titoism vs. the PRC today

[cameron222]

hello. I was wondering, how far different are 'deng xaoping-ism' the PRC's applied policies, not whatever it is that they say they are doing, the actual reality? and titoism in yugoslavia? i had an inkling they were similar for a half second?

[Weezer]

Titoism was the Yugoslavian method for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Some argue it was a capitalist state, and the economy was still very much market-oriented, but managed mostly by workers.

Yugoslavia also managed to successful hold together 7 different cultures through the policy of Brotherhood and Unity. This unity between the different South Slavic cultures was destroyed after Tito's death and Serbian nationalism was revived by Slobodan Milosevic, who would almost single handily destroy Yugoslavia and take the country into bloody wars and genocides.

Titoist policies were not a return to capitalism. Deng's policies were.

Deng's policies made no attempt to save socialism or really any progressive ideals. Tito did not perfect socialism, as no leader has done, but Tito managed to hold a federation of 7 different republics, of 7 races, together for his time as leader. He was a leader popular in his own country as well as abroad, receiving awards from Elizabeth II to the Soviet Union.

The policies of Deng and Tito I guess are similar, on the grounds that both had market elements. But the Yugoslavian Revolution was a turn away from capitalism and racism. Deng's policies welcomed capitalism with open arms.

[Tommy4ever]

Tito wasn't quite as bad.

[DarkPast]

Titoism was the Yugoslavian method for a dictatorship of the proletariat. Some argue it was a capitalist state, and the economy was still very much market-oriented, but managed mostly by workers.

Yugoslavia also managed to successful hold together 7 different cultures through the policy of Brotherhood and Unity. This unity between the different South Slavic cultures was destroyed after Tito's death and Serbian nationalism was revived by Slobodan Milosevic, who would almost single handily destroy Yugoslavia and take the country into bloody wars and genocides.

Titoist policies were not a return to capitalism. Deng's policies were.

Deng's policies made no attempt to save socialism or really any progressive ideals. Tito did not perfect socialism, as no leader has done, but Tito managed to hold a federation of 7 different republics, of 7 races, together for his time as leader. He was a leader popular in his own country as well as abroad, receiving awards from Elizabeth II to the Soviet Union.

The policies of Deng and Tito I guess are similar, on the grounds that both had market elements. But the Yugoslavian Revolution was a turn away from capitalism and racism. Deng's policies welcomed capitalism with open arms.

I agree with you on most points, though I must say Milosevic and his cronies were not the only ones who were responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia. Revisionist policies were applied in the late 70-ies (roughly when Tito more-or-less stepped down due to poor health) and early 80-ies, when the country started to drift more and more towards capitalism. The fact that they took a large loan from the World Bank - one which they would never manage to repay - speaks volumes.

Ultimately, the break-up was caused not only by nationalistic and pro-Belgrade centralist forces, but also by economic factors. Of course, the situation now is even worse in many respects (for example, the foreign debt of Croatia alone is almost three times as great as that of the entire former Yugoslavia, and unemployment has skyrocketed), but people still tend to blame this on the Serbs/Croats/Muslims/Slovenians etc.

[Rowan Duffy]

For a review of some of the economic factors leading to the breakup of Yugoslavia, see Flaherty, (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09668138808411736)Djilas (http://www.amazon.com/Fall-New-Class-Communisms-Self-Destruction/dp/0679433252) and Batovic (http://www2.lse.ac.uk/IDEAS/publications/workingPapers/batovic.pdf).