Josip Broz Tito

[Ander]

I was recently reading about Tito on Wikipedia and to me he seemed like one of the better red leaders in Europe during the Cold War. Then I read another source and it turned up he opened some forced labour camps for political dissidents and had a secret police force to round them up as well. The sources said his economic policies followed a socialist/market socialist model and he was well respected.

Does anyone know more about Tito? What about your opinions about him?

[Lamanov]

Yes, he was certanly "better" in the sense if you would expect something "good" from a "bureaucratic-capitalist" dictatoral system. But from the perspective of revolutionary proletariat -- he could be "better" a million times more and still he'd have to go along with the whole bureaucratic caste.

His "workers' self-management" policy was a sham. The "market socialism" system was full of contradictions, and it could not have survived the 80's breakdown.

He had only one brutal labor camp for political prisoners, Informbuerau (Stalin) supporters, but allot of inocent people got there as well.

[Ander]

Do you think you could explain what you said more in depth. Saying a policy is a sham doesn't tell me anything if I don't know why. :)

Could you explain the economics of Yugoslav back then?

[Lamanov]

Well, the workers in workplaces supposedly “managed”, as in “had control” in the “totality” of production process, but in fact, the real control was in the hands of appointed directors and “managers”, who acted out the will of bureaucratically predetermined “plan”.

When you consider the fact that in “bureaucratic-capitalist” systems alienated labor time is not under the full control of the owner of the means of production (the state) as in “classic” capitalist system (capitalist), because there can be no full pressure upon the worker through the “classic” mechanism of the labor-power market because there is a very small “industrial reserve army” of unemployed, and thus, the worker has a “defective” control over his alienated labor time, so the supposed “control” of the labor and production process is simply meaningless, because it does not extend over the real walls of the workplace nor the imaginary walls of that executed labor time.

The reason why “socialist” Yugoslav government introduced these policies is not because they were essentially “communistic” in nature or as if they wanted to establish the “transition” in such direction, it was because Yugoslav economy was in ruins during the post-war years, so this policy’s primary goal was to ensure development and increase in productivity in any way, and second, to relieve the government and the party from the burden of the working class pressured by extremely low wages.

Was that good enough? :blush:

Check this out, if you have time and need, Workers' control (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1967/workers-control.htm) by Paul Mattick (1967).

[Ferg]

Secret police are nothing new to this world and especially to communist regimes so don't fault him for that, Castro does the same thing, so does Chavez (most likely), Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, Gorbechev etc. The United States uses secret police tactics for crying out loud.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Ferq
Secret police are nothing new to this world and especially to communist regimes so don't fault him for that, Castro does the same thing, so does Chavez (most likely), Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, Gorbechev etc. The United States uses secret police tactics for crying out loud.

Er... just because secret police forces were common in 'marxist' regimes in the 20th century does not mean that this should not remain a point of criticism for Tito and others E-European 'leaders' or states.

[wogboy]

To put this into perspective, I live down here in Australia a very mixed society.

If one ethnic group harboured aspirations of seccession (tried to rip apart society) then I could imagine police arresting people. If the general population was quite happy with its lifestyle (just as Yugoslavs were under Tito), then nobody would criticise such actions.

This is why you didnt have a Balkan war 30 or 40 years ago (people supported the country they lived in-Yugoslavia).

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 03:19 PM
Secret police are nothing new to this world and especially to communist regimes so don't fault him for that, Castro does the same thing, so does Chavez (most likely), Lenin, Stalin, Khruschev, Gorbechev etc. The United States uses secret police tactics for crying out loud.
I don't see this as a good thing at all. There should be no need for secret police, and there is no excuse for them.

[wogboy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:35 PM
Do you think you could explain what you said more in depth. Saying a policy is a sham doesn't tell me anything if I don't know why. :)

Could you explain the economics of Yugoslav back then?
The economics of Yugoslavia:

During WW2 most infrustructer was destroyed or needed rebuilding. Reparations from Italy and Germany took years so times were a struggle. Yet, people were unified and you saw a massive push to build up the economic capacity of the country.

Money came in the form of big loans, from both the USSR and USA in one form or another (international lending agencies I guess). Funds were relatively easy to acquire becasue both these countries wanted it presence in the Balkan apace (geopolitics).

As far as I know, each republic was developed unevenly, so although there was overall economic progress, some places (Croatia and Slovenia) became better off than the rest (Bosnia, Macedonia).

There was no such thing as economic independence. Each republic was like an organ which the rest of the country needed to survive. Bosnia I think turned into a massive industrial area, you had mines in Montenegro, agriculture I think in Macedonia, hydro electricity from the mountains in Slovenia...sort of like this and resources were shared.

The problem was uneven development, so in times of economic hardship the better off republics would question why they were living so bad. Then you had nationalists urging for reform or complete indendence. They simply didnt want what they perceived as their wealth being redistributed. What these nationalists do not understand is that loans were given to Yugoslavia as a whole, and that places like Slovenia were built up with these loans in the first place.

Generally, the majority loved Tito. He seemed to balance the country well even though its difficult to cator for 5 or 6 nationalities and all sorts of other problems. Life may not have been great, but it did improve and people saw this.

In the 90s you had massive recession. Loans were called and at one stage inflation hit 200+ percent, unemployment...people became restless. Then you had nationalist policians deciding it was better to split than to work through these problems. Croatia and Slovenia declared independence, followed by Bosnia and Macedonia.

It really was a fight over economic resources. Croatia needed the Krajina although Serbia appealed to ethnic Serbs. Croatia and Serbia also wanted Bosnia (its resorces).

That ethno-nationalism was a product of this battle. To justify claims to territory you need an ethnic minority living there.

International powers played a hand in this aswell. Germany was pro Croatia while the USA supported Bosnia. Economic and political reasons are important here also.

During Tito's time he used secret police and crushed people which would threaten the Yugoslav nation (he crushed nationalists similar to Milosevic, Tudgeman, Izebegovic for example). Wether this is wright or wrong is philosophical question.