Titoism

[Bear MacMillan]

What is Titoism anyways, or rather, what are the basic ideas of Titoism?

[Again...]

What is Titoism anyways, or rather, what are the basic ideas of Titoism?

Hi comrade.

Tito had politic of self-management in economic sense.His view was that balance in salary can't work.So he introduced salary in proportion of 1:3 or 1:4 in factories.Because of that,he leave marxist-leninist economic theory.Some of theoreticions called this economic sistem ''yugoslav socialism'' or ''yugoslav marxism-leninism''.Tito was thinking that people must pass through this gentle form of socialism,if they want to arrive to communism and equality.

[Bear MacMillan]

Ahhh, thanks comrade, I've looked it up alot and couldn't find anything that actually said what Titoism is.

[Again...]

Ahhh, thanks comrade, I've looked it up alot and couldn't find anything that actually said what Titoism is.

My English is bad,so if I find any text about Titoism (because I am from Serbia),I will put on this topic.Tito think that SSSR and CPSU were against ''freedom'' in world communist movement.So many theoreticions called Comunist Party of Yugoslavia first revisionist party.

[Again...]

You can read text about Titoism in ''english wikipedia''...I can't copy this ,but I saw that they have text about this yugoslav leader and his politic.

[Prairie Fire]

Titoism more revisionist garbage in a stream of revisionist garbage that constitutes the modern left. It is mostly taken up by Serb nationalists and North American/anglo-country teens looking for a sanitary strand of "communism".

There is no "Titoism" in a theoretical sense (to the best of my knowledge,), so the term refers to the actions of Tito when he ran Yugoslavia. "Titoism" is not the continuation of any prior socialist theory or current of Marxism, rather a unique revisionism that cloaks itself in red, but continued to preserve a capitalist, reformist state in socialist rhetoric.

A thorough criticism can be found in "Imperialism and Revolution" by Enver Hoxha:



Titoism is an old agency of capital, a favourite weapon of the imperialist bourgeoisie in its fight against socialism and the liberation movements.

The peoples of Yugoslavia fought self-sacrificingly against the nazi-fascist occupiers :for freedom democracy and socialism. They succeeded in liberating their country, but were not allowed to continue the revolution on the road to socialism. The Yugoslav revisionist leadership, with Tito at the head, which had long been worked on secretly by the Intelligence Service and which, during the period of the war, posed as preserving the features of a party of the Third International, in fact, had other aims, which were contrary to Marxism Leninism and the aspirations of the peoples of Yugoslavia for the construction of a true socialist society in Yugoslavia.

The Communist Party of Yugoslavia, which came to power, had inherited many mistakes of a deviationist nature. After the Second World War, it displayed pronounced national-chauvinist features, which had shown up as early as the time of the war. These features were apparent in its departure from the Marxist-Leninist ideology, in its attitude towards the Soviet Union and Stalin, in its chauvinist stands and actions towards Albania, etc.

The system of people's democracy, which was established in Yugoslavia, was temporary. It did not suit the clique in power, though this clique continued to call itself "Marxist". The Titoites were not for the construction of socialism, or f or the Communist Party of Yugoslavia to be guided by the Marxist-Leninist theory, and they did not accept the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was the source of the conflict that broke out between the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties and the Communist Party of Yugoslavia. This was an ideological conflict between Marxism-Leninism and revisionism, and not a conflict between persons over -domination, as the revisionists try to make out. Stalin defended the purity of the Marxist-Leninist theory, Tito defended the deviationist, revisionist, anti-Marxist trend of modern revisionism, following in the footstep of Browder and the other opportunists, who emerged on the eve of and during the Second World War.

In the early post-liberation years, the Yugoslav leadership pretended that it was taking the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union as an example and proclaimed that it was allegedly building socialism in Yugoslavia. This was done to deceive the peoples of Yugoslavia who had shed their blood and aspired to genuine socialism.

In fact, the Titoites were not, and could not be, for the socialist social order or the form of organization of the Soviet state, because Tito was for the capitalist system and for an essentially bourgeois-democratic state, in which his clique would hold power. This state was to serve to create the idea that socialism was being built in Yugoslavia, a "specific" socialism of a "more humane type", that is, precisely the kind of "socialism" which would serve as a fifth column in the other socialist countries. Everything was well calculated and co-ordinated by the Anglo-American imperialists and the group around Tito. Thus, by playing the game of imperialism and world capitalism, and coming to terms with them, the Yugoslav revisionists placed themselves in opposition to the Soviet Union.

From the time of the anti-fascist national liberation war, in pursuit of their old plans, British and, subsequently, US imperialism helped Tito not only to break away from the Soviet Union, but also to carry out acts of sabotage against it, and especially to work to detach other countries of people's democracy from the socialist camp, in order to isolate the Soviet Union from all these countries and unite them with the West. This was the policy of world capitalism and its agency, Titoism.

The rabid anti-communist, Churchill, took a direct and personal part in ensuring that Tito and his group were placed in the service of capitalism. During the war he sent his most trusted friends, as the British leader put it, and later his own son, to Tito's staff. Eventually, he himself met Tito in Naples of Italy in May 1944, in order to make quite sure that Tito would play no tricks. In his memoirs, Churchill wrote that, in his talks with Tito, the latter expressed his readiness to make a public statement later that "communism would not be established in Yugoslavia after the war".
Tito worked with such great energy to serve his masters that Churchill, appraising his great services, told him: "Now I understand that you were right, therefore I am with you, I like you even more than I did previously". A lover could make no warmer declarations to his love.

Almost before Yugoslavia had broken completely with the Soviet Union and the countries of people's democracy, the imperialists, the American imperialists in particular, sent it great economic, political, ideological and military aid, which became more frequent and constant later on.
This aid was supplied only on condition that the country would develop on the capitalist road. The imperialist bourgeoisie was not against Yugoslavia maintaining its outward socialist forms. On the contrary, it was greatly in its interest that Yugoslavia should keep its outward socialist colour, because in this way it would serve as a more effective weapon in the struggle against socialism and the liberation movements.

Not only would this kind of "socialism" be radically different from the socialism envisaged and realized by Lenin and Stalin, but it would even come out against it.
Within a relatively short time Yugoslavia became the "socialist" mouthpiece of US imperialism, a diversionist agency to assist world capital. From 1948 to this day, Titoism has been characterized by feverish activity against Marxism - Leninism to organize a propaganda campaign everywhere in the world to present the Yugoslav system as the form of a "genuine socialist" order, a "new society", a "non-aligned socialism", which is no longer like the socialism Lenin and Stalin built in the Soviet Union, but a socialist order "with a human face" which is being tried for the first time in the world and which is yielding "brilliant results". The aim of this propaganda has always been to lead the peoples and progressive forces fighting for freedom and independence everywhere in the world up a blind alley.

The Yugoslav revisionists adopted those forms of running their country that the Trotskyites and the other anarchist elements, encouraged by the capitalist bourgeoisie, tried to adopt in the Soviet Union in the time of Lenin, in order to sabotage the construction of socialism there. While he talked about building socialism, by adopting these forms, Tito completely distorted the MarxistLeninist principles on building up industry, agriculture, etc.

The Republics of Yugoslavia assumed such features of administration and organizational political leadership that democratic centralism was liquidated and the role of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia faded into insignificance. The Communist Party of Yugoslavia changed its name. It was transformed into the "League of Communists of Yugoslavia", which looks like a Marxist name, while in its content, norms, competences and aims it is anti-Marxist. The League became a spineless front, was stripped of the distinguishing features of a Marxist-Leninist party, preserved the old form, but no longer played the role of the vanguard of the working class, was no longer the political force which led the Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, but, according to the Titoite revisionists, allegedly performed only general "educational" functions.

The Titoite leadership placed the party under the control of the UDB, to Which it was subordinated, turned it into a fascist organization, and the state into a fascist (state). We know full well the great danger of these activities, for Koçi Xoxe, the agent in the pay of the Titoites, tried to achieve the same thing in Albania.

Tito, Rankovich and their agency entirely liquidated anything which might have had the true colour of socialism. Titoism waged a fierce fight against the attempts of those internal elements who sought to blow up this agency and this capitalist-revisionist organization, as well as against all the Marxist-Leninist propaganda which was conducted abroad to unmask thh regime which posed as socialist.

The Titoite leadership quickly abandoned the collectivization of agriculture which had begun in the early years, set up the capitalist state farms, encouraged the development of private property in the countryside, allowed land to be bought and sold freely, rehabilitated the kuIaks, left the field free for the private market to Flourish In town and country, and carried out the first reforms which strengthened the capitalist direction of the economy.

Meanwhile, the Titoite bourgeoisie was searching for a "new" form to camouflage the Yugoslav capitalist order, and this form was found. They called it Yugoslav "self-administration".
They dressed it up in a "Marxist - Leninist" cloak, claiming that this system was the most authentic socialism.
At first,"self-administration" emerged as an economic system, then it was extended to the field of state organization and all the other fields of life in that country.
The theory and practice of Yugoslav "self administration" are an open negation of the teachings of Marxism-Leninism and the universal laws of the construction of socialism. The economic and political system of "self-administration" is an anarcho-syndicalist form of the bourgeois dictatorship, which is ruling a Yugoslavia dependent on international capital.

The system of "self-administration", with all its characteristic features, such as the elimination of democratic centralism, the role of unified management by the state, anarchist federalism, the anti-state ideology in general, has brought about permanent economic, political and ideological chaos and confusion in Yugoslavia, weak and unequal development of its republics and regions, great social-class differentiations, national feuds and oppression, and the degeneration of spiritual life. It has brought about great fragmentation of the working class, by putting one detachment of it in competition with another, while fostering the bourgeois sectional, localist and individualist spirit. The working class in Yugoslavia not only does not play the hegemonic role in the state and society, but the system of "self-administration" places it in such conditions that it is unable even to defend its own general interests and to act as a unified and compact class.

From the capitalist world, particularly from us imperialism, large amounts of capital have poured into Yugoslavia in the f rm of investments, credits and loans. It is precisely this capital which constitutes the material basis of the "develop- of Yugoslav capitalist "self - administrative socialism". Its indebtedness alone amounts to over 11 billion dollars. Yugoslavia has received over 7 billion dollars in credits from the United States of America.
Despite the numerous credits the Titoite leadership receives from abroad, the peoples of Yugoslavia have not enjoyed, nor are they enjoying, the "brilliant results" of this specific "socialism". On the contrary, there is political and ideological chaos in Yugoslavia. A system which engenders large-scale unemployment at home and mass emigration of labour abroad prevails there, and this makes Yugoslavia completely dependent on the imperialist powers. The Yugoslav peoples are being exploited to the bone in the interests of the class in power and of all the imperialist powers which have made investments in that country. The Yugoslav state is not concerned that prices go up every day, that the poverty of the working masses is steadily increasing and that the country is not only up to its neck in debt, but is also deeply involved in the great crisis of the capitalist world.

Yugoslavia has only limited independence and sovereignty, because, apart from anything else, it has no economic potential completely its own. The greater part of it exists in joint ownership with various foreign capitalist firms and states, therefore it is bound to suffer the destructive effects of the crisis and foreign exploitation.
But it is not accidental that world capitalism gives Yugoslav "self - administration" such great political and financial support and sings in har- mony with the Titoite propaganda to pass this system off as "a new tested form of the construction of socialism" for all countries.
It does this because the form of Yugoslav "self administration" provides a way of ideological and political subversion and sabotage against the revolutionary liberation movements of the proletariat and the peoples, a way to open the road to the political and economic penetration of imperialism into the various countries of the world. Imperialism and the bourgeoisie want to keep "self-administration", as a reserve system for various circumstances and different countries, in order to prolong the life of capitalism, which does not give up the ghost easily, but is striving to find various forms of government at the expense of the peoples.

The Yugoslav theories and practices of "non alignment" render a great service to various imperialists, for they help them hoodwink the peoples. This is in the interest of the imperialists and social-imperialists alike, because it helps them to establish and strengthen their influence in the "non - aligned countries", to divert the freedom loving peoples from the road of national liberation and proletarian revolution. Therefore, both Carter and Brezhnev, as well as Hua Kuo-feng, lavish praise on the Titoite policy of "non-alignment" and try to exploit it for their own purposes.

Titoism has always been a weapon of the imperialist bourgeoisie, a fire-extinguisher to quell the flames of the revolution. It is of the same line and has the same aims as modern revisionism, in general, and its different variants, with which it is in ideological unity. The ways, forms and tactics they use in the struggle against Marxism-Leninism, the revolution and socialism may be different, but their counterrevolutionary aims are identical.

[BobKKKindle$]

I don't think it is possible to speak of an ideology called Titoism, but I do admire Tito, as the main leader of the insurgency against the Nazi occupation, and as a socialist, who made sound decisions on behalf of his country. Yugoslavia's form of Socialism was very different to that which existed in the other states which comprised the "socialist" bloc and was, in my opinion, very progressive.

In Yugoslavia, factories were managed through workers assemblies; workers were able to make decisions as to how the factory should be organized, and how the profits generated from the sale of products should be distributed, and the managerial staff were appointed through a secret ballot. In addition, trade unions were not controlled by the state, any worker could call for a strike, to demand improvements in their conditions. Workers self-management is an integral part of socialism, because socialism is about giving power to the working class, and the working class can't be considered empowered if they don't have control over how resources are used. This stands in contrast to the system which existed elsewhere, managers, appointed by the state apparatus, were given the authority to control the workers employed in their enterprises, and strikes were always met with armed force, and the leaders would often later be punished.

Moreover, Yugoslavia was also progressive in the area of Abortion rights. The 1974 constitution (of the federal republic) proclaimed that the ability to decide on the birth of Children (that is, whether a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term) is a human right, and Yugoslavia succeeded in eliminating illegal abortion, as women were able to access abortion through the public health system, and abortion was provided to all women who demanded the procedure, following liberalization in the 1950s.

By contrast, in Albania, contraception was banned, abortion was only allowed when a woman's life was at risk, and if a doctor was found to be offering abortions to women who did not meet the criteria specified by the state, they would be imprisoned or sent to a forced labour camp.

I find it strange then, that Hoxhaists describe Yugoslavia as "revisionist" or "capitalist" when the state that they seem to admire - Albania - had such a disgraceful record when it came to empowering women. If Albania embodied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, does this mean that Marxism-Leninism entails banning abortion?

It is actually unfortunate that Yugoslavia did not invade Albania and extend the gains of the Yugoslav workers revolution to the Albanian workers and women suffering under the yoke of Hoxhaist tyranny.


A thorough criticism can be found in "Imperialism and Revolution" by Enver Hoxha:This excerpt denounces the Yugoslav state as "fascist" and so why should we actually take Hoxha seriously? Anyone with a basic understanding of what Fascism actually is can see that this allegation is silly; Tito clearly was not a "fascist" because the CPY destroyed Capitalism in Yugoslavia by expropriating the property of the bourgeoisie, and Fascism is an ideology which emerges to protect the bourgeoisie when they are faced with the danger of revolution, by destroying workers organizations, and by encouraging workers to identify with the bourgeoisie on the basis of a shared nationality or "race". Like so many "orthodox" Marxist-Leninists, the excerpt consists primarily of rhetoric, without any kind of analysis of factual evidence to back up the author's claims.

[Asoka89]

I don't think it is possible to speak of an ideology called Titoism, but I do admire Tito, as the main leader of the insurgency against the Nazi occupation, and as a socialist, who made sound decisions on behalf of his country. Yugoslavia's form of Socialism was very different from that which existed in the other states which comprised the "socialist" bloc and was, in my opinion, very progressive.

In Yugoslavia, factories were managed through workers assemblies; workers were able to make decisions as to how the factory should be organized, and how the profits generated from the sale of products should be distributed, and the managerial staff were appointed through a secret ballot. In addition, trade unions were not controlled by the state, any worker could call for a strike, to demand improvements in their conditions. Workers self-management is an integral part of socialism, because socialism is about giving power to the working class, and the working class can't be considered empowered if they don't have control over how resources are used. This stands in contrast to the system which existed elsewhere, managers, appointed by the state apparatus, were given the authority to control the workers employed in their enterprises, and strikes were always met with armed force, and the leaders would often later be punished.

Moreover, Yugoslavia was also progressive in the area of Abortion rights. The 1974 constitution (of the federal republic) proclaimed that the ability to decide on the birth of Children (that is, whether a woman wants to carry a pregnancy to term) is a human right, and Yugoslavia succeeded in eliminating illegal abortion, as women were able to access abortion through the public health system, and abortion was provided to all women who demanded the procedure, following liberalization in the 1950s.

By contrast, in Albania, contraception was banned, abortion was only allowed when a woman's life was at risk, and if a doctor was found to be offering abortions to women who did not meet the criteria specified by the state, they would be imprisoned or sent to a forced labour camp.

I find it strange then, that Hoxhaists describe Yugoslavia as "revisionist" or "capitalist" when the state that they seem to admire - Albania - had such a disgraceful record when it came to empowering women. If Albania embodied the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, does this mean that Marxism-Leninism entails banning abortion?

It is actually unfortunate that Yugoslavia did not invade Albania and extend the gains of the Yugoslav workers revolution to the Albanian workers and women suffering under the yoke of Hoxhaist tyranny.



This excerpt denounces the Yugoslav state as "fascist" and so why should we actually take Hoxha seriously? Anyone with a basic understanding of what Fascism actually is can see that this allegation is silly; Tito clearly was not a "fascist" because the CPY destroyed Capitalism in Yugoslavia by expropriating the property of the bourgeoisie, and Fascism is an ideology which emerges to protect the bourgeoisie when they are faced with the danger of revolution, by destroying workers organizations, and by encouraging workers to identify with the bourgeoisie on the basis of a shared nationality or "race". Like so many "orthodox" Marxist-Leninists, the excerpt consists primarily of rhetoric, without any kind of analysis of factual evidence to back up the author's claims.


very well stated, why did Titoism collapse? What happened after he died that lead to the collapse of Yugoslavia

[BobKKKindle$]

very well stated, why did Titoism collapse? What happened after he died that lead to the collapse of YugoslaviaThe 1973 Oil crisis resulted in the expansion of Yugoslavia's national debt and economic instability due to the rising prices of basic goods, due to higher energy costs; this forced the government to seek assistance from the international monetary fund, which forced the government to implement austerity measures in exchange for loans. This resulted in a higher rate of unemployment, a fall in industrial output, and economic hardship eventually resulted in the break-up of the federation, as the communist parties of each republic felt they would be able to attain greater prosperity if they declared a separate state. The death of Tito also meant that there was no longer a strong leader who could hold the republic together.

There are parallels between Yugoslavia and Bolshevik Russia in the 1920s; in both cases, workers democracy could have been saved if each country had received economic assistance from another socialist country, but, because Yugoslavia had been isolated from the Warsaw pact, this was not available.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

there was workers democracy in both the warsaw pact and yugoslavia, they were just slightly different models.

[BobKKKindle$]

There was workers democracy in both the warsaw pact and yugoslavia, they were just slightly different models.

In Yugoslavia, the expropriation of property did not occur through the invasion of another state and the external imposition of a new form of social organization, as in the case of other eastern European states, but through a popular revolution, which began as a revolt against occupation, but later transformed into a socialist revolution. The system which existed in the Warsaw Pact cannot be described as "workers democracy" in any meaningful sense, because workers did not control the means of production, they were not able to voice their criticisms of how their countries were run, and trade unions were controlled by the state apparatus - the bureaucracy operated as a ruling stratum. These countries were bureaucratically deformed which, distinct from bureaucratic degeneration, means that the proletariat never possessed political power in these countries.

Arguing that the Warsaw pact had a different form of workers democracy is simply an excuse for the absence of political freedom in these countries. There is nothing "socialist" about press censorship and long prison sentences for political dissidents.

[Red_or_Dead]

Arguing that the Warsaw pact had a different form of workers democracy is simply an excuse for the absence of political freedom in these countries. There is nothing "socialist" about press censorship and long prison sentences for political dissidents.

To be honest, SFR Yugoslavia had both press censorships and long prison sentences for political dissidents. From what I know not nearly as much as in the Warsaw pact or Hoxhaist Albania, but it was present and it was wrong.

As far as Tito himself was concerned, I would quote one of our politicians: "A strong cure that heals, but has a lot of side effects." Tito is undoubtedly one of the greatest military leaders of our history, as he organized the most effective and ultimately the most succesfull resistance movement in Nazi-occupied Europe. He also aided Albanian partisans, something that Hoxhaists dont like to remember very much. Titos No.2 man Edvard Kardelj was the one who came up with the "workers self-management", which was a great system, tho I am told by the older members of my family who participated in it, that it never really came to life in practice. I think that the best thing that Tito did was to defy Stalin. If he didnt, then all the gains of the self managing system, all the respect we gained in the non-alligned movement would never had happened, not to mention that Yugoslavia would never had prospered as much, and politicial repression would be unheard of.

On the other hand, Titos dealing with the national problem was a complete and utter failure, as was best seen in and after 1991. His repressing of dissidents was wrong, the cult of personality... He made many mistakes, but as far as Im concerned (and in this many of the people from fmr. Yugoslavia will agree with me), Tito was a very positive figure in our history, and the "Yugonostalgia" phenomenom is something that is very present everywhere in the former state.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem is that wage slavery was still not yet eliminated (a prerequisite for a global socialist mode of production) and replaced with labour-time. Granted, my "multi-economy" proposal in the Theory thread "Stamocap" could incorporate "Titoism" in the late stages of state capitalism (the early stages would have to be dominated by Gosplan dictates), but wage slavery is wage slavery.

[Bandito]

who made sound decisions on behalf of his country
This quote is not true. He simply licked the butts of imperialists and claimed to be socialist.

Yugoslavia's form of Socialism was very different to that which existed in the other states which comprised the "socialist" bloc and was, in my opinion, very progressive.

It was different,but not better or more progressive. As i said,he used his position to gain help from USA,Britain and other imperialist states. According to this,he cannot be progressive,he can olny be a revisionist.

workers democracy
There was never workers democracy in Titoist regime. There were just capitalists dressed in red. Executive boards from factories were equal to those you can find in any capitalist country of that time being,combined with demagogy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Thanks for dispelling the Titoist illusion, comrade. So much for my reply above. :(

[Vendetta]

other imperialist states.

And the USSR wasn't?

[Das war einmal]

Today a history show on Dutch Radio was about Tito and the split with the Soviets in 1948. It told the story about a Dutchman who worked for several years in Yugoslavia. How he landed in Tito's Yugoslavia I missed, but I believe he got there through the Dutch Communist Party

Anyhow, this sparked my interest about Tito and why he Yugoslavia was thrown out of the Comintern. Was it purely because he didnt want to do as Moscow told him so?

Just one small notice:



Arguing that the Warsaw pact had a different form of workers democracy is simply an excuse for the absence of political freedom in these countries. There is nothing "socialist" about press censorship and long prison sentences for political dissidents.

This happened in Yugoslavia as well, dissidents where send to Goli Otok, mostly marxist-leninists who dissagreed with Tito, in that way, he didnt differ from Stalin that much...

[Das war einmal]

And the USSR wasn't?

I would dissagree, apart from Czechoslovakia, nearly all of the former Eastern socialist countries, where fascist regimes that attacked the USSR in WW2.

After these countries where liberated, it is logical that the Soviets did everything to ensure that the USSR could not been threatened again by any of these countries.