Titoism and Yugoslavia, wha'd up?

[Einkarl]

I'm very curious on Titoism and Yugoslavia. I've read about the Tito-Stalin split and that Titoism is "market socialism". But I want to know the nitty gritty about what exactly Titoism is and how to classify Yugoslavia (DotP, Socialist, state capitalist etc.)

[subcp]

The article linked in the other thread on Titoism goes into all of the details about the history, theory, practice, etc. of Yugoslavia and Titoism/the YCL:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/titoism-t178616/index.html?t=178616&highlight=titoism

All states are state capitalist. Market socialism means either reformed command economy, or a failed attempt at a command economy (the latter is what happened in Yugoslavia). Socialist primitive accumulation failed due to the power of the small holdings of the peasantry, ethnic and national divisions, varying levels of industrializtion between the individual states and regions of the Yugoslav Federation, etc.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Hoxha made a very good critique of it from a Marxist Leninist perspective, I haven't read it yet but people keep telling me I should. So maybe when I am done reading up on MLM theory

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

[TheEmancipator]

Indeed, I was curious about it too in the M-L thread.

Before I just dismissed Tito as the pseudo-communist dictator the likes of Milosevic worshipped. But there's an interesting side to him, as I've only just found out.

Firstly, while being a one-man dictatorship, Yugoslavia under him was relatively peaceful when you compare the shitstorm before and after his regime. I think he did this by allowing a good amount of autonomy to the republics in Yugoslavia. He still has quares and statues named after him in all of the former Yugoslav republics today.

On an economic level, you could probably describe Yugoslavia as socialist, with "Market Socialism" seemingly the tag used on here for him. Sure, no dictatorship of the proletariat, but a lot of good, pro-worker reforms were made and he ensured workers played a dominant role, albeit in a market system.

His foreign policy is perhaps the most divisive. You see, the basis of Tito's rhetoric and Titoism is that all countries and nations have different and varied ways of achieving communism due to their histories being different, and therefore a certain autonomy according to regions should remain (as a Hegelian I partly agree with this). Therefore he refused to adopt the Stalinist model (which he would denounce as state capitalist anyway) and Comintern foreign policy (he openly supported the Greek Communists in the Civil War while the Comintern, stooges of the USSR, were instructed not to).

The Stalinists were fairly pissed off with Tito so they kicked him out, threatened war and tried to assassinate him. The USSR really wanted Yugoslavia as part of their eastern bloc and under their control. Anyhow, Tito divorced himself from the Cominform, and the US quickly jumped in to support him, hailing him as an anti-Stalinist. Yes, Serbia did get economic help from the US, but Tito decided to declare Yugoslavia non-aligned, not wishing to enter imperialist Cold War politics while reaping the benefits of both sides.

Really quite an interesting chap. Good revolutionary, fought the Nazis during the war, saved many jews, not much of a theorist, but a brilliant statesman, keeping one of the most ethnically and religiously segregated communities in the world from exploding into war (which it eventually did due to the gaping hole he left behind). Sadly his legacy is tarnished by Serbian ultra-nationalists.

Whether he was a good communist or not, very debatable. Not an orthodox Marxist, but still put under the M-L tag as he stays close to Marxist theory. But undoubtedly a brilliant statesman, who helped that region a lot. And we should not forget his contribution to WW2.

I'll let more experienced members argue over what I said now.:grin: I'm sorry if I offended anyone.

[Karabin]

The above is very spot on. A prominent component of Titoism lies in his method of dealing with international relations; he dealt with, and traded with, both east and west. People tend to overlook Yugoslavia's involvement in helping develop the infrastructure and economies of developing countries in Africa, and Yugoslavia's involvement within the third world.

Another critical aspect of Titoism which I also consider to be vastly overlooked is Workers' Self-Management. Although in Yugoslavia Workers' Self-Management was far from perfect, the Yugoslav worker definitely had vastly more input into their workplace than any worker in the Eastern Bloc or capitalist nations. As a result of this, I personally consider Yugoslavia to have been further along the road towards the "withering away of the state" than any other proclaimed Socialist country, for the LCY (League of Communists of Yugoslavia) was more decentralized than the other ruling parties, and a fair share of the enterprise was run by workers.

There are also other facets as well; freedom of religion being one of them (Although the practice of religion was discouraged, and religious people weren't allowed to join the party) and the idea of "Brotherhood and Unity" (Which is the concept of co-existing peacefully with all the south Slavs, regardless of their nationality).

[Ismail]

I consider this post I'm about to make as a continuation (more or less) of this one, which readers should consult as to further texts on the Yugoslav economy, its supposed "non-alignment," etc.: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2560845&postcount=33

After 1956 the Yugoslavs stopped referring to the USSR as "state-capitalist." At a time when the Soviet revisionists were restoring capitalism, Titoite "theorists" used the phrase "bureaucratic socialism" to refer to the Soviet Union while hailing the 20th Party Congress for its attacks on the "cult of the individual" (i.e. Stalin.) Soviet leaders from Khrushchev onwards praised Tito as a communist and revolutionary. Tito reciprocated. Tito was little more "non-aligned" than Mobutu or other leaders who occasionally did "maverick" actions.

Its foreign policy was thus opportunistic. Economically and militarily it was linked with the West in all essential aspects, and after 1955 relations with the USSR were normalized.


Firstly, while being a one-man dictatorship, Yugoslavia under him was relatively peaceful when you compare the shitstorm before and after his regime. I think he did this by allowing a good amount of autonomy to the republics in Yugoslavia. He still has quares and statues named after him in all of the former Yugoslav republics today.It was precisely his policies that led to the civil war. The "national" bourgeoisie of each republic competed with each other for influence in all fields. Unequal economic development among the republics and bourgeois nationalism (e.g. "Muslim" was defined by the Yugoslavs as an ethnicity in blatant contradiction to Marxism, among other things (http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/archive/titoites.htm)) broke through the "relatively peaceful" façade that did not last long after Tito's death.

Furthermore, while the republics enjoyed their "equality," Kosovar Albanians were denied their national rights. Through the struggle of workers and peasants in Kosovo some concessions were granted in the late 60's, but the area remained by far the poorest part of the country and was denied the status of a republic alongside Serbia, Croatia, and other areas of the federation.

For a brief analysis of the breakup of Yugoslavia and the role of Titoism in this process see: http://kasamaproject.org/history/1228-60how-capitalism-caused-the-balkan-wars


Sure, no dictatorship of the proletariat, but a lot of good, pro-worker reforms were made and he ensured workers played a dominant role, albeit in a market system.One forgets that Poland also had "workers' councils" for a time after 1956. The Soviet revisionists and others likewise initiated demagogic campaigns to supposedly improve "worker control" while at the same time introducing market mechanisms. Dengist China found much to admire in the Yugoslav economy as well. The practical effect of "workers' self-management" was to teach workers how to be capitalists and how to work together to benefit "their" company, à la profit-sharing schemes which Western social-democrats pushed at the time, who not coincidentally also found much to admire in the Yugoslav system.


You see, the basis of Tito's rhetoric and Titoism is that all countries and nations have different and varied ways of achieving communism due to their histories being different, and therefore a certain autonomy according to regions should remain (as a Hegelian I partly agree with this).Tito got this from none other than Marx and Engels. Unfortunately for Tito, so did Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha among every other communist (self-declared or otherwise) on the planet.

What Tito's words meant in practical terms were that his good friends Kim Il Sung and Ceaușescu were advancing their countries on the socialist path, just like Tito was, in their own ways and supposedly in accordance with their own conditions. It meant that India, Egypt, and other states led by non-Marxian "socialists" were likewise progressing towards socialism in peculiar but no less genuine ways. In fact one reason for the rapproachement between Titoism and Soviet revisionism was that the latter concurred quite strongly with the Titoites. Thus India, Egypt, Guinea, Mali, Tanzania, and various other states were pursuing "non-capitalist development." In fact the Soviet revisionists went so far as to declare (in the words of one Soviet work) that "revolutionary democrats can play the leading political role in the countries with a relatively weak proletariat." (Lenin and National Liberation in the East, 1978, p. 19.) Such views were endorsed by the Yugoslavs as well.

Tito and petty-bourgeois anti-communists like Nasser and Nehru founded the "Non-Aligned Movement," which was neither a movement nor non-aligned.


(he openly supported the Greek Communists in the Civil War while the Comintern, stooges of the USSR, were instructed not to).Not quite.

"As early as November 1946, when Greek rebel bands began their attacks on the legitimate government of Athens, Albania was accused of giving them assistance. When some months later, General Markos took over command of the guerrillas, that country became one of their chief bases...

Even after the Tito-Cominform break, Albania continued to help the Greek rebels. On September 21, 1949, the United Nations Special Committee on the Balkans advised the General Assembly to declare the government of Albania 'primarily responsible for the threat to peace in the Balkans' and call on Albania (and Bulgaria) to cease aiding the Greek guerrillas."
(Skendi, Stavro (ed). Albania. New York: Frederick A. Praeger. 1956. p. 28.)

"The Bulgarians were also openly supporting the guerrillas... they instituted 'voluntary' wage deductions (as high as 10 percent) that went into the Greek Aid Fund. Every month Bulgarians bought coupons inscribed 'for the aid of the Greek Democratic People.' The Bulgarian Red Cross donated medical and other supplies, and the following month it issued a special stamp 'for the aid of the Greek refugees.' On the day after New Year's, the National Committee of the Fatherland Front sought contributions for 'moral and political aid' as well as 'material assistance to the refugees from Greece.' A 'victory of the Greek people' was 'definitely in the interests of Bulgaria.'

A further complication was that Albania and Bulgaria accused the Greek government of violating their borders. From early January through mid-April 1948, the Albanian government lodged over a hundred complaints with the UN secretary-general...

The Yugoslavs, however, filed no protests against Greece, which suggested that their government was undergoing a change in policy brought by increasing trouble with Moscow."
(Jones, Howard. "A New Kind of War": America's Global Strategy and the Truman Doctrine in Greece. New York: Oxford University Press. 1989. pp. 125-126.)

The American ambassador to Yugoslavia in a secret dispatch on January 3, 1948:

"During call on Foreign Minister yesterday afternoon I was informed Marshal Tito would see me this morning...

Knowing that interview had been arranged for general informal talk and that theme Tito expected me to develop was improved trade relations, I started by brief discussion prewar and present trade (which I shall report in separate telegram) and managed transition to political field by frank statement that many of US products Yugoslav Government needs are in such short supply that exports naturally go to countries friendly to US, and that Yugoslav Government cannot expect credit, whether by US public agencies or commercial banks, so long as American public opinion finds Yugoslav Government invariably opposing US in all efforts for establishing peace and reconstruction.

This brought us to questions of Trieste and Greece....

On Greece Tito said the whole world knows how Yugoslav Government sees situation there. 'We have stated our position repeatedly, but we are not going to do anything dramatic or engage in any adventure.' ... I had noted reports that in Bulgaria and Albania the tone is more interventionist and bellicose and in view of recent series of pacts one could suppose this to be by agreed plan. He replied, 'Yes, I know that you Americans are worried about Communism thrusting out into other areas but do not forget Yugoslavia's chief national task is internal development and we need peace'."
(Foreign Relations of the United States: 1948 Volume IV. Washington: United States Government Printing Office. 1974. pp. 1054-1055.)

And in fact Yugoslav aid to the Greek Communists ceased when an agreement was reached between the Yugoslav government and the Greek regime: the latter would not dispute the status of Macedonia. And so the Yugoslav borders were closed.


Yes, Serbia did get economic help from the US, but Tito decided to declare Yugoslavia non-aligned, not wishing to enter imperialist Cold War politics while reaping the benefits of both sides.Among these benefits were IMF membership (which brought forth gigantic debts and austerity measures to both Yugoslavia and friendly Romania) and the sending of tens of thousands of Yugoslav workers to West Germany since a side-effect of its doctrine of "workers' self-management" was being the only East European country with officially acknowledged unemployment as well.


People tend to overlook Yugoslavia's involvement in helping develop the infrastructure and economies of developing countries in Africa, and Yugoslavia's involvement within the third world.The same thing could be said for Tito's friend Kim Il Sung. Or the Soviets and their Eastern Bloc satellites.


As a result of this, I personally consider Yugoslavia to have been further along the road towards the "withering away of the state" than any other proclaimed Socialist country, for the LCY (League of Communists of Yugoslavia) was more decentralized than the other ruling parties, and a fair share of the enterprise was run by workers.The Yugoslav "theorists" used the "withering away of the state" to justify their market policies and party "decentralization" in the first place, conveniently forgetting that the victory of socialism on a world scale is required.

It's no different from Deng declaring that China was following Marx, who said that the productive forces must be developed; the CCP, by "liberating the productive forces" (i.e. market reforms, China becoming a slave labor depot for world capital, etc.), was supposedly operating in accordance with Marxism.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

On an economic level, you could probably describe Yugoslavia as socialist, with "Market Socialism" seemingly the tag used on here for him. Sure, no dictatorship of the proletariat, but a lot of good, pro-worker reforms were made and he ensured workers played a dominant role, albeit in a market system.


No dictatorship of the proletariat? Yet, it was still socialist because there were pro-worker reforms?
Pro-worker reforms aren't socialism, maybe some conservative would say that but I would expect better from anyone who, at least, identifies as a marxist. Socialism can't be "achieved" without a dictatorship of the proletariat and sure as hell not with a market.
So, no you could probably not describe it as socialism. Unless you count Norway, Sweden and the like as socialist, of course.

[TheEmancipator]

No dictatorship of the proletariat? Yet, it was still socialist because there were pro-worker reforms?

yes, it was a form of socialism, I have no doubts about that. Or are you going to say market socialism is not socialism? It is a form of socialism.


Pro-worker reforms aren't socialism, maybe some conservative would say that but I would expect better from anyone who, at least, identifies as a marxist. Socialism can't be "achieved" without a dictatorship of the proletariat and sure as hell not with a market.


As a Marxist I would favour what Tito proposed than the state capitalism Stalin proposed.

As a worker I would definitely prefer Tito's model.

You obviously believe dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to achieve socialism. See this is the kind of axiom-based thinking that Tito was trying to fight against. Just because somebody comes up with an alternative idea to Karl Marx's model means he is somehow a traitor? Are you an orthodox Marxist or a Stalinist?


So, no you could probably not describe it as socialism. Unless you count Norway, Sweden and the like as socialist, of course.

Absurd that you compare Titoist Yugoslavia with Norway and Sweden.


Ismail provided me with good info on Tito and his misadventures (which apparently account to shaking hands with Western politicians). If you want the dark side of him Ismail has already posted some more good stuff. Personally, considering how tolerant most people are on here of Stalin because he won WW2 or "scares the West", I'd just like to stick for one dictator who didn't massacre several thousand people for having a different opinion of him and who managed to keep several ethnicities under control while still supporting many foreign causes in the process.

[Questionable]

Oh boy, more "Everybody is okay except Stalin" thinking.


As a Marxist I would favour what Tito proposed than the state capitalism Stalin proposed.

As a worker I would definitely prefer Tito's model.

So you would be okay with these things?

“The persecution of Communists ["Stalinists," or "Cominformers"] in Yugoslavia that began in 1948-49 was probably one of the most massive persecution movements that Europe had yet witnessed, including those of the Soviet Union from the 1920s to the 1940s, Germany in the 1930s, and the repression of Communists during the Nazi occupation. What happened in Yugoslavia was a truly immense phenomenon considering the number of inhabitants and the number of Communists. According to official sources that were long kept secret, the purges affected 16,371 people, 5,037 of whom were brought to trial and three-quarters of whom were sent to Goli Otok and Grgur. Independent analysis by Vladimir Dedijer suggests that between 31,000 and 32,000 people went through the Goli Otok camp alone. But even the most recent research has been unable to come up with a figure for the number of prisoners who died as victims of executions, exhaustion, hunger, epidemics, or even suicide—a solution chosen by many Communists to escape their cruel situation.”
(Stéphane Courtois & Mark Kramer (trans.). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press. 1999. p. 425.)

“In actual reality, of course, self-management – after a long period of increasing suffocation by the bureaucratic cancer – has already effectively been terminated. Reflecting on the circumstances of its demise, it is instructive to note that it was the West rather than the East which dealt the final blow…
In a recent survey of Yugoslavia by the Financial Times, it was noted that ‘Yugoslavia’s protracted economic crisis, now in its fourth or fifth year, is beginning to change the political system.’ … as the commentaries in both The Times and the Financial Times noted last June, the country’s acceptance of capitalist economic principles – exclusive reliance on monetary mechanisms – is seen as implying that ‘the West is ahead ideologically’ of the Soviet Union. This year, furthermore, Yugoslavia has agreed to move away from the barter trade with Comecon towards greater exchange with the West. Current agreements with the IMF and the World Bank show Yugoslavia’s commitment to liberalize controls, which still cover over 80 per cent of all imports, to relax the terms under which foreign capital can invest, and to open (for the first time) the service sector to it as well. In return, the banks are promising patience and tolerance.
However, it is obvious that this addiction to foreign loans, which the LCY leadership has acquired over the past decade or two, will have to be paid for by the Yugoslav working class.”
(Branka Magaš. The Destruction of Yugoslavia: Tracking the Break-up 1980-92. London: Verso. 1993. p. 97.)
“The papers give – in all the Yugoslav languages – advance notice of new wage cuts and price increases. I read with interest that shipyard workers in Split will have their wages lowered by 40 per cent. Average wage cuts: 20-40 per cent. Average price increases: 30-100+ per cent. The prices of black bread, milk and cooking oil will be protected. The IMF has demanded a drastic cut in domestic consumption and the closure of loss-making enterprises. Hundreds of telexes arrive daily at the door of the Federal government in Belgrade protesting against wage cuts.”
(Ibid. p. 131.)





“A comparison of the policies of the Deng regime up to 1992 with those implemented by the Tito regime in Yugoslavia after 1948, when it broke with Stalin, shows many similarities. Indeed, the similarities are not coincidental. In 1981 the Deng regime began avidly studying Yugoslavia’s bureaucratically-controlled system of atomised ‘workers’ self-management’ and its post-1965 combination of state planning and markets. By 1984, the Deng regime had begun implementing a whole range of Titoist-style policies. These included allowing state industrial enterprises to keep up to 70% of their investment funds under their own control and to make their own decisions abut the bulk of what they would produce. Like the Tito regime, the Deng regime also allowed… the setting up of joint ventures between state-owned enterprises and foreign capitalist investors.
Limited forms of workers’ participation in enterprise management were also introduced. These took two forms. The first was annual workers’ congresses (which were to review enterprise budgets and production plans, welfare and bonus funds, safety issues, wage systems and management structures and make recommandations on these to the higher levels of economic administration). The second was the authorisation of the election of factory managers by work collectives. However, as under the Titoist system of ‘workers’ self-management’ such elections were not by secret ballot… such elections could easily be controlled by the bureaucracy.”

(Doug Lorimer. The Class Nature of the People’s Republic of China. Chippendale: Resistance Books. 2004. pp. 19-20.)


That's some workers' paradise you have there. Or is this the "dark side" of Titoism that we must excuse because at least it wasn't Stalin doing it?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

yes, it was a form of socialism, I have no doubts about that. Or are you going to say market socialism is not socialism? It is a form of socialism.

Yes that's indeed what I argue. The market is a part of capitalism and can only lead to social-"evils". Market-socialism has nothing to do with socialism,


As a Marxist I would favour what Tito proposed than the state capitalism Stalin proposed.

as a Marxist I see that class-struggle leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat which is necessary for doing away with all classes.
To quote Marx:
"What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm



As a worker I would definitely prefer Tito's model.

As a worker I prefer the destruction of capitalism.


You obviously believe dictatorship of the proletariat is the only way to achieve socialism. See this is the kind of axiom-based thinking that Tito was trying to fight against. Just because somebody comes up with an alternative idea to Karl Marx's model means he is somehow a traitor? Are you an orthodox Marxist or a Stalinist?

If Tito fights against the dictatorship of the proleyariat, i.e. the workers ruling, then he indeed is a traitor. Attacking Tito does not mean defending Stalin, anyone with even half a brain can understand that such straw-men arguments are false.


Absurd that you compare Titoist Yugoslavia with Norway and Sweden.

Both are capitalist countries with some limited worker benefits, I don't see how they are that much different economically.


Ismail provided me with good info on Tito and his misadventures (which apparently account to shaking hands with Western politicians). If you want the dark side of him Ismail has already posted some more good stuff. Personally, considering how tolerant most people are on here of Stalin because he won WW2 or "scares the West", I'd just like to stick for one dictator who didn't massacre several thousand people for having a different opinion of him and who managed to keep several ethnicities under control while still supporting many foreign causes in the process.

I'm not defending Stalin so your argument falls flat. Your liberal idea that I must support Tito otherwise I'm a bloodthirsty stalinist is laughable at best.
But in reality I'm not defending Stalin, even a blind person could see that, but I'm defending Marxism against revisionist currents like titoism, which you support.

[TheEmancipator]

Oh boy, more "Everybody is okay except Stalin" thinking.

No, not at all. What bothers me is the way you guys seemingly dismiss any person who defied Stalinist policy or Comintern geopolitics as traitors. I do not support Tito's oppression in certain sectors highlighted in some of Ismael's sources. However, like Stalin, we must put these things into historical context, and unlike Stalin, Tito did not execute thousands of people for lifting a finger.



Yes that's indeed what I argue. The market is a part of capitalism and can only lead to social-"evils". Market-socialism has nothing to do with socialism,

Tito said he'd eventually abolish market socialism. Hence why he called himself a Marxist-Leninist. I believe his goal was communism.



as a Marxist I see that class-struggle leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat which is necessary for doing away with all classes.
To quote Marx:
"What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Production), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat,[1] (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/letters/52_03_05-ab.htm

I was always, always aware that Marx believed that the dictatorship of the proletariat was a historical necessity rather than an eventuality. However, I temporarily stand corrected until I do a bit more reading (ergo : you prabably know better than me). :D



As a worker I prefer the destruction of capitalism.


OK, I was offering you a straight choice between the Stalinist model and Tito's model. Of course there is a better option. I myself am not a Titoist. I just want to stick up for him a bit because he had some orginal, practical ideas and a strong will for what is best for his people. In some senses this makes him a nationalist, but his support for communists abroad that Stalin ignored shows a rather internationalist side to him.

Tito also provides a counter-argument to all the "omg absolute dictatorships are alwaysz evilz lulz" kind of hippies. The respect he commands in Yugoslavia
today seems impressive.


Both are capitalist countries with some limited worker benefits, I don't see how they are that much different economically.


As Tito would say, all countries are very, very different due to historical differences and economic systems being modified towards what that country can produce, etc... This is something you and a lot of orthodox Marxists should take into account. Adapting Marxist thought to certain historical and economic conditions instead of trying to implement the policies of a 19th century book on different states (shall we ask Mao and about 60 million Chinese people how that went?)



I'm not defending Stalin so your argument falls flat. Your liberal idea that I must support Tito otherwise I'm a bloodthirsty stalinist is laughable at best.
But in reality I'm not defending Stalin, even a blind person could see that, but I'm defending Marxism against revisionist currents like titoism, which you support.

Forget Marxism a second and realise that what Tito was doing was denouncing Stalinist imperialism and micromanagement while trying to work for a better system for workers. OK, he's not a great Marxist, but he adapted himself to difficult conditions and became a supreme statesman. That is why I rank him above Stalin.

[Questionable]

No, not at all. What bothers me is the way you guys seemingly dismiss any person who defied Stalinist policy or Comintern geopolitics as traitors.And our opponents praise anyone who defied "Stalinist" policy or Comintern geopolitics as true heroes of the proletariat, even if their "socialism" included taking on massive debt and liberalizing their economies to please the IMF.

And no, we don't oppose anyone who was against the Comintern. Just look at Albania.


I do not support Tito's oppression in certain sectors highlighted in some of Ismael's sources. However, like Stalin, we must put these things into historical context, and unlike Stalin, Tito did not execute thousands of people for lifting a finger.Did you not read any of the sources I listed? Thousands of communists were executed in the name of purging "Stalinism."


Tito said he'd eventually abolish market socialism. Hence why he called himself a Marxist-Leninist. I believe his goal was communism.He was doing a pretty lame job whenever he bent over for the IMF and started tearing apart any semblance of workers' self-management.

There's nothing to admire about Titoism. It is nothing more than the ideology of socialism in decay.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Titoism is one of the biggest things holding back the left in the former Yugoslav countries. Every "communist" you meet just praises Tito day in and day out refusing to criticize him for anything. Many of them are very poor Marxists and usually resort to conspiracies about how "the west" destroyed Yugoslavia for one reason or another.

What is even worse, every time I say I'm a communist I have to sit there and somehow defend communism while at the same time trying to explain that I do not see Tito's Yugoslavia as a socialist entity. While they throw out accusations of "Tito raised our debt blah blah that is what you want! blah blah" It is very frustrating.

[Ismail]

Tito said he'd eventually abolish market socialism. Hence why he called himself a Marxist-Leninist.The Chinese say they are merely "developing the productive forces" to prepare for further gains in the direction of "socialism." The Vietnamese say the same thing, as do the Laotians. Almost no one takes them seriously.


but his support for communists abroad that Stalin ignored shows a rather internationalist side to him.What "communists" did Tito pay attention to whereas Stalin "ignored" them? You can only cite the KKE, and I already note that the Albanians and Bulgarians (who, obviously, were pro-Soviet) were backing them at a time when Yugoslavia was abandoning them to appease the West.

Stalin didn't call for "wrapping up" the KKE's struggle to appease the West, but because he felt they could not win. Britain was deploying troops and the KKE had already made a number of serious tactical mistakes.


Tito also provides a counter-argument to all the "omg absolute dictatorships are alwaysz evilz lulz" kind of hippies.In other words, Marxists need to appease and be acceptable to hippies.


As Tito would say, all countries are very, very different due to historical differences and economic systems being modified towards what that country can produce, etc... This is something you and a lot of orthodox Marxists should take into account. Adapting Marxist thought to certain historical and economic conditions instead of trying to implement the policies of a 19th century book on different states (shall we ask Mao and about 60 million Chinese people how that went?)Again, this is just demagogy on the part of Tito, Togliatti, the Eurocommunists, and others who kept on insisting on this argument. The Soviet and Chinese revisionists made similar stresses on the "creative development" of Marxism-Leninism, on "taking into account national differences," etc.

Mao wasn't dogmatically applying the words of Marx and Engels to the peculiar conditions of China; he was bastardizing Marxism altogether. Mao constantly attacked the "dogmatism" which Stalin supposedly displayed.

Hoxha noted that "socialism will look different and will have its own special features in different countries as a result of the differing socio-economic conditions, the way in which the revolution is carried out, the traditions, the international circumstances, etc. But the basic principles and the universal laws of socialism remain unshakeable and are essential for all countries." (Selected Works Vol. VI, p. 447.) He was repeating the words of Stalin and Lenin, of Engels and ol' Marx himself on the matter.


Forget Marxism a secondThat's quite hard for us Marxists to do.


realise that what Tito was doing was denouncing Stalinist imperialism and micromanagement while trying to work for a better system for workers.He was "denouncing Stalinist imperialism" (until 1956 when the Soviet revisionists were restoring capitalism and actually developing a social-imperialist foreign policy) and calling for unity with US imperialism. He denounced "micromanagement" just as Gorbachev, Deng, and other right-wingers did.


became a supreme statesmanIndeed, his funeral was a world event attended by American Vice-President Walter Mondale, Margaret Thatcher, Leonid Brezhnev, Hua Guofeng, etc. All that was missing was the presence of communist revolutionaries, presumably because they had no particular reason to revere this bourgeois "statesman."

[subcp]

And our opponents praise anyone who defied "Stalinist" policy or Comintern geopolitics as true heroes of the proletariat, even if their "socialism" included taking on massive debt and liberalizing their economies to please the IMF.Instead of debating there was any socialist content in Yugoslavia after WWII (I'd argue that there wasn't), the economic forces which created what is called 'Titoism', even though neither Tito or the YCL ever intended to create any such thing, deserve another look. They were Stalinists, no different than the CP's of Italy, France, Russia, Greece; they attempted to establish a command economy along Soviet lines, just like the PRC. Only the PRC and Yugoslav Federation were able to liberalize their national political economy to fit the needs of international capital; the USSR was not successful at this when it was attempted.

Instead of seeing it as a degeneration of socialism, why not view it as the opposite side of the same tendency which forced greater state intervention in the NATO Bloc countries; the US, Western Europe, Canada, etc. In highly static, nationalized economies, liberalism took shape; in 'free-market' oriented nation-states, greater state intervention was necessary for the interest of capital. That Yugoslavia and the PRC (and also Vietnam and Laos) were successful at reforming their economy, just like Great Britain, France and Italy after the war, tells us a lot- about capitalism. As do regimes like the CP's in government in India, the UCPN(M) in Nepal,- in each case, there was no attempt at a command economy and economic liberalism (in line with the tendency toward neo-liberalism internationally) were there from day 1.

[Art Vandelay]

Anyone who states that markets are compatible with socialism, are talking out of their ass.

[TheEmancipator]

And no, we don't oppose anyone who was against the Comintern. Just look at Albania.


The only reason you support Albania is because they refused to recognise Stalin for what he is, something even his stooges in the USSR did.

Quite frankly, the differences of policy between Albania and the USSR are just like the differences between centrist parties we see now in the West : tweedledee and tweedledum.



Did you not read any of the sources I listed? Thousands of communists were executed in the name of purging "Stalinism."


These "Communists" were trying to violently undermine his rule and wanted the Titoist dictatorship replaced with Stalinist rule. Is Tito supposed to just let a small, Stalinist-supported minority depose him despite his popularity?

The fact you would compare such minor executions to the Moscow Trials where many good bolshevik revolutionaries were slaughtered for doing nothing shows a bias that can be compared to patriotism.


There's nothing to admire about Titoism. It is nothing more than the ideology of socialism in decay.

Except that's not the full picture of Titoism. The whole point of ML-Titoism is that countries should break away from any Comintern dictatorship and forge their own path towards communism, not blindly follow Stalin of his successors.

I see something to be admired in that, and more so I see something to be admired in Tito himself.


The Chinese say they are merely "developing the productive forces" to prepare for further gains in the direction of "socialism." The Vietnamese say the same thing, as do the Laotians. Almost no one takes them seriously.

Again, why compare Tito to modern state capitalist/socialist states? His economy is incomparable to that of China's.



What "communists" did Tito pay attention to whereas Stalin "ignored" them?


When Stalin "supported" communists, it was usually for geopolitical gain.


In other words, Marxists need to appease and be acceptable to hippies.


They are leftists like us. when you talk of dictatorship of the proletariat, why democracy doesn't work and then start talking about the glory days of Stalin they will laugh in your face like the majority of people who know what Stalinism is (just like you'd proabably laugh in their face when they go about peace & love, etc). However, if you show what Tito did, how he implemented pro-worker reforms, how he secured safety and security in a volatile region and what he fought for, I think they'd see why some Marxist-Leninists weren't tyrants.



Again, this is just demagogy on the part of Tito, Togliatti, the Eurocommunists, and others who kept on insisting on this argument. The Soviet and Chinese revisionists made similar stresses on the "creative development" of Marxism-Leninism, on "taking into account national differences," etc.


Why is this bad? Because eurocommunists or "revisionists" said it was good? That really isn't an argument.


Mao wasn't dogmatically applying the words of Marx and Engels to the peculiar conditions of China; he was bastardizing Marxism altogether. Mao constantly attacked the "dogmatism" which Stalin supposedly displayed.


He and Stalin still took a 19th century book designed for such a historical context and then subsequently adapted it to suit his needs. As far as I'm concerned, China should never have adopted Marxist economics designed for industrialised Europe. They should have kept the key philosophical and political ideal of Marxism and worked on adapting it for their own economy. Detecting the oppressed class, ensuring its role in the Revolution and working towards communism.


Hoxha noted that "socialism will look different and will have its own special features in different countries as a result of the differing socio-economic conditions, the way in which the revolution is carried out, the traditions, the international circumstances, etc. But the basic principles and the universal laws of socialism remain unshakeable and are essential for all countries." (Selected Works Vol. VI, p. 447.) He was repeating the words of Stalin and Lenin, of Engels and ol' Marx himself on the matter.


Very vague, these universal laws, though. They could mean anything. It is not up to you, me, Stalin or even Marx to dictate what those universal laws are though. That's my (and Tito's) issue with the Comintern political landscape under Stalin.



That's quite hard for us Marxists to do.


Marx based his entire philosophy on critical thought. If us "Marxists" are unable to do this, and will just follow Marx by the book like Christians and their Bibles or nationalists and their constitutions, then I fear we may not be Marxists, and we are certainly not revolutionaries.



He was "denouncing Stalinist imperialism" (until 1956 when the Soviet revisionists were restoring capitalism and actually developing a social-imperialist foreign policy) and calling for unity with US imperialism. He denounced "micromanagement" just as Gorbachev, Deng, and other right-wingers did.


Lots of false logic here. So just because right-wingers denounce micromanagement and Tito denounces micromanagement, this makes him right-wing? Are the anarchists on this forum right-wing too?

Also, Tito's breakaway from the USSR Empire was when Stalin was in power. And so you think he should hand back power to the Comintern and let a new bunch of clueless tyrants rule his potentially volatile country? Madness. He didn't want to get too involved in the Cold War anyway. If more M-L states had done such a thing maybe they wouldn't have collapsed.



Indeed, his funeral was a world event attended by American Vice-President Walter Mondale, Margaret Thatcher, Leonid Brezhnev, Hua Guofeng, etc. All that was missing was the presence of communist revolutionaries, presumably because they had no particular reason to revere this bourgeois "statesman."

I think they were too busy fighting for their freedom and a right to be heard.

[Ismail]

Again, why compare Tito to modern state capitalist/socialist states? His economy is incomparable to that of China's.Only in the same sense as the Swedish economy during the time of Social-Democratic dominance over politics and society during the 20th century was "incomparable" with the American economy. It was still capitalist and had a thin veneer of "planning."


When Stalin "supported" communists, it was usually for geopolitical gain.Whereas when Tito supported them, it was clearly to further the international cause of the working-class even though the only groups he ever supported were either in Trieste (many whom took a view that the area was Yugoslav) or the Greek Communists. There was, of course, also the Albanian Communists, whom he supported (albeit not with materials so much as "advisers" to try and dominate its affairs) so that Albania could be annexed to Yugoslavia at a later date.

The only parties Yugoslavia winded up maintaining fraternal relations with were Western social-democratic ones.


They are leftists like us. when you talk of dictatorship of the proletariat, why democracy doesn't work and then start talking about the glory days of Stalin they will laugh in your face like the majority of people who know what Stalinism is (just like you'd proabably laugh in their face when they go about peace & love, etc). However, if you show what Tito did, how he implemented pro-worker reforms, how he secured safety and security in a volatile region and what he fought for, I think they'd see why some Marxist-Leninists weren't tyrants.Plenty of people praise Castro on a similar, cowardly basis. But as Marxists we aim to overthrow a whole world order, we can't settle for petty-bourgeois nationalists and "statesmen."


Why is this bad? Because eurocommunists or "revisionists" said it was good? That really isn't an argument.No one said taking into account national conditions was bad. What do you think the Yugoslav, Albanian and Greek partisans were doing if not precisely that? Why do you think a whole category called People's Democracies was envisioned as a unique application of the dictatorship of the proletariat to the countries of Eastern Europe?

What makes it a "bad" thing is when the Titoites, Eurocommunists and Co. decided that "national conditions" necessitated not merely "national roads" to socialism, but that these "roads" included the forsaking of revolution in the West and the transfer of power via parliamentary methods, coalition governments with avowedly bourgeois parties, etc. Again, the Soviet revisionists endorsed many of these views, hence why even when the emergence of Eurocommunism (due to its veiled attacks on Leninism itself) strained relations between the PCI, PCE, etc. and Moscow, "fraternal relations" continued to exist between them.


As far as I'm concerned, China should never have adopted Marxist economics designed for industrialised Europe. They should have kept the key philosophical and political ideal of Marxism and worked on adapting it for their own economy.Mao already "adapted" to China through right-wing policies such as "New Democracy," fixation on the peasantry as the de facto leading class, etc. Stalin didn't semi-jokingly refer to them as "margarine communists" for nothing.


Very vague, these universal laws, though. They could mean anything. It is not up to you, me, Stalin or even Marx to dictate what those universal laws are though. That's my (and Tito's) issue with the Comintern political landscape under Stalin.He would have no doubt taken issue with Lenin as well, who defended these universal laws against the revisionists such as Bernstein and Co. Opposition to adhering to the universal laws of socialist revolution and construction is a hallmark of nationalism.


Lots of false logic here. So just because right-wingers denounce micromanagement and Tito denounces micromanagement, this makes him right-wing? Are the anarchists on this forum right-wing too?Anarchists call for the abolition of the state and markets. Whatever their end result may be, many would reject the petty-bourgeois stands of Proudhon who, on the contrary, was praised by Titoite "theorists."

Tito denounced "micromanagement" on the same basis Gorbachev and Deng did: to expand and strengthen market relations. Again, he was not alone in this; Soviet revisionist economists from Voznesensky onwards complained of "micromanagement" as well.


He didn't want to get too involved in the Cold War anyway. If more M-L states had done such a thing maybe they wouldn't have collapsed.This is asinine. The Cold War was an all-around attack on Communism launched by the Western powers after WWII which assumed all forms, from economic to political and ideological struggle. It was directed against the socialist bloc led by the USSR. The struggle in Greece was one of the most obvious elements of the Cold War in the early period.

Yugoslavia "opted out" of the Cold War with the good graces of US imperialism which kept the country afloat. When the Soviet revisionists launched their "enrichment" of "peaceful coexistence" at the 20th Party Congress, Yugoslavia found a basis to mend his relations with the USSR, while US imperialism likewise dealt with the USSR on a new basis befitting a rival, social-imperialist power.

Romania was another country which more or less "opted out" of the Cold War. It used much of the same bastard, anti-communist logic as the Yugoslavs.

"The [Romanian Communist Party] has redefined and extrapolated the Leninist definition of conflicts as being 'antagonistic' or 'nonantagonistic' to the sphere of international relations in general and to the South in particular... Thus, conflicts between Communist states (China and the Soviet Union, Kampuchea and Vietnam) or between various developing countries are defined as basically 'nonantagonistic,' to be solved through negotiations and compromise only. While the Soviets admit no compromise (and neither do the Chinese) between 'revisionism' and Marxism-Leninism, or between 'reactionary' and 'progressive' developing countries, the RCP has not used the word 'revisionism' since the 1950s, when it applied it [at the time] to Tito, and rejects the very distinction between 'progressive' and 'reactionary' regimes in the South, a distinction which provides the basis for Soviet involvement in support of various radical regimes and groups there. In the words of a Romanian commentator:

'The emphasis placed on dividing the developing countries into 'progressive' and 'moderate' ones and opposing them to each other in international relations runs counter to the unanimously recognized principle of peaceful coexistence of countries with different social and political systems, feeding instead the theory of the spheres of influence, which is used to weaken the unity of the developing countries in the international arena.'

This position is very similar to that of the Yugoslavs, reflecting once again the similarity of viewpoint between Belgrade and Bucharest concerning the role and character of the Nonaligned Movement...

The very foundation of the RCP ideology, its demand that every Communist party be free to choose its own way of applying Marxism-Leninism, is linked to a rather particular assessment of the international situation as a whole. Although Bucharest does occasionally admit the existence of international conflicts, as Ceausescu puts it, 'Imperialism is much weaker than most people would say, and to overestimate its strength would lead to panic.'"
(Radu, Michael (ed). [I]Eastern Europe and the Third World: East vs. South. New York: Praeger Publishers. 1981. pp. 239-240.)

This, of course, accelerated Romania's collapse if anything, for it was precisely this "opting out" of the Cold War which led to Ceaușescu being praised in the West as a "good communist" à la Tito, to Romania becoming an IMF member, accruing debts and repaying them through brutal austerity measures throughout the 80's.


I think they were too busy fighting for their freedom and a right to be heard.And yet in 1976 and 1981 various delegations representing parties throughout the world visited Albania on the occasion of its 7th and 8th Congresses, many operating in conditions of illegality in their own countries. One cannot even name a "Titoist" party, only allies of Tito such as Nasser, Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Ben Bella, and other bourgeois nationalists and anti-communists.

[Questionable]

The only reason you support Albania is because they refused to recognise Stalin for what he is, something even his stooges in the USSR did.

Quite frankly, the differences of policy between Albania and the USSR are just like the differences between centrist parties we see now in the West : tweedledee and tweedledum.

This is such shitty stereotyping it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal. Only a person who is of the utmost ignorance of what Marxist-Leninist attitudes toward Albania are could even fathom typing up something like this. I'm no Maoist but he was right about one thing; no investigation, no right to speak.


These "Communists" were trying to violently undermine his rule and wanted the Titoist dictatorship replaced with Stalinist rule. Is Tito supposed to just let a small, Stalinist-supported minority depose him despite his popularity?

So when Stalin kills somebody they're great communists who were incorruptible, but when revisionists kill "Stalinists" they're protecting socialism against Stalinist rule. This is Anti-Stalinism taken to its full conclusion.


The fact you would compare such minor executions to the Moscow Trials where many good bolshevik revolutionaries were slaughtered for doing nothing shows a bias that can be compared to patriotism.

Do you have any evidence for these people being Stalinist plotters? The Moscow Trials had evidence to support their claims. I'd like to see what kind of charges and evidence the "Stalinists" in Yugoslavia were faced with.


Except that's not the full picture of Titoism. The whole point of ML-Titoism is that countries should break away from any Comintern dictatorship and forge their own path towards communism, not blindly follow Stalin of his successors.

Yeah, it kind of is, unless you want to keep throwing more nationalistic crap at us about how Tito was a great man (Which isn't even true itself, as Ismail's posts show).

[Karl Renegade]

I just recently learned about Tito and I'm amazed. I think yugoslavia during his time may be the most successful example of socialism that ever existed. More people should study him/yugoslavia. Here is socialism that actually brought prosperity to the people!

[Thirsty Crow]

I just recently learned about Tito and I'm amazed. I think yugoslavia during his time may be the most successful example of socialism that ever existed. More people should study him/yugoslavia. Here is socialism that actually brought prosperity to the people!
And the one that collapsed without direct military intervention (despite the ramblings of the old brigade, ethnic and national tensions were not caused by a kind of foreign intervention). You should pause and think about that for a second.

And as a matter of fact, Yugoslav society exhibited very clearly, alongside the easily noticeable lack of a thoroughgoing tendency towards communism (but that is not surprising given the problems with the thesis of socialism in one country), that production and social reproduction were based on the relationship between capital and wage labour, so I have no idea why would anyone judge this historical federation of states as the most successful example of socialism.

[Karl Renegade]

These are just meaningless theories you're talking about. Is pure communism even achievable?

[Thirsty Crow]

These are just meaningless theories you're talking about. Is pure communism even achievable?
Under certain conditions, it surely is.

And what meaningless theories I'm actually talking about? The fact that the so called self-management entailed nothing more than a compromise between workers of a given enterprise and the managers in conditions on the job affairs, and that the whole of social production was geared towards the production for sale and the appropriation of surplus value (companies being subject to market imperatives)? Or that the Yugoslav state "exported" its surplus workforce - the undemployed - most notably, to Germany? Or maybe that there wasn't some secret cabal of imperialists brainwashing the brethren of different nationalities and inducing them to a bloody war?


If there is a meaningless theory here, it is that a pefectly successful socialism may crumble on its own (that is why people bring in conspiracy theories into play), and what would be even more deluded is to uphold this model for a possible future.

[Karl Renegade]

Ok, we''re not as intelligent as you. feel better now?

[Thirsty Crow]

Ok, we''re not as intelligent as you. feel better now?
What the hell are you talking about? If you do not understand something, just ask, instead of questioning the motives behind an argument.

Why do you consider Yugoslav socialism as the most successful one? How do you explain its implosion?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Ok, we''re not as intelligent as you. feel better now?

Well, to be quite honest, Linksradikal probably is more intelligent than you if the only way you can support your reasoning (or lack thereof) is through moody repudiations.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, to be quite honest, Linksradikal probably is more intelligent than you if the only way you can support your reasoning (or lack thereof) is through moody repudiations.
First, there's no need to engage in this who's more intelligent contest.
Secondly, it definitely might be that what you say isn't true (and you should not assess this by reference to moodiness), but it's definitely not important.

[Luís Henrique]

These are just meaningless theories you're talking about. Is pure communism even achievable?

What is "pure communism"?

Luís Henrique

[subcp]

By those standards Scandinavian countries and Canada are successful socialist republics; to be emulated everywhere. State intervention, corporatism (cooperation between union-management-state) do have side-effects of raising living standards temporarily for a minority of the working-population, and may or may not be a factor in kicking the can down the road of capitalist crisis (Keynesianism as bandaid on a gunshot wound) leaving stagflation in its wake; but in the end all of that ('Titoism') is about heavy regulation, corporatism and competition with a human face: exactly all of the characteristics of NATO bloc countries since 1945, and now almost all states (aside from outliers like North Korea or Iran).