Titoism

[StoneFrog]

Titoism i always kinda just dismissed it. But i see now there were some really good theories in it. I mean take away the market system and i'd like it a lot, tbh.

What were the Trotskyists and Left Communists thoughts on Titoism? I see its biggest down fall is market socialism, but i feel it is better than the USSR's system. But i like its worker control and giving a lot of control to the workers.

[Cyberwave]

Titoism i always kinda just dismissed it. But i see now there were some really good theories in it. I mean take away the market system and i'd like it a lot, tbh.

What were the Trotskyists and Left Communists thoughts on Titoism? I see its biggest down fall is market socialism, but i feel it is better than the USSR's system. But i like its worker control and giving a lot of control to the workers.

Left communists and Trotskyists to my knowledge both generally disprove of Tito, but at the same time commend him for his opposition to Soviet policy. Trotsky once wrote of Yugoslavia in 1920 (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1920/10/yugo.htm) and so I'm sure he may have changed his views and when he wrote the letter he admitted himself that he wasn't entirely familiar with the events occurring in the area. Much like with the Soviets, he did not believe that Tito would be capable of achieving socialism in one country however:

"Only the socialist revolution in the Balkans and in Central Europe can create favourable conditions for the peaceful regeneration and economic recovery of the Yugoslav working masses. Only the Soviet Balkan Federation closely tied to the federations of Central Europe will allow the different nationalities established in these regions to unite their forces in peaceful collaboration instead of fragmenting and dividing them."

On the other hand, Tito himself was technically opposed to Trotskyism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/tito/1939/x01/x01.htm)

"For the purpose of performing its subversive activities in different organizations of the working class and in the other democratic parties and organizations, Trotskyism operates in different shapes, but always with one goal – to clear the road for the fascist-imperialist bandits."

Of course, a Marxist-Leninist would not necessarily view this totally positive, because to many Marxist-Leninists [Maoist or Hoxhaists], Tito himself was a revisionist and a phony communist. Historically, Tito was often labeled Trotskyist as a pejorative for his opposition to Soviet policy or for his attempts at annexing Albania and so forth, but he rejected the label explicitly for what it's worth as noted in a 1950 interview. (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/fi/vol11/no06/banerji.html)But James Klugmann nonetheless argues the similarities between Trotskyism and Titoism in 'From Trotsky to Tito,' which if anyone could find an online link I'd appreciate it.

The bottom line is that Trotskyists and other left leaning communists will most likely view Tito as too authoritarian, but they'll see plenty of positives about him. Whereas Marxist-Leninists such as myself reject Tito and Titoism. To us, Yugoslavia was bordering market socialism and revisionism. Hoxha is perhaps the most vocal opponent of Tito and his policies. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm)

[enrici]

but what about this self management thing he did? was that worth anything?

[StoneFrog]

but what about this self management thing he did? was that worth anything?

Thats actually one of the reason Titoism caught my eye

-Worker Self Management
-Being against the Cold War
-The tactics used should be based on local conditions to be best effective
-Being against imperialism, even the USSR's imperialism.

One of the most important things i likes is how the communes had control over the TO, this coupled with high worker control over production is a very strong security net for the workers. When i say Security net i mean to protect themselves even from the government, if it turned against them. These things i don't see in the USSR and the only way i could support a state structure like this is to have security for the people, to allow them to defend themselves to ensure dictatorship of the proletariat. The TO was mainly designed to combat invading forces, to go into "total war"; but with it being under the control of the communes it gives a whole lot more power to the people.

But i will admit, the whole market socialism isn't that great, tho better than the USSR's; because it actually give control to the workers.

I would like to find more information on how the structuring of the regions where, with the autonomous regions etc..

[Cyberwave]

Thats actually one of the reason Titoism caught my eye

-Worker Self Management
-Being against the Cold War
-The tactics used should be based on local conditions to be best effective
-Being against imperialism, even the USSR's imperialism.

One of the most important things i likes is how the communes had control over the TO, this coupled with high worker control over production is a very strong security net for the workers. When i say Security net i mean to protect themselves even from the government, if it turned against them. These things i don't see in the USSR and the only way i could support a state structure like this is to have security for the people, to allow them to defend themselves to ensure dictatorship of the proletariat. The TO was mainly designed to combat invading forces, to go into "total war"; but with it being under the control of the communes it gives a whole lot more power to the people.

But i will admit, the whole market socialism isn't that great, tho better than the USSR's; because it actually give control to the workers.

I would like to find more information on how the structuring of the regions where, with the autonomous regions etc..

Workers self-management generally lacked Party control, or party discipline. In these regards the Yugoslavs claimed that the state was already withering, but in fact it wasn't, and there were numerous conditions to support the bourgeoisie, especially in the countryside. There were not many party discussions on that note, so it wasn't as though much was done to solve the issue of "market socialism," although to Tito it apparently wasn't an issue. Likewise, the party contained many petty-bourgeois and Kulaks. The "self-administration" system of Yugoslavia had little in common with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in actuality, Kardelj himself admitted that the system was more similar to the organization of American society than anything else. And so Titoists deny the true necessity of the dictatorship, and likewise end up contrasting the terms socialist state, socialist democracy, and dictatorship of the proletariat with each other because of their failure to understand them. But as for imperialism, Tito made himself rather cozy with imperialists, and himself attempted to annex Albania, initially attempting to control prices and economics of Albania.

[Queercommie Girl]

The Trotskyist leader of the USFI, Ernst Mandel, actually claimed that Tito was an "unconscious Trotskyist".

Trotskyists in practice occupy a wide political spectrum and their opinions on various matters vary. Chinese Trotskyism has a reputation for being slightly "right-leaning" and "petit-bourgeois", due to the fact that many Chinese Trotskyists historically originated from "petit-intellectual" rather than working class backgrounds. Mao Zedong criticised the leader of the Left Opposition of the Chinese Communist Party, Chen Duxiu, for being a "right-leaning opportunist", while another famous Chinese Trotskyist, Li Lisan, was criticised by Mao for being a "left-leaning opportunist". However, Mao himself never completely wrote off either Chen Duxiu or Li Lisan. Like Maoism, there are both left Trotskyists and right Trotskyists.

Generally speaking Maoists in China today speak of Trotskyism as being "petit-bourgeois" and "subjective idealist".

[StoneFrog]

The Trotskyist leader of the USFI, Ernst Mandel, actually claimed that Tito was an "unconscious Trotskyist".

Trotskyists in practice occupy a wide political spectrum and their opinions on various matters vary. Chinese Trotskyism has a reputation for being slightly "right-leaning" and "petit-bourgeois", due to the fact that many Chinese Trotskyists historically originated from "petit-intellectual" rather than working class backgrounds. Mao Zedong criticised the leader of the Left Opposition of the Chinese Communist Party, Chen Duxiu, for being a "right-leaning opportunist", while another famous Chinese Trotskyist, Li Lisan, was criticised by Mao for being a "left-leaning opportunist". However, Mao himself never completely wrote off either Chen Duxiu or Li Lisan. Like Maoism, there are both left Trotskyists and right Trotskyists.

Generally speaking Maoists in China today speak of Trotskyism as being "petit-bourgeois" and "subjective idealist".

Where with this, where did Tito stand? Right Troskyist or Left?

[Queercommie Girl]

Tito would probably be classified as "right-leaning".

But Tito was no Trotskyist. He did not identify himself as such, and most Trotskyists do not label him as such. Mandel was an exception.

[Cyberwave]

Where with this, where did Tito stand? Right Troskyist or Left?

I'd probably say right leaning because of his lack of emphasis on the workers state [e.g. a more "libertarian" view that the state should be reduced to as minimum as possible] and capitalistic policies. Kardelj must also be analyzed too because he was more of the theorist than Tito at times, and likewise revisionist. Below are two good reads on the revisionism of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslav Self-Administration: Capitalist Theory and Practice. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm)
Tito's Revisionism. (http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/node145.html#SECTION001310400000000000000)

[StoneFrog]

Workers self-management generally lacked Party control, or party discipline. In these regards the Yugoslavs claimed that the state was already withering, but in fact it wasn't, and there were numerous conditions to support the bourgeoisie, especially in the countryside. There were not many party discussions on that note, so it wasn't as though much was done to solve the issue of "market socialism," although to Tito it apparently wasn't an issue. Likewise, the party contained many petty-bourgeois and Kulaks. The "self-administration" system of Yugoslavia had little in common with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in actuality, Kardelj himself admitted that the system was more similar to the organization of American society than anything else. And so Titoists deny the true necessity of the dictatorship, and likewise end up contrasting the terms socialist state, socialist democracy, and dictatorship of the proletariat with each other because of their failure to understand them. But as for imperialism, Tito made himself rather cozy with imperialists, and himself attempted to annex Albania, initially attempting to control prices and economics of Albania.

I don't support the party having that sort of control.

I don't know much about the whole thing that happened with Tito and Albania, got any reading on it? well Nothing by hoxha pls.

[Cyberwave]

I don't know much about the whole thing that happened with Tito and Albania, got any reading on it? well Nothing by hoxha pls.

There's always the Wikipedia article. Albania and Yugoslavia's Relationship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha#Relations_with_Yugoslavia) Ironically, Stalin initially supported Yugoslavia over Albania [despite Hoxha's strong praise of Stalin] but once Tito's revisionism became more apparent, and once Hoxha became more vocal against such revisionism, then did Stalin support Albania. Of course the Tito-Stalin split of 1948 influenced Stalin's decisions as well. Basically to sum up, Yugoslavia began to have more and more control over Albanian economy, and Hoxha and the Albanians finally got fed up.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Thats actually one of the reason Titoism caught my eye

-Worker Self Management
-Being against the Cold War
-The tactics used should be based on local conditions to be best effective
-Being against imperialism, even the USSR's imperialism.

One of the most important things i likes is how the communes had control over the TO, this coupled with high worker control over production is a very strong security net for the workers. When i say Security net i mean to protect themselves even from the government, if it turned against them. These things i don't see in the USSR and the only way i could support a state structure like this is to have security for the people, to allow them to defend themselves to ensure dictatorship of the proletariat. The TO was mainly designed to combat invading forces, to go into "total war"; but with it being under the control of the communes it gives a whole lot more power to the people.

But i will admit, the whole market socialism isn't that great, tho better than the USSR's; because it actually give control to the workers.

I would like to find more information on how the structuring of the regions where, with the autonomous regions etc..

I see a lot this mistake. Titoism is not product of different idea. Titoism is not product of Yugoslav communists will to make a new road , a new path. Titoism is a pure result of neglecting socialism , of a foreign policy toward its socialist neighbors in a pure bourgouisie way and similar.

About positive things Tito and leadership themselves did , not the Titoism itself as a deviant path :

- Yes , their opposition to Soviet economical dictatorship over eastern bloc was fair and right. Too bad other Balkan states such as Bulgaria , Albania , Romania and similar didn't step up as well

and thats about it

However Titoism brought many bad things to Yugoslavia

- Splitting from eastern bloc was bad for many reason. First of all , cold war wasnt brought up , and wasn't started by Communists , but by western allies , and therefore Commmies had fair position

- By splitting itself from Eastern bloc , Yugoslavia left itself in very fragile position , and with a bad federal model , and national-bureaucrat local governments which openly showed their paths in '70s and '80's , brought the shitty lousy national-rebirth atmosphere which ended the Federation in bloody war

- Yugoslavia was a socialist country with 2 million unemployed