Originally posted by Kurt
[email protected] 16 2006, 06:44 PM
so what did he do economically that was different from the other Communist parties, I guess I'm a retard because Tito, well I don't know much about him, he's not really mentioned around, all I really know is that he told Stalin's Soviet Union to go to hell, shove it up their arses etc you know the score.
What you people are saying is, learn from Tito's "independent communist" Yugoslavia, right?
Tito's Yugoslavia developed a socialism very different from other socialist states.
As rebelworker explained, other countries that claimed to be socialist were in reality just state capitalist and there was "no real democracy, just a new boss wearing a red hat, it dosnt change any of the labour exploitation and disempowerment of the working class that exists under capitalism. The economic system is still run like caitalism, managers/ workers division, but verything is owned by the state, thus state capitalism."
(sorry for copying such a large part of your post, I just tought you well explained it, so there is no reason why would I try to explain it again)
On the other hand, Yugoslavia adopted workers self-management, so the companies were managed by the people who worked in them. Workers could not sell their factory (did not own it in capitalist sense), but factories were not the property of the government either (as in state-capitalist countries).
Self-management proved to be very successful economically.
Of course, the sytem was not perfect. The problem was that the Communist party often found ways to firmly control those companies and they did became the privileged class, but the situation was not nearly as bad as in capitalism. There was a much more equality than there is today and those people did not have such power as capitalists have today and, as a result, there were no cases of mistreatment of workers that we must endure today.
Maybe Yugoslavia was state-capitalist and maybe it was not "real socialism", but it was certaily much closer to it than other countries.
Sate capitalism often is so centralised that it is much worse than capitalism(example USSR or China run by the communist party.
I agree that state-capitalism is not such a great system, but I would not say it is worse than "private" capitalism. Government is a little more concerned about the workers (even in society with very little democracy such as USSR or Eastern Europe), while the only thing capitalists care about are their profits.