Titoism

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Titoism? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titoism)
Titoist Anti-Imperialism and People's Socialism...
http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/tito.jpg?w=494&h=1336&h=1336


“Yugoslavian president and communist party leader Josip Tito visited Beijing in a sign of the early post-Mao leadership’s interest in his decentralized type of ‘market socialism’… Shortly after Tito’s visit, the influential Guangming Daily newspaper ran an editorial arguing that workers should be paid bonuses for higher output or better work, while a meeting of provincial agriculture heads made similar arguments for rural labor.”
(William A. Joseph. Politics in China: An Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 106.)

"Tito made a state visit to Beijing, and in 1978, Hua Guofeng went to Belgrade, at which time the Chinese press heaped lavish praise on Yugoslavia’s social and economic systems.”
(Melvin Gurtov and Byong-Moo Hwang. China Under Threat: The Politics of Strategy and Diplomacy. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. 1980. p. 255.)

“I met with Comrade Tito just as an old soldier. We had a cordial talk and agreed to forget the past and look to the future. This is the attitude we adopted when we resumed relations with other East European parties and countries; we take the present as a fresh starting point from which to develop friendly, cooperative relations. Of course, it’s still worthwhile to analyse events of the past. But I think the most important thing is that each party, whether it is big, small or medium, should respect the experience of the others and the choices they have made and refrain from criticizing the way the other parties and countries conduct their affairs. This should be our attitude not only towards parties in power but also towards those that are not in power. When we had talks with representatives of the Communist parties of France and Italy, we expressed this view that we should respect their experience and their choices. If they have made mistakes, it is up to them to correct them. Likewise, they should take the same attitude towards us, allowing us to make mistakes and correct them. Every country and every party has its own experience, which differs from that of the others in a thousand and one ways.”
(Deng Xiaoping. Fundamental Issues in Present-Day China. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press. 1987. p. 186.)

“Like our Democratic Cambodia, Yugoslavia is a non-aligned country which has adhered to the position of preserving independence. Friendship between our two countries is therefore based on the same principle. We have always esteemed and respected Comrade President Tito and the friendly Yugoslav people. Comrade President Tito and the Yugoslav people have always supported and helped us. We have sympathy for them and wish to express our thanks to Comrade President Tito and the friendly Yugoslav people.”
(Pol Pot, quoted in Journal of Contemporary Asia Vol. 8 No. 3, 1978. p. 413.)

http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tito-in-belgijski-kralj.jpg

http://espressostalinist.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/tito-hirohito.jpg

Tito: A true man of the People! :lol:

[Ismail]

On Yugoslavia's economy there is Enver Hoxha's work Yugoslav "Self Administration": A Capitalist Theory and Practice, which can be viewed in this: http://www.enverhoxha.ru/Archive_of_books/English/enver_hoxha_selected_works_volume_V_eng.pdf (starting on PDF page 277)

"We Jugoslavs have discarded classic deviations between revolutionary and evolutionary socialism. History has erased such a distinction. Life now pushes toward the evolutionary progress... I think that even in the United States there is a tendency toward socialism. A big change began with your New Deal and your economy retains many of its features. For example, state intervention in the economy is much larger."
(Tito, quoted in Cyrus Leo Sulzberger. The Last of the Giants. New York: Macmillan. 1970. p. 270.)

Tito regarded Indira Gandhi as a great example of "non-aligned" and "socialist" leadership. Yugoslavia also denounced Vietnam when it overthrew Pol Pot. The US offered NATO membership to Yugoslavia in the early 50's.

He was about as "non-aligned" as Ceaușescu and Kim Il Sung (who tried to take over the Non-Aligned Movement after Tito died, and both were on good terms with Tito), both of whom also courted reactionaries and who also talked about the need to combat "dogmatism."

[Omsk]

Well,obviously,sources written by Enver Hoxa on Yugoslavia and Tito are not to be considered to accurate or "true" as Tito and Enver were political enemies.Still,one thing is pretty certain - Tito was not a communist by the standards of you western liberalkiddies.Still,he had big acomplishments and he generally did good for his people.

[Nolan]

Well,obviously,sources written by Enver Hoxa on Yugoslavia and Tito are not to be considered to accurate or "true" as Tito and Enver were political enemies.Still,one thing is pretty certain - Tito was not a communist by the standards of you western liberalkiddies.Still,he had big acomplishments and he generally did good for his people.

And they were enemies for good reasons. One was Tito's opportunism and revisionism. The other was Tito's attempt to overthrow Hoxha and annex Albania.

[Omsk]

And they were enemies for good reasons. One was Tito's opportunism and revisionism. The other was Tito's attempt to overthrow Hoxha and annex Albania.

I am not denying that they were enemies,im just reminding the OP not to believe everything from Hoxa on Tito,as it would be like reading Trotsky on Stalin..

[Ismail]

I am not denying that they were enemies,im just reminding the OP not to believe everything from Hoxa on Tito,as it would be like reading Trotsky on Stalin..More like Stalin on Trotsky (or Bukharin.)

If you want the main work by Hoxha on Tito and Co. (mainly on historical relations between the Albanian Communists and their Yugoslav counterparts), there's The Titoites: http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/TT82NB.html

[Omsk]

More like Stalin on Trotsky.

Stalin criticized Trotsky but Trotsky criticized not only Stalin but the entire Soviet Union of that period.To be honest,Stalin had more important work than to write against Trotsky.

[Spartacus.]

Titoist Anti-Imperialism and People's Socialism...

Tito: A true man of the People! :lol:

As a Marxist-Leninist and supporter of Stalin, I could hardly agree with Tito being a good Marxist or a Communist, but despite all his flaws he was certainly the greatest leader in the history of Yugoslavian people (not that he had any serious competition, either from those before or after him :D), and closest thing to people's leader we ever had. His contributions and successes are big and many, starting with his leadership of the Yugoslav people's war that liberated the country from Nazi occupation, post-war reconstruction of the war-devastated country, economic development of formerly largely agrarian and backward state, increase in the material well-being of the working class of Yugoslavia, spending of American credits that he has foolishly taken on investment in the country's development (as opposed to, say, Ceaușescu, or our current governments), allowing four decades of peace (very rare thing on the Balkans :D) and prosperity and keeping under control the ferocious nationalism in the country (an extremely tough task, for those who are familiar with character of the Balkans people).

In order not to be confused as a Titoist, or as his defender, I will also number his main flaws and shortcomings:

-he betrayed the most fundamental principles of Marxism-Leninism, Communism and class struggle.

-he was more a petty-burgeous politician granting great concessions to the workers in the style of Olaf Palme, then a real Revolutionary.

-he promoted and encouraged the development and strenghtening of capitalist economic relations in the countryside and in small bisinisses and industry.

-he participated in the creation and implementation of the abomination of the Marxism called "workers self-management", which was neither workers, nor was it self-managed, but it only served to promote the strenghtening of the power of the party burgeousie and managers of companies at the expense of the workers. Of course, not even creators of theory of WSM understood what that actually meant in practice, or its implications in the future.

-despite empthy and flawed rhetoric of being a non-aligned country, he turned Yugoslavia into country that is economically subservient to the US empire, suffocated in huge debts that couldn't be paid as a result of huge credits taken from the imperialists.

-he never seriously fought bureacracy, internal corruption and degeneration inside the party, thus allowing for people like Milosevic to rise through its ranks and destroy the country.

-thanks to the huge debts amassed during his reign, the country experienced an economic collapse during the 80's, resulting in the rise of nationalism due to do fall in living standards, thus allowing nationalist demagogues like Milosevic to hijack the "socialist" revolution and turn it into a fascist slaughter that will cause hundreds of thousands of deaths, countless refugees and undescribable suffering, all thanks to the abandonment of the principles of Marxism-Leninism and Tito's Revisionism.

I think that great Montenegrian Communist Vlado Dapcevic has best summed up my opinion on Tito and his actions:

"For that which he has done in the Yugoslav people' war I would remove my hat, but for that which he has done in 1948 I would remove his head". :D

http://www.partijarada.org/images/vlado.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlado_Dapčević

Vlado, the legend! :)

[Kléber]

silly revisionists, this is what real "men of the people" look like

http://www.iasd.cc/piper/PiperJill_ITspec_cert/IT%20Portfolio/Portfolio_Pages/HistAndPhilFall06website/Ch5/Ch5-WalshMatt/molotov-ribbentrop%20pact.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_n7RltmTdk-g/TIR9y3rm7gI/AAAAAAAAVwY/frFz6K8joG0/s1600/Nixon+and+Mao.jpg

[Ismail]

Of course the MIM used to compare Molotov-Ribbentrop with the Nixon/Kissinger meetings to "excuse" Mao's activities, even though both are completely different. Namely, the Soviets expected that Germany was going to invade them. The Chinese simply wanted to get an ally against the Soviets. Pretty much every source (even the revisionist Khrushchev) noted that Stalin felt that the treaty saved them from war.

Tito joined the IMF and got his country indebted to the West.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ But Stalin would have done the same (through the US Marshall Plan) had the much friendlier FDR been around still.

[milk]

“Like our Democratic Cambodia, Yugoslavia is a non-aligned country which has adhered to the position of preserving independence. Friendship between our two countries is therefore based on the same principle. We have always esteemed and respected Comrade President Tito and the friendly Yugoslav people. Comrade President Tito and the Yugoslav people have always supported and helped us. We have sympathy for them and wish to express our thanks to Comrade President Tito and the friendly Yugoslav people.”
(Pol Pot, quoted in Journal of Contemporary Asia Vol. 8 No. 3, 1978. p. 413.)

Tito never visited Democratic Kampuchea, although there was some trade between the two countries - the Yugoslavs sent tractors and other agricultural equipment.

The above quote is from an English translation of a transcript made from an interview between Pol Pot and a sceptical press delegation headed by journalist Nikola Vitorovic, and which made a visit to the country in 1978. The text of the interview was broadcast by Radio Phnom Penh. The full interview can be found here (http://padevat.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/PolPotYugoslav.pdf).

Some footage of the film also made by Vitorovic on the Yugoslav visit to DK, called Kampucija 1978, can be viewed here (http://www.ina.fr/economie-et-societe/vie-sociale/video/CAB7800517401/le-cambodge-1978.fr.html), taken from a French documentary made in the early 1980s.

Aside from the perhaps ritualistic and going-through-the-motions pleasantries, Pol Pot only briefly mentions his limited experience of Yugoslavia (the summer of 1950 as labour volunteer) at the end of the interview. In 1977, a delegation headed by DK foreign affairs minister Ieng Sary (which secured the above trade deal) was allowed to vist Yugoslavia after Tito was asssured that the Yugoslav ambassador in Phnom Penh could meet with Prince Norodom Sihanouk, who was then under what amounted to house arrest.

[Omsk]

http://www.iasd.cc/piper/PiperJill_ITspec_cert/IT%20Portfolio/Portfolio_Pages/HistAndPhilFall06website/Ch5/Ch5-WalshMatt/molotov-ribbentrop%20pact.jpg

The question of Stalins pact was all ready discussed and i am pretty sure it has been proven that it was necessary.(to delay the war and allow the Soviets to take preporations,because war at that point was imminent.)

While,(as Ismail all ready said) Mao was just looking for an ally against his new 'enemy'.

*Here is more on the Soviet pact:


The non-aggression pact was not an alliance.... Without violating the pact, the Soviet Union was free to oppose, even by armed force, a German attack on Turkey or Yugoslavia. She agreed not to take part in aggression against Germany, but had promised nothing about resisting an aggression that the Nazis might start.... The pact did more; the Soviet Union, acting as a neutral, blocked Nazi expansion on several important occasions more effectively than could have been done by engaging in war.
Strong, Anna L. The Soviets Expected It. New York, New York: The Dial press, 1941, p. 220


In the last analysis neither the USSR nor the western democracies won the diplomatic game of 1939. Both lost. Only Hitler won. The fact remains that Anglo-French policy gave Stalin and Molotov no viable alternative to the course they finally adopted.
Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf, 1946, p. 379