Yugoslavia and Tito

[Tommy4ever]

On other websites I've seen Tito's Yugoslavia get a lot of support from Leftists as the ideal sort of state. But I know little to nothing about it.

Can someone tell me the general successes and failures of Yugoslavia? Especially compared to the Eastern Bloc states and Western states in a similar position at the end of the War.

Also, if Titoism was so successful, why did it take such a short time for the whole thing to collapse after he was gone?

[the last donut of the night]

Under Tito, Yugoslavia was a capitalist state with nice red imagery -- that's it.

[Bandito]

Yugoslavia was not a success. It's pretty obvious. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War)
The main thing that got wrong was that Tito and his administration (ass wipes) called for a socialist revolution during the war that workers supported and betrayed the revolution afterward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split). But it was pretty obvious something like that would happen even before 1948, with Tito himself being a monarchist type of leader, with no workers saying in how the "socialist" state is run. People were fooled that they were actually participating in something because of the project called workers self management (http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-14787.html), which was something completely different in practice than it was in theory. Basically, it was a project with a goal to make masses, who in that point believed in socialist future of Yugoslavia, think that they were actually participating in how the state was run, opposed by the Soviet model of worker's councils. In reality, it was nothing more than a cover to work with Western imperialists on building a strong capitalist "free market". You wanted to know the comparison between Yugoslavia and the rest of the European countries after the war? While being completely destroyed after the war, Yugoslavia was quicker to rebuild than the rest of the surrounding countries (particulary Albania, Hungary, Romania and such), partly thanks to the Soviet funding, but more because of the spirit of rebuilding that Yugoslavians had after the Nazis got kicked out. There were masses working voluntarily in People's brigades that practically put the country back on its feet. So Yugoslavia had a different perspective than the mentioned countries, that Tito cunningly turned into an opportunity to work with the West in order to establish a semi-socialist and semi-capitalist state different than all of the rest, especially Soviet bloc. Of course, that proved to be utter bullshit and Yugoslavia quickly increased its national debt and everything went to shit because of that decision.

Something needs to be pointed out. While Tito was alive, Yugoslav people were happy, a large proportion of the population was actually happy. They had all the benefits of socialism, such were free and quality medical care and education, good salaries and a standard of living that enabled them to travel, have fun and never worry what's on the table. Another thing, that is massively underrated is the breakthrough in woman's rights that was reached after the war. But those are all benefits caused by the socialist revolution, funded by Western money and later destroyed by that plus the nationalism that later started to surface. All what elements of capitalism did in former Yugoslavia were horrendous to its future, and it led to thousands of dead people in the civil war and massive poverty and hunger that remained after the Yugoslav split.
Hope this helped.

[Crimson Commissar]

Is the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism just "someone who supports Stalin"? :rolleyes: Fucking get over it, just because someone isn't a raging stalinist doesn't make them a capitalist.

[Bandito]

Is the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism just "someone who supports Stalin"? :rolleyes: Fucking get over it, just because someone isn't a raging stalinist doesn't make them a capitalist.
I am positive that you didn't even try to read my post (or any other book that covers this subject, for that matter), when you can make such sectarian and, quite frankly, stupid comment in a thread like this. Comment, by which, you prove both your ignorance towards this particular historical period and Marxism-Leninism in general.
I think you rather just saw the replies this thread got, checked and saw that people who criticized the Tito period had that awful "Marxist-Leninist" as their tendency and decided to be a smartass.

[the last donut of the night]

Is the Marxist-Leninist definition of socialism just "someone who supports Stalin"? :rolleyes: Fucking get over it, just because someone isn't a raging stalinist doesn't make them a capitalist.

Did you fucking even read his post?

[Gustav HK]

Moreover the Tito-Rankovic clique continued the oppression of Kosova-Albanians until around 1968 (in 1966 Rankovic fell from power, but as I know it wasn´t because of Kosova). Under Rankovic the leading officials in Kosova were Serbians, and Albanians were forced to emmigrate to Turkey (as they were before Tito). Kosova-Albanian demonstrations in 1968 resulted in better conditions. But there was still high unemployment in Kosova (there was also high unemployment in the rest of the SFRY, but especially in Kosova), and Kosova didn´t get de jure republic status. When the Kosova-Albanians tried to demand that in 1981, the Yugoslav authorities answered with oppression, leading directly to people like Milosevic.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/TT82NB.html

[mykittyhasaboner]

Also, if Titoism was so successful, why did it take such a short time for the whole thing to collapse after he was gone?

The whole process of destruction was anything but short....it was long and brutal.

i would argue that it's still going on in a way.

[Khalid]

"Is Yugoslavia a socialist country?":


In 1956 the Tito clique encouraged local administrations to foster private capital by its taxation and other policies.

In 1961 the Tito clique decreed that private individuals have the right to purchase foreign exchange.

In 1963 the Tito clique embodied the policy of developing private capitalism in its constitution. According to provisions of the constitution, private individuals in Yugoslavia may found enterprises and hire labour.

With the Tito clique's help and encouragement, private enterprise and private capital have mushroomed in the cities in Yugoslavia.

According to the official Statistical Pocket-Book of Yugoslavia, 1963 published in Belgrade, there are over 115,000 privately-owned craft establishments in Yugoslavia. But in fact the owners of many of these private enterprises are not "craftsmen" but typical private capitalists.

The Tito clique admits that although the law allows private owners to employ a maximum of five workers each, there are some who employ ten or twenty times as many and even some who employ "five to six hundred workers". [10] And the annual turnover of some private enterprises is over 100 million dinars. [11]


Theoretically speaking, as anyone with a slight knowledge of Marxism knows, slogans like "workers' self-government" and "factories to the workers" have never been Marxist slogans but slogans advanced by anarchist syndicalists, bourgeois socialists and old-line opportunists and revisionists.

The theory of "workers' self-government" and "factories to the workers" runs counter to the fundamental Marxist theory of socialism. It was completely refuted by the classical Marxist writers long ago.


http://www.archive.org/details/IsYugoslaviaASocialistCountry

[Kléber]

Most of the dirt about Tito's regime is true, but it's pretty funny to see the Stalinists of all stripes calling him a monarch and an opportunist. Think no one will notice the irony? Why do none of our "anti-revisionists" ask the question of how did a guy like that get to lead a Communist Party? Perhaps because the truth is embarrassing: the Yugoslav bureaucracy inherited its despotism and revisionism directly from its parent, the Soviet Stalinist apparatus. Tito was Stalin's man in 1937. He eagerly directed the purge of Yugoslav communists, sent many good comrades to the firing squad, and was chosen to replace the CPY's General Secretary since 1932, Milan Gorkić (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/sr/c/c5/Milan_Gorkic.jpg) who was executed in Moscow on charges of "Trotskyism."

[punisa]

Also, if Titoism was so successful, why did it take such a short time for the whole thing to collapse after he was gone?

It did not actually take such a "short" time, Yugoslavia was indeed crippled after Tito died but it managed to go on for 10 more years.
The actual collapse is a very tricky situation and almost nobody can give a definitive reason.
But if you would like to learn more about the actual collapse and the rise of nationalism in Yugoslavia, I will recommend a documentary series - 6 whole movies produced by BBC in 1995 called "The Death of Yugoslavia": you can find them all here (in english): http://www.advance.hr/video/dokumentarci/6859/smrt-jugoslavije-01-dolazak-nacionalizma.html
Although keep in mind that this is the BBC, not the socialist propaganda, but some facts are very interesting - especially the many interviews.

As Bandito pointed out, despite the many flaws Tito's regime actually managed to create a nation with the state of happiness never seen in the modern times. I'd say that Yugoslavia roughly enjoyed 30 years of happiness.
This is the primary source behind the widespread "Yugonostalgia" - common working people don't give a fuck about the name of the ruling ideology nor the color of the banners around them. Every person in Yugoslavia that is intelligent enough to draw a simple comparison NOW VS. THEN is going to feel nostalgic for the times when Tito was in charge.

It is us, the socialists, who unfortunately know very well that such a state of happiness occurred primarily because many factors fell into place (USSR on the east, USA on the west etc).
To reach a point of living standards that Yugoslavia had back in the days seems almost impossible nowadays.

What I find rather interesting is the sense of order that existed in Yugoslavia while still being clearly dominated by the socialist values.
The way how population seems to change itself along these principles without the actual state interventionism was remarkable ! I'm primarily referring to the arts, music, movies, literature, women's rights, sexual freedom (besides LGBT freedom).
General feeling of safety as well.
All these aspects went into the radical phase of retrograding after the collapse of the country.
I'm definitely perversely oversimplifying this right now, but one of my personal benchmark for the real progress is how safe do you feel to walk the streets alone at night.