Josip Broz Tito

[Comrade_Scott]

What do you guys think about Tito?? i dont have much info and your points and information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks ;)

[Ander]

While his rejection of Stalinism set Yugoslavia apart from the East Bloc nations in a positive way, his neutrality allowed him to have relations with many reactionary governments. Tito also managed to maintain the country unified which is a difficult task in a country made up of many ethnic groups like Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, his experiments in "market socialism" are criticised greatly by most leftists as it failed to produce any kind of true socialism.

[Prairie Fire]

Tito was one of the few communist leaders supported by the United States (Pol pot is another.).

His "Yugoslav self managment" policy, where he shared profits with the workers in state owned enterprises, was Social- Democratic in nature, and anti-Marxist.

While he is generally credited with "Keeping Yugoslavia unified", this is oversimplification. While some may say that "he kept the people of the Balkans from killing each other", this supposes that they would have been killing each other
without him. The truth is, it was his chauvenist managment of Yugoslavia thaty was most likely responsible for the outbreaks of ethnic conflicts after his death.

Tito was also under the idea that the Balkans were his sphere of hegemony. He did not recognize his neighbouring communist Albania as a seperate nation, rather favouring it's disolution into the Yugoslavian Socialist federation (under his rule.).
This Yugoslavian chauvenism caused rifts between Tito and Enver Hoxha.

While Tito is upheld as the red darling of the capitalist nations (which by itself is a blackmarkj against him), his policies where disastrous.
He is generally credited with being the first to "resist Stalinism", if that's what you'd like to call it. In actuality, he split with the Soviet influence in favour of American capital and influence, and in doing so caused a dividing force within the world communist movement at the time of it's greatest proliferation.

Tito was a chauvenist and an revisionist. For more information on Tito, read "The Titoites" and "Revolution and Imperialism" by Comrade Enver Hoxha.

[Louis Pio]

Tito was not really different from the rest of the bearucrats, but since his own movement freed Yougoslavia he wasn't so dependent on USSR as the eastern satelite states.
Actually a bit like the "dear leader Hoxha" who managed the same. He just run a different line, in nature they were the same and think their "differences" should be seen in that light. Hoxha didn't want "bigbrother" to interfere.

[YSR]

I dunno. I met an anarchist who fought with underground guerrilla groups against Tito. He seemed to think that Tito was a piece of shit.

[Louis Pio]

It's unfortunate how so many threads get completely fucked up this way on here.

:blush: Sorry.
Then again Tito's position and the position of yougoslavia can't really be viewed as apart from the rest of the left at the time. And in the end is quite closely linked with Albania, anyway if your so dissatisfied you should contribute instead of pointing out the obvious.

[Red October]

a documentary i saw about tito in an international relations class said he was one of the more "benevolent" eastern bloc leaders.

[Louis Pio]

The 4. international at the time saw Tito as an "unconscious Trotskyist" and send working brigades to Yougoslavia. Failing to look at material and other conditions as the base of his rule of course.
However the idea that Tito kept the various ethnic groups from clashing are quite widespread in the former Yougoslavia, all people I know from there has had that point of view.

[Prairie Fire]

Red October 1922:

a documentary i saw about tito in an international relations class said he was one of the more "benevolent" eastern bloc leaders.

If by "benevolent" you mean "cooperative with the United States and their interests", then yes he was very "benevolent". Do they teach you about the
Uprava državne bezbednosti (UDBA), Titos secret police, in your international relations class? Oh yes, very "benevolent".

Rule of thumb when dealing with the line of the American imperialists:
AMERICA DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS. As long as you understand this, it is easy to find the true motivating forces behind all policies and political lines presented by the American Imperialist leadership.

Teis:


always make it point to talk with people, especially when I stand shoulder to shoulder with them. But the Hoxaists dead here in Denmark, except from a few who seem to have taken on quite a stranmge form of deep entrism in the anti-war movement, people certainly don't know they consider themselves communists. The ones they split from (the largest group by far) have joined up with remnants of the old moscow orientated party, now they only talk bout "anti-monopolistic democracy", seems capitalism without monopolies are the way to go for them.

You didn't say "Hoxhaist", you said "Stalinist" ( And I despise that word,by the way.
We prefer the term "anti-revisionist"). I was simply saying to you that there are probably more followers of Stalin on the picket lines that you may be aware of.
Whether Hoxhaism is in decline in your country is irrelevant ( The Labour Party of Albania always had a bit of a small following, and the maionstream communist movement has abandoned/forgotten about Hoxha.). The point is, some of those who share the line of Marx, Engles, Lenin and Stalin (and maybe Hoxha too), are probably on the forntlines of the workers struggle beside you. Don't be so quick to write us "Stalinists" off.


Well part of your post goes well hand in hand with what I said. The point were we differ are on wether Hoxha was communist or just followed in the tradition of the USSR in it's later stages. My parents (those old hoxzaite bastards , and no shit they were hoxaites, brought up in the tradition so to speak) trip to Albania in the 70'ies and their stories of it doesn't really change that, they also had to admit that the rapid degeneration of Albania showed all the shortcomings. You can't build communism on the cult of one man, and Alabania was a cult at that point.

Most communist leaders where indistinguishable when fighting the revolution; it is only after the revolution ,when they walk the path of socialist construction, when the genuine communists distinguish themselves fromt he oppurtunists by way of their line and policies.

As far as the disintigration of Albania, I'm not going to tie up this thread with a side discussion on this topic, although I feel that it is important. If you would like to know more, send me a message.



The 4. international at the time saw Tito as an "unconscious Trotskyist" and send working brigades to Yougoslavia. Failing to look at material and other conditions as the base of his rule of course.

:D what an excellent idea! From now on, every leader that is doing good things is a "unconsious Marxist-Leninist", even if they don't subscribe to Marxism-Leninism.
This way, my group can claim the achievements of individuals and organizations that do not identify with our ideology, and never have. Brilliant!

Personally, if I had to appropriate the accomplishments of a leader who has nothing in common with my ideology, I would choose someone a little bit better than Tito! :lol:

[NewYugoslavia]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 18, 2007 09:48 pm
I dunno. I met an anarchist who fought with underground guerrilla groups against Tito. He seemed to think that Tito was a piece of shit.
I see u don`t know much about Tito, I live in the former Yugoslavia... He was a great leader, a great Marshall and at first a great MAN!!!! In the Present the people loves him here in Bosnia, they dont say any bad word about him. He had his own style to rule the Country, and he made it... How do u otherwise explain that he made an non-interested area of the South-west Europe to one of the most interested Topics in the World Politic???
And about that ANARCHIST... I don`t know, I only knew there were just a few underground groups fighting against him, there were Religion motivated or Nationalistic (SERB undergroung groups), but every activist he could cought he made fast process :D :D :D

P.S. Sorry for my bad English, my German is better :unsure: :unsure:

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:22 pm

It's unfortunate how so many threads get completely fucked up this way on here.

:blush: Sorry.
Then again Tito's position and the position of yougoslavia can't really be viewed as apart from the rest of the left at the time. And in the end is quite closely linked with Albania, anyway if your so dissatisfied you should contribute instead of pointing out the obvious.
Check the SECOND post.

[Mikhail Frunze]

I supported the pre-1948 Tito and regard him as a national liberation hero whose forces singelhandedly defeated the fascist vermin. But after 1948 Tito essentially took a capitalist road and betrayed the USSR in favour of warm relations with bourgeois countries. Tito's policies of heavily borrowing from the west resulted in a crippling debt which of course was the main cause of Yugoslavia's breakup and brutal civil wars.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

his neighbouring communist Albania

His neighbouring what?

[Prairie Fire]

NWOG:


his neighbouring communist Albania



His neighbouring what?

Perhaps my grammer was incorrect. What I meant was "his neihbouring nation of communist Albania."

On the other hand, if you are feigning disbelief at my statement to make some sort of point against communist Albania , then the mistake is yours.

Stay on topic, we are talking about Tito.

[Ze]

what little i know of him is that yugoslavia was better with him than without him. he gets a thumbs up from me.

[YSR]

Originally posted by NewYugoslavia+January 20, 2007 03:28 am--> (NewYugoslavia @ January 20, 2007 03:28 am)
Young Stupid [email protected] 18, 2007 09:48 pm
I dunno. I met an anarchist who fought with underground guerrilla groups against Tito. He seemed to think that Tito was a piece of shit.
I see u don`t know much about Tito, I live in the former Yugoslavia... He was a great leader, a great Marshall and at first a great MAN!!!! In the Present the people loves him here in Bosnia, they dont say any bad word about him. He had his own style to rule the Country, and he made it... How do u otherwise explain that he made an non-interested area of the South-west Europe to one of the most interested Topics in the World Politic???
And about that ANARCHIST... I don`t know, I only knew there were just a few underground groups fighting against him, there were Religion motivated or Nationalistic (SERB undergroung groups), but every activist he could cought he made fast process :D :D :D

P.S. Sorry for my bad English, my German is better :unsure: :unsure: [/b]
The dude I met is named Andrej Grubacic. He's an anarchist activist and scholar and works with David Graeber. He's certainly not affiliated with religious or nationalist groups.

[black magick hustla]

man ravenblade

there are many reasons to be against tito but selfmanagement is not one of them. that is like hating a capitalist for promoting "freedom of speech". (which it isnt really, but you know what i mean)

however, i dont think there is much to expect from someone who admires that lunatic called hoxha

[Guerrilla22]

Tito was was a great man, he refused to allow his country to become a soviet puppet, while at the same time refusing to allow his country to become a puppet of the west.

[Mikhail Frunze]

Tito was was a great man, he refused to allow his country to become a soviet puppet, while at the same time refusing to allow his country to become a puppet of the west.

Tito was a great man in the sense that his forces fought against and almost single handedly defeated the fascist vermin. But his flagrant disregard of Moscow's instructions to not meddle in the premature ELAS insurrection and his development of warm relations with western capitalist countries was highly treachorous. Tito sold out his country to western imperialists manifested by the enormous debt Yugoslavia piled up. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs were ensalved in what was called a "guest worker" program in Germany under the illegitimate FRG regime.

Plus, Tito was far from the only socialist politician who led an independent path from Moscow. Ceauşescu was similar with his opposition to the Warsaw Pact's liberation of Czechoslovakia in 1968 from bourgeois liberalism. Ceauşescu similarly was opposed to the Soviet rescue of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1979. Hoxha, Kim, and even to a lesser extent Gomułka and Kádár pursued policies which were independent of the Moscow line.

[Prairie Fire]

Marmot:

man ravenblade

there are many reasons to be against tito but selfmanagement is not one of them. that is like hating a capitalist for promoting "freedom of speech". (which it isnt really, but you know what i mean)

however, i dont think there is much to expect from someone who admires that lunatic called hoxha

You misunderstand; I'm not against self managment as a principal. Albania was self managed, and the DPRK is self managed right now. What I'm talking about is the "Yugoslav self managment" theory, which was the basis of Titoite socialism.
This was the name of the theory.

"That Lunatic,Enver Hoxha"? If you want to ellaborate, PM me. If not, stay on topic.


Guerrilla 22:

Tito was was a great man, he refused to allow his country to become a soviet puppet, while at the same time refusing to allow his country to become a puppet of the west.

:D That's funny. Tito was supported by massive amounts of Western capital.

Mikhail Frunze:


Tito was a great man in the sense that his forces fought against and almost single handedly defeated the fascist vermin. But his flagrant disregard of Moscow's instructions to not meddle in the premature ELAS insurrection and his development of warm relations with western capitalist countries was highly treachorous. Tito sold out his country to western imperialists manifested by the enormous debt Yugoslavia piled up. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs were ensalved in what was called a "guest worker" program in Germany under the illegitimate FRG regime.

Plus, Tito was far from the only socialist politician who led an independent path from Moscow. Ceauşescu was similar with his opposition to the Warsaw Pact's liberation of Czechoslovakia in 1968 from bourgeois liberalism. Ceauşescu similarly was opposed to the Soviet rescue of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1979. Hoxha, Kim, and even to a lesser extent Gomułka and Kádár pursued policies which were independent of the Moscow line.

Good post. My thoughts exactly.

[Louis Pio]

what an excellent idea! From now on, every leader that is doing good things is a "unconsious Marxist-Leninist", even if they don't subscribe to Marxism-Leninism.
This way, my group can claim the achievements of individuals and organizations that do not identify with our ideology, and never have. Brilliant!

Personally, if I had to appropriate the accomplishments of a leader who has nothing in common with my ideology, I would choose someone a little bit better than Tito!

Yeah the USFI's never been very good at analysing anything, they had the same line on different leaders.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:57 pm
Marmot:

man ravenblade

there are many reasons to be against tito but selfmanagement is not one of them. that is like hating a capitalist for promoting "freedom of speech". (which it isnt really, but you know what i mean)

however, i dont think there is much to expect from someone who admires that lunatic called hoxha



"That Lunatic,Enver Hoxha"? If you want to ellaborate, PM me. If not, stay on topic.


Guerrilla 22:

Tito was was a great man, he refused to allow his country to become a soviet puppet, while at the same time refusing to allow his country to become a puppet of the west.

:D That's funny. Tito was supported by massive amounts of Western capital.

Mikhail Frunze:


Tito was a great man in the sense that his forces fought against and almost single handedly defeated the fascist vermin. But his flagrant disregard of Moscow's instructions to not meddle in the premature ELAS insurrection and his development of warm relations with western capitalist countries was highly treachorous. Tito sold out his country to western imperialists manifested by the enormous debt Yugoslavia piled up. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of Yugoslavs were ensalved in what was called a "guest worker" program in Germany under the illegitimate FRG regime.

Plus, Tito was far from the only socialist politician who led an independent path from Moscow. Ceauşescu was similar with his opposition to the Warsaw Pact's liberation of Czechoslovakia in 1968 from bourgeois liberalism. Ceauşescu similarly was opposed to the Soviet rescue of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in 1979. Hoxha, Kim, and even to a lesser extent Gomułka and Kádár pursued policies which were independent of the Moscow line.

Good post. My thoughts exactly.

You misunderstand; I'm not against self managment as a principal. Albania was self managed, and the DPRK is self managed right now. What I'm talking about is the "Yugoslav self managment" theory, which was the basis of Titoite socialism.
This was the name of the theory.

No, I don't misunderstand. tito's policy of selfmanagement consisted of a somewhat democratic workers's control of the factories, where the workers would share profit with the state.

Tito was accused by moscow of being a "councilist" for this reason (referring to council communism--how offennsive!")

Certainly this was not "completely marxist", however what you imply as the marxist alternative is total state control of the economy by the bureacracy. Marx never mentioned anything about "bureacratic state control" of the economy except in a few lines in the communist manifesto, and very vaguely. remember that the communist manifesto is not THE marxist document, considering marx's thoughts continued to evolve through decades.

so in conclusion, tito's self.management policies were much more akin to marxism than the soviet alternative.

[NewYugoslavia]

Foe everyone who likes Tito`s ideals and his work

Titoslavija (http://www.titoslavija.com)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The bottom line here is that "market socialism" is no kind of socialism at all.

[Enragé]

His "Yugoslav self managment" policy, where he shared profits with the workers in state owned enterprises, was Social- Democratic in nature, and anti-Marxist.

dear god :o

you mean
actually some of what the workers produce went to them? :o

how anti-marxist! :o
Didnt they know it should all go to the bureaucrats?! :o

[Janus]

Our last thread on him might help you out.

Tito (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51817&hl=josip+broz+tito)

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:46 am

what an excellent idea! From now on, every leader that is doing good things is a "unconsious Marxist-Leninist", even if they don't subscribe to Marxism-Leninism.
This way, my group can claim the achievements of individuals and organizations that do not identify with our ideology, and never have. Brilliant!

Personally, if I had to appropriate the accomplishments of a leader who has nothing in common with my ideology, I would choose someone a little bit better than Tito!

Yeah the USFI's never been very good at analysing anything, they had the same line on different leaders.
which one of the 134567 splits of the 4th international is that one?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+February 12, 2007 03:04 am--> (LeftyHenry @ February 12, 2007 03:04 am)
[email protected] 04, 2007 01:46 am

what an excellent idea! From now on, every leader that is doing good things is a "unconsious Marxist-Leninist", even if they don't subscribe to Marxism-Leninism.
This way, my group can claim the achievements of individuals and organizations that do not identify with our ideology, and never have. Brilliant!

Personally, if I had to appropriate the accomplishments of a leader who has nothing in common with my ideology, I would choose someone a little bit better than Tito!

Yeah the USFI's never been very good at analysing anything, they had the same line on different leaders.
which one of the 134567 splits of the 4th international is that one? [/b]
Unfortunately, its not just the 4th international which split up into tiny splinters of radicals.

It's a common tendency all over the Left.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Q: What do you get when you put 10 leftists in a room together?

A: Eleven splinter groups!

[Louis Pio]

which one of the 134567 splits of the 4th international is that one?



The socalled official, which is the largest if you look at numbers, they have however dissovled themselves into leftreformist parties many places around the world.

But I agree the 4. internationals are not really uncommon in the splitting, you see it all over the left.