Titoism

[Reds]

I like some aspects of titoism what do you think about it ?

[bunk]

I havent got much of an idea on it. Can somebody give me a rundown?

http://www.eunuch.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/lalala.gif

[Reds]

Im kind of new to the idea but titoism is a branch of marxist-leninism based on yugoslavia under tito. what i like about it is that tito decentralized the government and put workplaces under workers control also tito allowd more freedom than most other eastern eropean socialist states.

[KC]

Isn't decentralizing government and putting it into the hands of the workers marxist?

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 11:37 PM
Isn't decentralizing government and putting it into the hands of the workers marxist?
which is what i liked about tito he haeld a more direct marxist line.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Workers control wasn't an "addition" to theory of Tito, or anyone else. It's intrinsic to Marxist theory in general.

When people talk about "Titoism" (usually as a pejorative), they're describing particular things:

Most specifically, so-called "market socialism", which infact isn't socialist in any shape or form. This was a main reason Tito was able to be so friendly with the imperialists, because in reality he presided over a state capitalist system, open to their explotation; and often took their side over that of the USSR.

Despite all the talk about "self management", Tito was named "President for Life" in the constitution drawn up in 1974 - not very democratic, and certainly not socialist. And, despite all his criticisms of "Stalinism", there was quite the cult of personality around him in Yugo. Many places and things were named after him while he was in power.

A possitive role Tito played was to point out that socialism would have to take it's own forms in each country, rather than immitate other previous forms (it sounds obvious, but remember that most of the CP's at the time served and mimmicked the USSR CP).

He also played a crucial part in founding the Nonaligned Movement, which had the potential to be something great (I don't think there's much of it left though).

[r`n`l]

There are many things told about Tito`s rule of Jugoslavia - good and bad ...
Jugoslavia was formed after WW2 and it was formed in a way that victory side lead by Tito created Jugoslavia (and not all nations wanted to be a part of it so that lead to many Tito`s problems in the future rule - that people which Tito united was fighting on the oposite sides in ww2 and you all know how Balkans are too pride to forget)

just a usefull fact maybe to understand

i just realised that i am off topic with this i thought it was on tito not titoism

but there was selfmanagment in nations in Jugoslavia but they were all under Tito
and he was elected Lifetime president coz he was in a way overlooking his vision and he did more or less hold Jugoslavia together coz i think that he let all the power to the people Jugoslavia would not stay as a one coz there was movements who opose SFRJ.

after his death people started to fight for power what eventualy lead to end of SFRJ and war ...

[Amusing Scrotum]

coz i think that he let all the power to the people Jugoslavia would not stay as a one coz there was movements who opose SFRJ.


That is democracy comrade. If a whole group of people did not want to be united under one banner of central control. Then theoretically under Marx's vision of workers' control, they would have had the power to to remove themselves from what they saw as false borders.

Tito was just another reform driven elitist who had about as much interest in giving power to the workers' as George Bush. Anyone who claims to be a Marxist would realise that the only people capable of deciding the future of the workers' are the workers' themselves. Not some enlightened person who is implementing his own "vision" for the working class.

Do not look at what Tito said, that is irrelevant, look at what he did, that is what's important. And if you look at Tito's actions you will see that they were in no way Marxist. I mean what Communist would implement Market Socialism?


A possitive role Tito played was to point out that socialism would have to take it's own forms in each country, rather than immitate other previous forms (it sounds obvious, but remember that most of the CP's at the time served and mimmicked the USSR CP).


Tito though didn't change the structure of the CP that drastically and all in all it was pretty similar to the structure in Russia. Also I don't think the idea of Socialism developing differently in each country is exclusive to Tito. Castro has expressed similar ideas, as did Marx and Lenin if I'm not wrong.

Tito added nothing to Socialism other than Market Socialism, which is about as relevant to Socialist theory, as Anarcho Capitalism is to Anarchist theory.