviet Union and socialist Albania were constantly and from the beginning in debt to the IMF? :cool:


stuff huff puff. He only moved away from Stalin to throw the Yugoslav people to the westen imperialist gripe.Surely, Tito and the Yugoslav workers should've known their place better and not get uppity! And here we see the true crime of Tito; his aim was to create a socialist society independent from the Soviet influence, where you didn't have to listen what Kremlin had to say before making a decision. Also yeah, fuck them for actually supporting the Greek Communists instead of being nice to Churchill and not cause trouble in Europe. That, especially, surely made comrade Koba drool bloody rage over his stache!

[Bright Banana Beard]

This, in the other hand, is rather questionable. I would really like to hear how Yugoslavia was supposed to be state capitalist as the socialist system there was seriously one of the last ones who actually took workers' self-management seriously, actually allowed strikes and where workers' councils were still somewhat relevant. The system did, however, have certain market socialist traits, which always isn't bad (see NEP) but really doesn't have to do with state capitalism. The problem is there were never self-management, it was actually management.
From Hoxha:
The Titoite regime also had to liquidate that half-baked system of collectivization of agriculture which had been set up in a number of rural economies and to create a new system in which the kulaks and the great land owners would be favoured again. Forms and means were found for the redistribution of the land, under which the old kulaks were re-established without causing great unrests in the country. The state adopted a series of capitalist measures, such as the breaking up of the machine and tractor stations and the selling of their equipment to the rich peasantry which could afford to buy them as well as the imposition of heavy taxes on the peasants. The state farms, likewise, were transformed into capitalist enterprises in which also foreign capital was invested, etc.
The local merchants and industrialists, to whom major concessions were made, benefited greatly from the foreign capital invested.

This allowed the managers to hold the means of production and be concerned with the profits. This also give a manager to hire up to 5 people, and these 5 people able to hire their own 5 people and so on. You can imagine about this structure of so called "self-management."


Anyways, following deruralization the big Yugoslav cities were getting pretty crowded and they actually started to have problems with employment. Allowing them to sell their labour in Germany if they wanted to was problematic from an ideological point of view, but surely was pragmatic enough for me not to care. Albania didn't have much of emigration until the collapse of the socialist government and they were doing so well themselves that the Yugoslav government has to send their workers off to the western nations which will exploit them? Sorry, but for this I do care about these Yugoslav workers, at least Albanian don't have to be worry about leaving their homeland.



Surely, Tito and the Yugoslav wourkers should've known their place better and not get uppity! And here we see the true crime of Tito; his aim was to create a socialist society independent from the Soviet influence, where you didn't have to listen what Kremlin had to say before making a decision. Except they asked Washington what to do before making a decision.
Albania was quite independent too that they willing to break off from the Warsaw Pact. At least Albania didn't send their people to work under the capitalist nation.


Also yeah, fuck them for actually supporting the Greek Communists instead of being nice to Churchill and not cause trouble in Europe. That, especially, surely made comrade Koba drool bloody rage over his stache! Except Tito stopped supporting Greek communists immediately after the split with the USSR and the Greek communists were hoping to see Tito to get couped, sadly this never happen and ultimately, Yugoslavia was to blame for the main fall of the Greek communists as he trapped the Greek reserve army at the Yugoslav border and they weren't allowed to go back to Greece to assist their comrades.

Sure the past's Yugoslavia is better than the today's Yugoslavia, but Tito was no communist.

[Vampire Lobster]

The problem is there were never self-management, it was actually management.
From Hoxha:
The Titoite regime also had to liquidate that half-baked system of collectivization of agriculture which had been set up in a number of rural economies and to create a new system in which the kulaks and the great land owners would be favoured again. Forms and means were found for the redistribution of the land, under which the old kulaks were re-established without causing great unrests in the country. The state adopted a series of capitalist measures, such as the breaking up of the machine and tractor stations and the selling of their equipment to the rich peasantry which could afford to buy them as well as the imposition of heavy taxes on the peasants. The state farms, likewise, were transformed into capitalist enterprises in which also foreign capital was invested, etc.
The local merchants and industrialists, to whom major concessions were made, benefited greatly from the foreign capital invested.

This allowed the managers to hold the means of production and be concerned with the profits. This also give a manager to hire up to 5 people, and these 5 people able to hire their own 5 people and so on. You can imagine about this structure of so called "self-management."

I'm going to admit here that I'm not in the know of details of Yugoslav economy and how the Self-Management of 1950 actually was implemented. So yeah, I'm not trying to debate you there. Doesn't mean I don't want an explanation for their supposed state capitalism however, and I already admitted the market socialist traits they did have.


Albania didn't have much of emigration until the collapse of the socialist government and they were doing so well themselves that the Yugoslav government has to send their workers off to the western nations which will exploit them? Sorry, but for this I do care about these Yugoslav workers, at least Albanian don't have to be worry about leaving their homeland.

Albania surely wasn't really even known for their open borders, though, unlike Yugoslavia. Yugoslav people leaving the country for West Germany had more to do with the government allowing that to happen, not them intentionally sending them there. It was allowed to become part of the solution. You should blame the workers themselves, who dared to think about their own interests and go somewhere where they actually were paid better - exploited or not. And I'm fairly confident this is how it would've gone in Albania, as well, had the Albanian government allowed their emancipated little work force do that in the first place.

As I said, from a ideological point of view it's very questionable, but actually denying the right from the workforce is even more so. Considering the revolution was supposed to improve the material conditions of the working class, it surely does bring up some questions regarding the revolution's success here.


Except they asked Washington what to do before making a decision.
Albania was quite independent too that they willing to break off from the Warsaw Pact. At least Albania didn't send their people to work under the capitalist nation.

I was mostly talking about Yugoslavia circa 1948 and so on, when they surely weren't aligned with Washington - like they never actually were officially - and that's when we saw the brave heros of Yugoslav revolutionary war become mutant traitor Trots.

And honestly, I can't blame them. It's not usually considered a good idea to isolate yourself from everybody everywhere and even though Hoxha thought that seemed to work for him, I really can't say Tito was that great of a villain for trying to get some support from an ideological enemy when the Soviet Union was pretty damn real a threat for Yugoslav sovereignty. Sometimes, enemy of your enemy can be a terrific friend.


Except Tito stopped supporting Greek communists immediately after the split with the USSR and the Greek communists were hoping to see Tito to get couped, sadly this never happen and ultimately, Yugoslavia was to blame for the main fall of the Greek communists as he trapped the Greek reserve army at the Yugoslav border and they weren't allowed to go back to Greece to assist their comrades.

To be fair to Tito, this had a lot to do with the Greek communists' decision to actually choose Stalin's side when the split finally occured. GIGANORMOUS SURPRISE INSIDE that Tito was less eager to support them at that point.


Sure the past's Yugoslavia is better than the today's Yugoslavia, but Tito was no communist.

He isn't really the caricature capitalist arse licker like he's often portrayed by M-Ls. He tended to focus pragmatism over ideology, and that brings some very real problems and will cause him to clash with more theory-oriented people a lot. And he was, indeed, a very flawed man. But at least he had an attempt to bring about a little different kind of socialism; I mean, the kind of socialism that was at least less likely to go terribly crash burn down like the Soviet system eventually did.

[Urko]

say what you want, my grandparents were working class in Yugoslavia and they say tito's Yugoslavia was the best thing that happened to Yugoslavs. They came from Bosnia to Slovenia in the 70s (time when a lot of Bosnians actually moved to other countries looking for jobs.) they had to live in barracks because they had no money. But as soon as my grandmother got a job, the company she got a job at gave them an apartment and after two kids a bigger apartment.

And FYI today's Yugoslavia doesn't exist therefore past yugoslavia can't be better than today's yugoslavia... but after tito's death evererything wen't downhill

[Bright Banana Beard]

And FYI today's Yugoslavia doesn't exist therefore past yugoslavia can't be better than today's yugoslavia... but after tito's death evererything wen't downhill I know that today Yugoslavia don't exist, but I was referring to the former states of Yugoslavia such as Serbia and Croatia. It is indeed that former "socialist" states does better standard than today's capitalist states. It is just that Tito wasn't a communist in a sense that he should be. Hell, he get chairman position until his death.

[EddieGunner]

Hell, he get chairman position until his death.
well that was he deserved cause he was leader when we needed him the most, in the war, when half of country was on Nazi side, mostly Croatia and Serbia parts.....

[Tavarisch_Mike]

say what you want, my grandparents were working class in Yugoslavia and they say tito's Yugoslavia was the best thing that happened to Yugoslavs. They came from Bosnia to Slovenia in the 70s (time when a lot of Bosnians actually moved to other countries looking for jobs.) they had to live in barracks because they had no money. But as soon as my grandmother got a job, the company she got a job at gave them an apartment and after two kids a bigger apartment.

And FYI today's Yugoslavia doesn't exist therefore past yugoslavia can't be better than today's yugoslavia... but after tito's death evererything wen't downhill

We have many yugoslaves in Sweden that came here in two times, the first was in the post-ww2 during the 40s-60s. The other one is frome the Balkan war. Those who lived during Titos time all say that life was good then, at least all ive meet and dont forget what happend when the system collapsed, sometimes it feels like only because Tito didnt want to take orders frome Kreml (and therfor was isolated) some people dont want to admit his achivements and dont want give a materialistic eplination on his misstakes.

[Vampire Lobster]

well that was he deserved cause he was leader when we needed him the most, in the war, when half of country was on Nazi side, mostly Croatia and Serbia parts.....

No. He didn't deserve that. Nobody does. Every single representative should be recallable and nobody should be above the democratic process. Reverence of idols and great men is utterly reactionary and a thing the contemporary left really seriously needs to get rid of.

[EddieGunner]

No. He didn't deserve that. Nobody does. Every single representative should be recallable and nobody should be above the democratic process. Reverence of idols and great men is utterly reactionary and a thing the contemporary left really seriously needs to get rid of.
well in this case, a balkan case or call it simple Yugoslavia, it was only good thing to have, one man for president till he dies, cause just after he died Yugoslavia started to fall apart,

ok maybe is wrong to have one president, till end of hes life, just maybe, but Tito ain't only one...

[Urko]

Yes I agree no one should that much power especially for that long of a time. But It was good that it was Tito who was the president till death... Just see what happened to Yugoslavia after his death and what kind of politicians could rise to power.

[Red Commissar]

Not really sure if it would be fair to judge Tito purely on that. How many other Communist leaders served as premier or general secretary until their deaths or were forcibly removed?

[Barry Lyndon]

It is just that Tito wasn't a communist in a sense that he should be. Hell, he get chairman position until his death.

Of course, Hoxha never did that, did he?

[Bright Banana Beard]

Of course, Hoxha never did that, did he? No, he resigned his position too. He didn't stay working to death.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marxist-Leninists can't really go on the offensive regarding 'for life' political positions.:lol:

[duchetina]

Tito was terrible!Fighting Fascism is good, of course.But Churchill also fought Fascism ,Roosevelt too, same with Charles DeGaulle.If fighting Fascism guarantees a progressive status to x leader, so I think that pseudo-fascist president Getúlio Vargas was progressive too.:laugh:

Tito's internal policie's were the archetype of state capitalism hidden under the name of socialism.The labour of Yugoslavs was sold cheaply to West Germany.Yugoslavia had debts with IMF(while socialist contries like Albania from 1944-1985 and Soviet Union from 1922 to 1956 never owed nothing to them).

His external policies were not good either.Sometimes I think ''social-imperialist'' is too left for him.Tito tried to annex Albania, there were considerable drops of life standard when you compared the opressed Kosovars to the Eslovenes that lived in Yugoslavia's banking center.He only moved away from Stalin to throw the Yugoslav people to the westen imperialist gripe.

The biggest mark that Josip Broz Tito left on history probably was during his re-estabeleshiment of diplomatic relations with Kruschev,without him the political and economical transition of socialism-being-built to state capitalism would have happened in a far more long space of time.
If you want a real marxist-leninist view about him read Enver Hoxha's work on Yugoslavia avaible at marxists.orgRoach you reed something which is not so true,first of all he not try to annex Albania,he try to put under control the NATIONALIST from Kosovo who whants to become part of Albania,and that project was become from Stallin who use the nationalist from kosovo to make trouble in Yugoslavia,second Tito make communist state sucesfull and that becouse he not give any chance to nationalist in Yugoslavia to make any kind of movement which become dangerous to a state of Yugoslavia so by that secret police done very god job,and when he died nationalist came in government and after ten years they make a war,so Roach you have to read more books about Yugoslavia to make good point

[duchetina]

Tito was a legitimate communist revolu...say wait? He was a revisionist? This changes EVERYTHING.

Tito was an anti-working class fascist Trotskyist. He collaborated with the Nazis, and proof of it is in an obscure document with questionable authorship.
no way PurpleBurger he made communism sucesfull and that kind of stories came from capitalist after he die,you must know that Tito take so mutch money from them on non returnable credits becouse he got a stand,that is the reason why he said NO to Stallin

[duchetina]

When Tito said no to Stalin,Stalin send him the jar full of sand with note
"See how many of us is"
then Tito send to him little jar full of hot pepperoni with a note
"Try us to see how we are"

[Great1917Revolution]

Tito is among the greatest World leaders ever to rule any country in the World. Although, I prefer Edvard Kardelj, because Tito became a bit reactionary, pragmatic and conservative in his last years and Kardelj was de facto leader and considered his successor, but he suddenly died 1 year earlier then Tito.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I recently read a book on Josip Broz Tito, who was a World War II-era revolutionary who fought for and led the League of Communists of Yugoslavia. He was known as a shadowy figure, and his comrades referred to him only as Tito. In the outside world there was so much confusion about his identity that some people thought Tito stood for a Terrorist Organization, and others believed the guerilla was a young woman, a Ukrainian Jew, A Russian General, even an American citizen who had once been an organizer in the U.S Communist Party.

He had traveled under at least two dozen aliases. In his time as a revolutionary, he went through many fierce battles against Nazi Germany. At one point he even caputered a dog from a German Colonel and it became his companion, soon learning to obey his commands in Serbo-Croatian. He named him Tiger. After the war he became President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which he rightly deserved for his patriotism in wartime.

In my opinon he deserves to be put in the same category as Che Guevara. After reading about him I really think his story is remarkable.

Of course no one says anything about his achievements as a commander in war , but his later actions are shameful. Not only he abandoned and betrayed a unified Socialist bloc , which only started developing socialism after war , but he collaborated with western intelligence agencies , and supported them with material about USSR , they recieved before the split , for some pity financial help , and a position of shitty European lackey buffer zone. The movement of non-aligned was just a personal political adventure of Tito to describe himself as a world's man , and friend of nations , and earn himself some reputation. How harmful these ideas , and how friendly was western capital , and market features , showed great the Yugoslav civil war in nineties. Once brotherly nations , fought over a piece of bread

No one gave a shit about Socialism , those who fought for it , were declared enemies of the state , and Soviet spies.


Tito is among the greatest World leaders ever to rule any country in the World. Although, I prefer Edvard Kardelj, because Tito became a bit reactionary, pragmatic and conservative in his last years and Kardelj was de facto leader and considered his successor, but he suddenly died 1 year earlier then Tito.
Kardelj , founder of Market Socialism , and creator of Yugoslav revision ? You gotta be kidding me

[Great1917Revolution]

Kardelj , founder of Market Socialism , and creator of Yugoslav revision ? You gotta be kidding me

Worker's self-management is the true socialism.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Worker's self-management is the true socialism.

The so called self-management was made in such a way , that Enterprises were forced to pursue profit again. That's exactly why Yugoslavia had about 2 million unemployed

[Born in the USSR]

In addition, competition has continued, workers of different companies competed with each other.That is, the working class was not united,it was divided under that "true socialism".

[Great1917Revolution]

The so called self-management was made in such a way , that Enterprises were forced to pursue profit again. That's exactly why Yugoslavia had about 2 million unemployed

Nonsense! Any reference for such absurd claim?

[Geiseric]

When Tito said no to Stalin,Stalin send him the jar full of sand with note
"See how many of us is"
then Tito send to him little jar full of hot pepperoni with a note
"Try us to see how we are"
Did anybody else find this funny? I mean Tito
had one hell of a sense of humor, he was excentric and I like that. At least he IMPROVED living conditions, regardless of the means, he really helped Yugoslavia. I'm pretty sure there wasn't much resistance to him either, people genuinelly liked him so he may of been elected regardless if he allowed other candidates. Also if there weren't so many nationalists in Yugoslavia, he would have probably allowed other candidates to the leadership. But he was like their George Washington, it wasn't really a question as to weather or not people wanted him to lead them.

[Omsk]

I mean Tito had one hell of a sense of humor
He was one of the few communist leaders who was truly loved by the people,he,unlike some of the leaders of the socialist states,had a dashing and rogue personality,unlike,for instance,Brezhnev,who ended up as almost a comical figure.

he was excentric and I like that
Not quite excentric,id rather say eased,calm and 'cool'.That is why he remained in power so long,he never spoke long on meetings,rather with long speeches he 'fed' the public with gesticulation,that hand waive,smile and a positive attitude,that is why he was so popular,and of course,the simple fact that he led Yugoslavia and helped in its forming (the partizans were responsible for the victory,their heroism,but you always need a good leader,and Tito was one)
Politics aside,he did good for the people,Yugoslavia was prosperous,the living standard was very high,and the people were happy,but...
He on the other side persecuted Stalinist,half-way abandoned socialism,dealt with the west,and played with both of the sides,eventually beating them both.
For instance,if you saw a picture of:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Brezhnev-color.jpg/210px-Brezhnev-color.jpg
And:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Marsal_Tito.jpg/426px-Marsal_Tito.jpg
Without knowing who they are,which one would you put your trust in,which one of them would bring up the thought "Hey!He looks really positive and humane"
Let me guess,you would connect that with Tito,(I dont dislike Brezhnev or something i just wanted to show you what i meant,so,no discussion space here)

But he was like their George Washington, it wasn't really a question as to weather or not people wanted him to lead them.
Not really G.W,more like the Lenin of Yugoslavia,leading the civil war and everything.(although there aren't much other similarities between him and Vladimir.)
He was the crucial aspect of Yugoslavia,he and his cult of personality,after his death,everything went down,the people were aware he was not flawless,but they liked him,they forgave him for the bad things he did,with a usual remark: "Hey,thats still our comrade Tito"
He was the hero of the people,simply said.
I wont go into political discussions regarding him and Trots,etc etc.
I can tell you first hand accounts on Tito,my grandfather visited him on a number of occasions.

[Geiseric]

from what i gather, Tito fits the description of benevolent dictator. Is everybody in agreement?

[Kléber]

Tito was a Stalinist ratbag who got cuddly with US imperialism. His regime murdered Trotskyists, nurtured a red bourgeoisie and sold the country to IMF, precipitating the communal slaughter of 1990s. As if that wasn't enough, his goons supported Hoxha's rise to power and the elimination of his rivals within the Albanian partisan movement.

You want to talk about personal memories and reminiscences? In Yugoslavia, my family could never get justice for the murder of my partisan grandmother by Chetnik collaborators, because the Chetnik bastard who ordered her assassination somehow "converted" to Communism at the end of the war and became a high-up bureaucrat. That's the "socialism" of Tito's Yugoslavia.

[Geiseric]

Oh shit, that's terrible. Same kinda shit happened in east germany from what I hear.

[Omsk]

Same kinda shit happened in east germany from what I hear.
You mean in west - Germany?
The west was full of nazis and tried to 'forget' the events surrounding the fascist power reign.

His regime murdered Trotskyists
That is one of the less important and less significant events during his reign.Although,don't get me wrong,all loss of life is a tragedy in its own way.I just don't think this was one of the more important events that ocured,Tito's anti Stalin actions had much more influence and political weight.


You want to talk about personal memories and reminiscences? In Yugoslavia, my family could never get justice for the murder of my partisan grandmother by Chetnik collaborators, because the Chetnik bastard who ordered her assassination somehow "converted" to Communism at the end of the war and became a high-up bureaucrat. That's the "socialism" of Tito's Yugoslavia.
That is unfortunate,although i don't know a large number of 'conversions' - Chetniks were the enemy of the people,and were mostly eradicated,the change of sides is not common.
A large number of them were killed,along with the Croatian nationalist's.What ex-YU country are you from?
And as for the memories - i also share a similar problem (to be precise,my family) My grandfathers village was sacked and maimed by the Chetniks/Ustase joined forces,and every male,female,child,grown up,- shot or butchered,his family survived out of sher luck,as they were in the fields,working,but they found their friends killed,homes burned,and the entire village destroyed,and guess what, - The Chetniks and Ustase got away with it,they all escaped to Austria,when the partisans came to power.From there,they went to England,Spain and France,to be welcomed as heroes in the struggle against communism.

[punisa]

Interesting discussion, thanks to everyone for contributing.
It's also very interesting to observe that whenever there is strong critique of Tito you discover that the person making these claims is either pro-Stalin or (more likely) pro-Hoxha, coincidence? I think not ;)

People who dig the socialist theory will find a bunch of details that goes against their ideology, but if you actually took the time and talk to the people we represent - the working class - you'll find out that support for Tito, even today, is tremendous.
The only working class individuals that bash Tito nowadays are the offspring of the fascist immigrants (and today we have plenty of those unfortunately).

Let me try to summarize in just one sentence why Tito was a leader like no other.
Here goes: If you discard the whole political ideology for a moment and try to imagine a system in which you would enjoy having a family and live in - that would be Tito's Yugoslavia.

Every system that is indeed sincerely better then Yugoslav's market socialism is only a theory, something that we talk about, but have never existed in history - almost utopia. But the system in Yugoslavia actually existed for almost 50 years and there is much still to be learned from it.

[Rodolfo]

So if the Titoist model was so successful why did it all go to shit when he died?

[Great1917Revolution]

So if the Titoist model was so successful why did it all go to shit when he died?


It worked and it was successfull until nationalism and right-wing populism flourished. Peoples were infected with hatred of each other and Yugoslavia split. Genocide, massacres, ethnic cleansings, pogroms... hundreds of thousands of dead in just 3 years. And endless economic misery, unemployment, hunger.

The only objetion to the Titoist system is absence of political freedoms and limited civil rights.