tito

[reddevil]

a great fighter, drove the nazis out of yugoslavia. managed to unify the nation and resist imperialism from both the western and eastern blocs. made a big mistake at the end of his reign by agreeing to free market reforms. this caused ethnic divisions and ensured the region would become the killing fields of europe in th 90s.
what are your opinions on him?

[redarmyfaction38]

a great fighter, drove the nazis out of yugoslavia. managed to unify the nation and resist imperialism from both the western and eastern blocs. made a big mistake at the end of his reign by agreeing to free market reforms. this caused ethnic divisions and ensured the region would become the killing fields of europe in th 90s.
what are your opinions on him?
not so sure his reforms caused the ethnic divisions, what makes you say that?
personally i'm an admirer of tito, he instituted a "stalinist" communist state yet managed to make it the most humane and "liberal" of all "stalinist" states by playing both ends by the middle.
he kept in chech the "nationalists", the "capitalist reformists" and the "soviet" wannabes.
it was a balancing act that, unfortunately, was bound to collapse after his death, because, as child of the stalinist "comintern" he could not carry through the "democratic" part of the socialist revolution, ie allowing workers control and ownership. imo.
my reply is a bit simplistic, but i'm sure you will get the gist of what i'm tryng to say :)

[Organic Revolution]

Moved to history.

[reddevil]

not so sure his reforms caused the ethnic divisions, what makes you say that?
personally i'm an admirer of tito, he instituted a "stalinist" communist state yet managed to make it the most humane and "liberal" of all "stalinist" states by playing both ends by the middle.
he kept in chech the "nationalists", the "capitalist reformists" and the "soviet" wannabes.
it was a balancing act that, unfortunately, was bound to collapse after his death, because, as child of the stalinist "comintern" he could not carry through the "democratic" part of the socialist revolution, ie allowing workers control and ownership. imo.
my reply is a bit simplistic, but i'm sure you will get the gist of what i'm tryng to say :)
neoliberalism created social inequality. the serbs were seen as the privileged sector of the population, thus sparking the anger of the rest of yugoslavia's ethnic makeup. of course this only advanced tensions which had been brewing for centuries. after milosevic took a socialist stance, the wstern powers found this unacceptable, prompting them to push for slovene and croatian independence and eventually NATO intervention.

[Colonello Buendia]

why do leftists support Milosevic? he is directly responisbile for organising ethnic cleansing and other atrocities.

[reddevil]

why do leftists support Milosevic? he is directly responisbile for organising ethnic cleansing and other atrocities.
so was the KLA. the real genocide in kosovo came after the NATO bombing when 200,000 serbs were ethnically cleansed from the region. milosevic was a terrible person but let's not blind ourselves to the reality of the conflict. no side has their hands clean of blood.

[Lamanov]

1.) Tito didn't "agree to free market reforms at the end" of his rule. It was more like in "the middle" (economic reforms of 1963 and after). They didn't directly cause any ethnic conflict. It was a consequence of political decentralization on national lines.

2.) What "socialist stance" did Milošević take? He took an open nationalist stance.

[reddevil]

he was a socialist and a nationalist

[reddevil]

anyway, we're getting off topic. my opinion: i admire tito's policy of worker's self management and his theory of associated labour but i disapprove of the authoritarian, nationalist and revisionist policies of his leadership. he deserves praise for the way he fought the nazis and stood up to stalin (for this he was caricatured as "tito, the butcher of the working class"!

[Yehuda Stern]

Tito was a Stalinist hack turned dictator, much like Mao, who had enough guts to defy Stalin, only to later become the new oppressor of the people of Yugoslavia. He was known by Trotskyists at the time to be the Butcher of Belgrade Trotskyists, and its not because he invited them over for tea. Him and his party and regime were criminal, and to a large extent are responsible for the breakdown of Yugoslavia with their policy of dividing power between local bureaucracies.

So no, not good.

[AnthArmo]

Most definetly on our side. Although some of his repressive measures were questionable (for example, re-education camps) Yugoslavia was the closest we have ever seen to a purely socialistic and in some cases Communistic society. he put the means production not into State ownership, which merely produced State Capitalism, but into Workers ownership. the workers could enjoy the fruits of their own labour for once and Yugoslavia was a country of both freedom AND equality, in contrast to the Freedom only of the west and the Equality only of the East. It's sad that nationalism tore the country apart that was working Socialism so effectively.

[turquino]

Worker's self management is a blatantly unmarxist concept, and as it was put into practice in Yugoslavia lead to unemployment and a deterioration in the living standards of workers.

Tito imprisoned and murdered tens of thousands of communists in his prison camps. His non-alignment policy was a shoddy cover for his deep collaboration with the US.

When it comes to capitalist dictators, i would rank Tito no better than Pinochet.

[Lamanov]

he was a socialist and a nationalist

:lol:


Worker's self management is a blatantly unmarxist concept, and as it was put into practice in Yugoslavia lead to unemployment and a deterioration in the living standards of workers.

Yes, and a pyramid bureaucratic system of one man command factory is very much "Marxist".

[Hiero]

1.) Tito didn't "agree to free market reforms at the end" of his rule. It was more like in "the middle" (economic reforms of 1963 and after). They didn't directly cause any ethnic conflict. It was a consequence of political decentralization on national lines.

2.) What "socialist stance" did Milošević take? He took an open nationalist stance.

Open nationalist stance?

The Wikepedia article, and I think Michael Parenti as well ( I can't remember I think some of article is based on his essay) said there is no proof in any of his speeches or press realeses where Milosevic took an open nationalist stance.

This is what I am curious about, so if you have any proof to the claim he was an open nationalist I would like to see.

By the way, do you regret the destruction of Yugoslavia?

[Wanted Man]

a great fighter, drove the nazis out of yugoslavia. managed to unify the nation and resist imperialism from both the western and eastern blocs.
As if there is no difference between them... Anyway, the "Marshall" and "President for life" himself declared that he was on the side of US imperialism. Great leader indeed.

[reddevil]

As if there is no difference between them...
Anyway, the "Marshall" and "President for life" himself declared that he was on the side of US imperialism. Great leader indeed.

I don't see the difference between a bourgeouisse democracy which stomps on the freedom of those in foreign lands and a degenerated workers state that does the same. he was never an ally of the united states, indeed he was one of the five founders of the non-aligned movement. he was welcomed by the united states, but then again so was your hero mao zedong who, unlike tito, was quick to welcome the pinochet coup. tito was not perfect but, aside from lenin, he was the only true socialist leader europe ever had.

[Yehuda Stern]

On the positive side, you're both (almost) right, and on the negative side, you're both wrong. Tito was indeed an ally of Western imperialism, and indeed there was little effective difference between Western imperialism and Stalinism. I'd just have to amend what reddevil said - the USSR was certainly not a workers' state by the time Tito came to power, and if it were, Marxists would definitely be bound to support against imperialism - degenerated or not.

[communard resolution]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDzp1E0F400&feature=related

[Red October]

Worker's self management is a blatantly unmarxist concept

What the hell are you on about?

[Yehuda Stern]

At 3:12 we see that Tito was not that good at chess, yet another refutation of the claim that he was a great fighter.




Originally Posted by turquino http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1245085#post1245085)
Worker's self management is a blatantly unmarxist concept

What the hell are you on about?I think he means the use of the term that was popular in Germany, and in that he is right - workers' self-management based on that model is obviously a pure capitalist practice. Workers' control, on the other hand, is a classic Marxist concept.

[Lamanov]

This is what I am curious about, so if you have any proof to the claim he was an open nationalist I would like to see.

Gazimestan speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazimestan_speech) (source (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gazimestan_speech)) was the crowning oh his nationalist alignment and the new policy of "national unity", which began with annulment of autonomy of autonomous provinces and Montenegro, which was tied to Belgrade. This was the beginning of the breakup.


By the way, do you regret the destruction of Yugoslavia?

I regret the war. I don't care about the state.

[Comandante]

Whatever you say about Tito, you can't deny the fact that the whole country cried when he died. And most of the prisoners on Goli Otok where stalinists and nationalists. He made mistakes, but who didn't. Unlike satellite states, where people where couldn't eat, in Yugoslavia you had all the privileges if you were a worker.

[communard resolution]

Whatever you say about Tito, you can't deny the fact that the whole country cried when he died. And most of the prisoners on Goli Otok where stalinists and nationalists. He made mistakes, but who didn't. Unlike satellite states, where people where couldn't eat, in Yugoslavia you had all the privileges if you were a worker.

You know, the subjective experience of workers is of no great concern to us on revleft. It's much more important that everything is done in strict accordance to the Holy Scriptures and that events unfold exactly as predicted by the Great Prophet Marx.

The entire Yugoslav people could come to revleft and tell us how fantastic life was for the working class in Tito's Yugoslavia, we still wouldn't care because Tito was a revisionist, capitalist, Stalinist, fascist, and whatnot.

Furthermore, Tito traded with the West, which was evil. Cuba cannot trade with the West, which is evil too because Cuba would need to do that to improve its material conditions.

The people - who are they? Who cares what they think? We're revolutionaries, we know what's best for them. So please leave us alone with your stories about how the Great Unwashed had it splendid in YU.

[Comandante]

Very sarcastic, I like it. :D

[Devrim]

At 3:12 we see that Tito was not that good at chess, yet another refutation of the claim that he was a great fighter.

I don't get the reference (it could have been the Youtube thing. It is banned in Turkey). But I thought that he was the only famous 'Marxist' to be a chess player (actually a FIDE rated international grandmaster).

Also, my grandfather claimed to have net him once.

As for his politics, I don't think they had anything to do with socialism.

Devrim

[Yehuda Stern]

I don't get the reference

I was referring to the video, where at that point it seemed like he was defeated. Just a joke though.


The entire Yugoslav people could come to revleft and tell us how fantastic life was for the working class in Tito's Yugoslavia, we still wouldn't care because Tito was a revisionist, capitalist, Stalinist, fascist, and whatnot.

That's a nonsense argument and you should know better. We all know that in the end, life under Tito's dictatorship was not really that great, and it ended up in Yugoslavia being sliced up and fratricide spreading throughout the Balkans.

[communard resolution]

We all know that in the end, life under Tito's dictatorship was not really that great

People who were there all tell me otherwise. Who do I believe? (rhetorical question)

[Yehuda Stern]

Did they say it was good, or just better? Many people reminisce about the Soviet regime in Russia too.

[communard resolution]

They all say it was splendid. Working class people. The only person I ever met from ex-YU who spoke out against the former regime was middle class. Her parents suddenly got very rich after the war... Anyway, her opinion is that since her dad's a doctor, he would have deserved to be a lot richer than common people. Now he's got two houses (one for holidays) and owns property on the side. Back then, society refused him such privileges, which in her opinion was unworthy of a person of his status.

Another point of criticism was that you couldn't buy Milka chocolate in Yugoslavia.

[AnthArmo]

People who were there all tell me otherwise. Who do I believe? (rhetorical question)

I don't care how many times people here spout out this "reactionary" crap, I take primary evidence far more seriously. All the so called Communist countries of the eastern bloc were, more or less, totalitarian. The working class actually had a say in matters in Titoist Yugoslavia. And Nero isn't the only one to have heard former workers in EX-YU praising the old life Titoist yugoslavia :).



It's much more important that everything is done in strict accordance to the Holy Scriptures and that events unfold exactly as predicted by the Great Prophet Marx.

If we try to replicate every attempt at Communism just as everyone else has, including their mistakes, we're bound to fail. We need to learn from histories mistakes and do whats rational, not just what Marx and Lenin tells us to do (although mind you, I still hold great respect for Marx and Lenin)

Abiding strictly to the "Holy Scriptures" only makes us as bad as the Fundamentalist Christians

[Yehuda Stern]

Even if I do accept all the second hand testimonies at face value, all it leads me to believe is that Titoist Yugoslavia was a capitalist state where the workers were better off than in most third world countries. Wage labor still existed; the ruling party was a bourgeois party; and Tito was responsible for the slaughter of Yugoslav Trotskyists.

[communard resolution]

Even if I do accept all the second hand testimonies at face value, all it leads me to believe is that Titoist Yugoslavia was a capitalist state where the workers were better off than in most third world countries. That's fine if you think that. As I said, to me personally ground realities and the subjective experience of workers are more important than the extent to which I can objectively label something Marxist or not. Since all other socialist systems turned out anti-working class in the end, I might as well take the best there was as a starting point.


and Tito was responsible for the slaughter of Yugoslav Trotskyists.Wasn't Trotsky himself responsible for the slaughter of Kronstadt sailors? And what would the Trotskyists have done with Titoists had they been in their position?

Bad things happened in those days. No one condones them, no one denies them, no one wants to repeat them. But those mistakes don't automatically discredit everything Trotsky has ever said and done. Likewise, Tito.

[Yehuda Stern]

As I said, to me personally ground realities and the subjective experience of workers are more important than the extent to which I can objectively label something Marxist or not.

Then again, that could lead one to argue that Israel up to the 1980s was pretty progressive, since most people approved of the regime and enjoyed a pretty good quality of life. Similar things can be said about other capitalist countries. Revolutionaries should go so much further than to simply wonder if the regime was supported passively by working people.


Wasn't Trotsky himself responsible for the slaughter of Kronstadt sailors? And what would the Trotskyists have done with Titoists had they been in their position?

The difference to me is that the Kronstadt sailors were leading a counter-revolutionary offensive - not merely thinking that the Bolshevik regime should be toppled, but acting towards that end. The Trotskyists wanted the uprising to become a true working class revolution - that is the crime for which they were punished with death.

As for what Trotskyists would do to Titoists, I must say for myself that nothing, as long as they didn't attempt an assault against the revolutionary regime.

[AnthArmo]

Even if I do accept all the second hand testimonies at face value, all it leads me to believe is that Titoist Yugoslavia was a capitalist state where the workers were better off than in most third world countries. Wage labor still existed; the ruling party was a bourgeois party

Define Capitalist for me. for me a Capitalist society is one were workers are exploited by bourgeois owners so they can reap a profit who privately own the business. In Yugoslavia enterprises were owned and managed by the workers and took a share in the profits, so I can see no Wage labour there as far as I'm concerned. The USSR and many Warsaw Pact countries on the other hand did have wage labour with the Nomenklatura reaping the profits of the workers.

[communard resolution]

Then again, that could lead one to argue that Israel up to the 1980s was pretty progressive, since most people approved of the regime and enjoyed a pretty good quality of life.

Unfortunately, capitalist countries cannot offer employment and cheap housing for everyone, free education for everybody, free healthcare, a decent standard of living for *all*, no obscene gap between highest and lowest income, nationalised economy, workers councils, security insofar as you cannot lose your job unless the workers council (made up of *all* workers at your workplace, including the unskilled ones) decides they don't want to work with you for a good reason and by democratic vote, democracy at the workplace (representatives and managers are elected by all workers & can be dumped by vote at any time), profits shared equally between all workers at the end of each month, and a working day that normally ends at 2pm.

Tito's Yugoslavia had all of this and more. I agree it was not a Communist country (but then, no country was - they all claimed to be in a transitory stage of socialism), but to my -and certainly the Yugoslav workers'- perception it was a hell of a lot more socialist than any other place in modern history.


The difference to me is that the Kronstadt sailors were leading a counter-revolutionary offensive - not merely thinking that the Bolshevik regime should be toppled, but acting towards that end. The Trotskyists wanted the uprising to become a true working class revolution - that is the crime for which they were punished with death.I suppose this is down to a strategic question of whether to strike first or not. Did the Yugoslav Trotskyists offer constructive criticism, intending to change the system according to their understanding of socialism from within, perhaps practicing some form of entryism in the Yugoslav CP? Or did they ultimately plan to overthrow that Stalinist monster Tito, as would certainly have been their revolutionary duty from a Trotskyist perspective?


As for what Trotskyists would do to Titoists, I must say for myself that nothing, as long as they didn't attempt an assault against the revolutionary regime.Well, I must say for myself I would try to cooperate with you in a future socialist scenario rather than act against you. I don't really know much about the YU Trotskyists, how many of them were eliminated, when, and under what circumstances. At face value, it was certainly not desirable - but perhaps as unavoidable as the elimination of Kronstadt sailors from a Bolshevik point of view. Those sailors weren't exactly the epitome of reaction either, were they?

[Djehuti]

this caused ethnic divisions and ensured the region would become the killing fields of europe in th 90s.

Tito worked to avoid ethnic divisions, he encouraged serbs to marry with bosnians, croatians with monte negrians (highlander post-autonomists) etc.

[Valeofruin]

a great fighter, drove the nazis out of yugoslavia. managed to unify the nation and resist imperialism from both the western and eastern blocs. made a big mistake at the end of his reign by agreeing to free market reforms. this caused ethnic divisions and ensured the region would become the killing fields of europe in th 90s.
what are your opinions on him?

Strong respectable leader.

Oppotunist, and "Council Communist" policy.

Wont bash too much though.

[mykittyhasaboner]

i wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the Partisan movement, so perhaps im too biased to judge. :lol:

but according to everyone who lived in Yugoslavia that Ive talked to (my parents, both grandfathers who were Partisans, immediate family, friends) they all have a good/fair impression of him and his policies.

[Yehuda Stern]

Define Capitalist for me. for me a Capitalist society is one were workers are exploited by bourgeois owners so they can reap a profit who privately own the business.

That's the common manifestation of capitalism, the common form that it takes, but it's not necessarily the only one. What you described is a certain superstructure which arose from relatively healthy capitalism. However, those times are long gone. We live in the era of imperialist decay. Stalinism - by this term I mean all the nominally socialist regimes which came to being during the cold war - is simply a perverse and very unstable superstructure which was the result of a successful counterrevolution in a workers' state.


In Yugoslavia enterprises were owned and managed by the workers and took a share in the profits, so I can see no Wage labour there as far as I'm concerned.

That workers participate in managing and in the profits of factories is not incompatible with capitalism - it is simply a way in which the working class is bought off. Lenin showed how workers in advanced capitalist countries profit, to some extent, from imperialism (I am not speaking only about the aristocracy, which has a vested interest in imperialism, but of the entire class) - does this make imperialism socialist?

The way many leftists interpret a workers' state, consciously or not, is as a society where noble intellectuals and party members take care of 'the people.' That is not the case. A workers' state is run by the conscious working class through a vanguard party. Tito's party was not revolutionary - it managed to placate the working class by economic means, just like many regimes at the time, including the Zionist regime.

That workers had some legalistic right over their factories is, I am tempted to say, almost completely meaningless. Don't many states have laws according to which we are all equal?


Unfortunately, capitalist countries cannot offer employment and cheap housing for everyone, free education for everybody, free healthcare, a decent standard of living for *all*, no obscene gap between highest and lowest income, nationalised economy, workers councils, security insofar as you cannot lose your job unless the workers council (made up of *all* workers at your workplace, including the unskilled ones) decides they don't want to work with you for a good reason and by democratic vote, democracy at the workplace (representatives and managers are elected by all workers & can be dumped by vote at any time), profits shared equally between all workers at the end of each month, and a working day that normally ends at 2pm.

Then again, Israel could afford most of these things - and yet it obviously was not socialist. I intentionally gave an example of an obviously reactionary regime which, if we're honest, looks very much like the Stalinist regimes.


I suppose this is down to a strategic question of whether to strike first or not.

How very pre-emptive of you.
Just to explain - it's not that I'm that surprised that Tito murdered the Yugoslav Trotskyists. It's just another crime that shows, at least to me, as it should to all Trotskyists, that the regime was not proletarian.

I don't know, by the way, what they planned. Given the Fourth's incredibly embarassing open letter to Tito, urging him to join the International, I don't supposed they had that much planned.


Well, I must say for myself I would try to cooperate with you in a future socialist scenario rather than act against you.

Naturally, as would I.


Those sailors weren't exactly the epitome of reaction either, were they?

They were, in my opinion, but either way they were a serious threat to the revolution. They were also given a chance to surrender, and in return they killed the government's messenger, or at least took him hostage - not sure which.

[communard resolution]

That workers participate in managing and in the profits of factories is not incompatible with capitalism - it is simply a way in which the working class is bought off. Are there any examples of capitalist countries in which workers manage(d) and share(d) profits in factories? Please don't say 'Yugoslavia' because this is obviously not going to prove your point. The only other, similar instance of workers self-management in factories I can think of is anarcho-syndicalist Spain.



does this make imperialism socialist?No, it doesn't, but imperialism isn't bad because it's not socialist, it's bad because it's imperialist. If the Yugoslavian model isn't Marxist or socialist by your definition, that's fine by me - call it Titoist.

What I often see happening on revleft is battles purely over words, i.e. people tend to dismiss particular models on the grounds that they are "not Marxist" or "not socialist" rather than evalutating how those particular models actually affected the lives of working class people. But as I mentioned before, those terms are of little importance to me - I'm not bothered whether Titoism was Marxist by the book or not at all.

Furthermore, I cannot think of anything more subjective than the term "socialist". Marxism was not the first and certainly not the last model of socialism, and given how many denominations and tendencies there have been within Marxism alone, it would be a bit audacious to claim that Trotskyists are the sole beholders of the truth and the only legitimate "socialists".


The way many leftists interpret a workers' state, consciously or not, is as a society where noble intellectuals and party members take care of 'the people.' That is not the case. A workers' state is run by the conscious working class through a vanguard party.Unlike Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Hoxha, Tito was a true proletarian by birth, and so were most of his associates in the Yugoslav CP. The SFRY was established by means of a true popular revolution which overthrew Nazism, fascism, the monarchy, and disowned and got rid of the homegrown bourgeoisie. Until at least Tito's death, the SFRY was backed by its working class, who furhtermore managed their factories, elected their representatives, and shared profits equally. The industry was nationalised rather than privately owned, therefore there was no bourgoisie.

It's beyond me what makes you describe this regime as 'bourgeois'.


That workers had some legalistic right over their factories is, I am tempted to say, almost completely meaningless.
Maybe it's because you've never worked in a factory?


Then again, Israel could afford most of these things - and yet it obviously was not socialist.How many of the things that I mentioned did it have exactly?

a) employment and cheap housing for everybody?
b) free education (incl. academic) for everybody?
c) good standard of living for *all* ?
d) no discrimination against any ethnic groups?
e) no considerable gap between highest and lowest incomes?
f) a nationalised economy?
g) workers councils, workers self-management?
e) representatives/managers elected and dropped by workers?
f) no worker can be fired unless all workers collectively decide so?
g) profits shared equally between workers at the end of each month?
h) working day ends at 2pm on average?

Let me guess: is it the free healthcare/education and good living standard for *most* bit?

The 'Tito vs. the Trotskyists' bit is to me personally the most pointless one not least because I don't have any information on how many were killed, when, and under what circumstances.

Trotsky killed anarchists because he considered them a threat to his revolution and therefore reactionaries. You defend him because you're a Trotskyist. Tito killed Trotskyists because he probably considered them a threat to his revolution and therefore reactionaries. Anarchists consider both of us reactionaries and would probably kill us if we were a threat to their revolution (not that this is likely to happen any time soon). It's a tedious discussion that leads us both nowhere.


It's just another crime that shows, at least to me, as it should to all Trotskyists, that the regime was not proletarian.No, it just shows that the regime was not prepared to be overthrown by Trotskyists. It's the Titoist proletariat that led and achieved the revolution.


I don't supposed they had that much planned.Well, wouldn't they have considered it their revolutionary duty to overthrow Tito and crush his regime in order to establish theirs though?

[Yehuda Stern]

Are there any examples of capitalist countries in which workers manage(d) and share(d) profits in factories?

Yes, it's happening and has happened all over Latin America. The populist regimes allow it because it does not fundamentally challenge capitalism. Of course, it's a more extreme case in Yugoslavia, but then again I'm not denying that Yugoslavia had a revolution - I'm just saying that it was still a capitalist state.


What I often see happening on revleft is battles purely over words, i.e. people tend to dismiss particular models on the grounds that they are "not Marxist" or "not socialist" rather than evalutating how those particular models actually affected the lives of working class people.

Yet that is not the case. In the end, Titoism led to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the breakout of terrible ethnic conflicts all over the region. Of course, that is a direct consequence of the reactionary nature of the regime - even if at one point it did provide the workers with a pretty decent standard of living.

Again, it seems to me that many leftists view a workers' state not as a state run by the conscious working class, but as a state run by benevolent benefactors from outside the class. This sort of belittling the class nature of the regime in favor of judging it on the basis of momentary advantages given to the workers.


given how many denominations and tendencies there have been within Marxism alone, it would be a bit audacious to claim that Trotskyists are the sole beholders of the truth and the only legitimate "socialists".

I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, it is a Marxist's duty to study the different tendencies and judge which one is loyal to Marxism. Your argumentation is a bit subjective, to be honest.


Maybe it's because you've never worked in a factory?

Well, that's impossible, since I have worked in a factory (and not as an accountant or manager). Trying to play the "I'm more proletarian than you" card really does not suit you.


How many of the things that I mentioned did it have exactly?

Almost all have existed at certain times - some for short periods, others for decades.


Trotsky killed anarchists because he considered them a threat to his revolution and therefore reactionaries. You defend him because you're a Trotskyist. Tito killed Trotskyists because he probably considered them a threat to his revolution and therefore reactionaries.

Perhaps - but since I consider Tito to have been a reactionary, and the Trotskyists revolutionaries, the crackdown on Trotskyists to me signifies the counterrevolutionary nature of the regime. What Tito considered doesn't really factor in to me.


Well, wouldn't they have considered it their revolutionary duty to overthrow Tito and crush his regime in order to establish theirs though?

Ideally, they would've sought to become the leaders of the Partisan movement, and later on, to form a vanguard party in opposition to the Tito regime. On the ground, though, I'm afraid by then the Fourth was too busy tailing the Stalinists to think of such moves. It's a fact that the leaders of the Fourth later, in a pretty embarassing act, asked Tito and his CP to join the International.

By the way, I know you don't feel much like discussing this subject - if you prefer to break it off, fine by me.

[communard resolution]

Yet that is not the case. In the end, Titoism led to the breakup of Yugoslavia and the breakout of terrible ethnic conflicts all over the region.For all I know, there have been terrible ethnic conflicts in the region before and after Tito, but not under his leadership. Tito did the best he could to unite Yugoslavia's ethnicities and took a very harsh line against nationalists - too harsh, according to some, especially those who found themselves on the inside of Goli Otok. Whether the imprisonment of nationalists in camps is a very honourable line of action is debatable, but in any case testifies to the fact that Tito was well aware he was sitting on a powder keg given the region's delicate history. Though such deeply rooted nationalisms were not going to completely disappear overnight, first-hand accounts give me reason to believe Tito did an excellent job suppressing them. I posted this in an earlier thread: the generation that was born in the 50s was largely *unaware* whether their friends and neighbours were Croats, Serbs, Bosniaks, Slovenes, etc. After Tito's death in the 80s, it suddenly became an issue: "The government favours the Croats" - "The government favours Serbs" - "All police are Serbs" - "All military leaders are Croats", and so on.

You may claim that in the long run, Tito didn't manage to solve a national problem that had been existing for a long time - in the long run meaning: after his death. To claim he didn't try is absurd. To suggest that it was Titoism that actually led to those terrible ethnic conflicts is a very heavy, and in my opinion unbased accusation. What happened in Yugoslavia after Tito's death was the opposite of what Tito had dedicated his entire life to.


Again, it seems to me that many leftists view a workers' state not as a state run by the conscious working class, but as a state run by benevolent benefactors from outside the class.Where do you see the qualitative difference between say, the Soviet state run by the 'benevolent' Bolshevik clique around Lenin and Trotsky who didn't wait long before minimising the power of the soviets and putting it in the hands of the party (Trotsky uttered something along the lines of 'the party cannot be expected to subject itself to all the moods and whimses of the workers councils' - I can try and find the exact quote if you wish) and the Yugoslav state run by the benevolent Tito clique? In both instances, it wasn't the working masses but their representatives who made decisions. The difference being that there was far more direct democracy on a workplace level in Yugoslavia.


I don't think so. As far as I'm concerned, it is a Marxist's duty to study the different tendencies and judge which one is loyal to Marxism. Your argumentation is a bit subjective, to be honest.Yes, it is subjective. My subjective line is that it's a workers duty to judge which tendency has historically been the most loyal to the working class.


Well, that's impossible, since I have worked in a factory (and not as an accountant or manager). Trying to play the "I'm more proletarian than you" card really does not suit you.OK, sorry about the assumption. I didn't mean to be rude or play the prole card, though. I simply assumed that if someone doesn't see the difference between a self-managed, shared-profit factory and one in which you get your arse kicked every day in return for laughable wage, then that person cannot possibly have experienced the latter.


Almost all have existed at certain times - some for short periods, others for decades. Which points from a) to h) and for how long?


Perhaps - but since I consider Tito to have been a reactionary, and the Trotskyists revolutionaries, the crackdown on Trotskyists to me signifies the counterrevolutionary nature of the regime. What Tito considered doesn't really factor in to me.
And since the same goes for me vice versa, we could continue throwing such accusastions at each other into the sunset, yet with little result. I suggest we bypass this particular subtopic.


Ideally, they would've sought to become the leaders of the Partisan movement, and later on, to form a vanguard party in opposition to the Tito regime.And yet they didn't, neither did they enjoy much support among the Yugoslav proletariat that had succesfully brought about a revolution under Tito's leadership and wished to keep it that way until his death.

If it is true that Tito executed Trotskyists for no good reason, I certainly don't condone that. He probably might as well have left them alone since they had no popular support anyway. Birthmarks of Marxism-Leninism, I reckon...


By the way, I know you don't feel much like discussing this subject - if you prefer to break it off, fine by me.Yeah, I know. I'd say let's give it another round and then quit.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, I'll finish up with what separates the Bolsheviks from the Titoists - the Bolshevik party was the expression of the conscious working class. In order to destroy the workers' state that that party created, the Stalinists had to wage a civil war against the working class, in the form of the purges, frame-ups, and outright murders committed in the 1930s. The degeneration of that party, then, was the result of a real counterrevolution. In Yugoslavia, however, there was no counterrevolution - the capitalist nature of the regime allowed the nationally-interested bureaucracies to tear the country apart to serve their own interests. This, in my opinion, is the best proof that the regime was never proletarian - it took no counterrevolution to "return to capitalism." (i.e., to move from state to market capitalism)

[communard resolution]

In order to destroy the workers' state that that party created, the Stalinists had to wage a civil war against the working class, in the form of the purges, frame-ups, and outright murders committed in the 1930s.

Too complex to go into now, esp in a thread on Tito.

I'd just quickly like to add that if the Bolshevik party were really the expression of the conscious working class, it amazes me how its leaders held the working classes and their "whimses" in such contempt that they saw it necessary to gradually reduce the power of their councils to the point of virtual non-existence. Self-loathing perhaps? This was while before big bad Uncle Jo took the throne.

OK then. Please allow me to leave this thread in the same fashion I entered:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy4bEvKqjgI

Comrade Yehuda Stern, you are a gentleman and I look forward to talking to you on other topics some time soon.

[Yehuda Stern]

Likewise, comrade. (we will have to discuss the Bolsheviks' relation to the working class at some other time)

[Moc-Proletarima]

Was wondering what you guys think of Yugoslavias leader, Josip Broz Tito?

[Moc-Proletarima]

Not really to Marxist-Leninism.

Well, Tito was more for the people, though. And that mainly matters to the people in his country..

And yay! another aussie! [I just live in Aus, im pure Serbian]

[bayano]

He wasn't a traitor. Stalin failed to really purge the Yugoslavs and Greeks like he did the rest of that part of Europe before the war, so they had strong and successful marxist partisan movements. Just for that, Tito should be respected. Yugoslavia underwent a real revolution, not something imposed by the Soviets. I'm not a huge Tito fan or anything, but Yugoslavia's revolution was about as real as what happened in Viet Nam, Cuba and many other places. And Stalin killed entire communist parties, how is breaking with that traitorous to the cause?

[Sprinkles]

Let us not forget that the Greek Communist Party failed in Greece mainly because of the agreement between Britain and America that the United Kingdom would have control and influence over southern Europe.


Complete nonsense, the US had nothing to do with the partition, in fact the partition honored the Churchill-Stalin Percentages agreement concluded in Moscow in October 1944.



In 1948, when the Communist were about to take office though the means of revolution, the British invaded Greece and stopped the communists from taking power. Stalin gave the Greek comrades financial and military support (but no actual Soviet troops on the ground).
Greece was sacrificed by Stalin in the interest of realpolitik. Stalin was more interested in the Balkans and simply didn't allow the Greek communists to endanger the negotiations. The USSR simply pressured the Greek communists into either accepting the British terms or losing the civil war.



Stalin tried all he could to maintain the peace and he attempted to stop a war in southern Europe. In this, comrade Stalin achieved his goals. But Tito on the other hand wanted the communists to take control in Greece at all costs. If Tito would have had his way with things, there would have been a war in southern Europe in 1948 between the socialist countries/ communist forces against the capitalist countries/forces.
More nonsense, with the Churchill-Stalin Pact, Stalin conceded to the UK a 90% interest in Greece in return for a 90% interest in Romania as well as a 75% interest in Bulgaria for the USSR. Influence in both Yugoslavia and Hungary was to be 50% for both sides. Stalin effectively abandoned the Greek communists and handed them over to the UK. The Greek communist were completely unaware of this and Tito wasn't even a minor player in any of this.

Edit: Apparently he's already banned...

[4 Leaf Clover]

tito had some good and bad sides

was a very spiritous leader that made people love country and work on its rebuilding
people had a bread to eat unlike in soviet union

but , again ,i dont like leaders . he was authoritarian , he didnt allow free spech and press and no one could tell and point to the errors of govrement
only one he accepted is students demonstrations in belgrade '68

i dont like authoritarians so i cant say i like him

[communard resolution]

he didnt allow free spech and press and no one could tell and point to the errors of govrement

Not initially, but these were hugely liberalised later on.


only one he accepted is students demonstrations in belgrade '68Strikes were allowed and occurred without repercussions. He violently suppressed any manifestations of Nationalism, e.g. the so-called Croatian Spring which held (largely student) demonstrations in 1971.

He was harsh with Nationalists, true. Today you've got the neo-Ustashe and neo-Chetniks running around and doing their thing unhindered, so you pick which one's better.

EDIT: I forgot I wanted to leave this thread already, so I'm outta here.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

I don't like him because of his revisionist and nationalist thoughts.
He was a dogmatic opponent of the Warsaw Pact and introduced some heavy mutilated Socialism in Yugoslavia, which made the radical swing to extyreme nationalism after his death possible.
Tito had some really luxurious houses in the most beautiful places of the country.

[communard resolution]

revisionist

Yes.


nationalist thoughtsComplete bollocks.


He was a dogmatic opponent of the Warsaw Pact So was pretty much everybody who lived there. Well - had to live there, cause leaving was verboten. Trust me, I'm one of them.


Tito had some really luxurious houses in the most beautiful places of the country.Good luck to him, well deserved. His people were doing very well too.

[AnthArmo]

I'm so sick of listening to this bullcrap about revisionism! We need to stop treating Capital as the Bible and Marx as Jesus! its stupid and illogical, its a well known fact that Marx constantly second-guessed himself and that alot of his works needed to be finished off by engels after his death.

I most certainly don't support everything that Tito did, but the matter of the fact was, the workers were for once in control. They were no longer exploited by the Bourgeoise, they enjoyed the surplus labour and ran things themselves. I would like to ask Nero how large social inequities were in Yugoslavia in comparison to the other Warsaw pact countries which often had a ruling Nomenklatura class. He knows more on this topic than I do. I know laughably little.

[Faction2008]

Tito had some really luxurious houses in the most beautiful places of the country. My parents in former Yugoslavia along with the rest of my family had very nice houses and flats to live in. So what? Did you expect us to enjoy and demand to live in slums?


nationalist thoughts. What a bunch of shit. Have a look at the things he said:
Let that man be a Bosnian, Herzegovinian. Outside they don't call you by another name, except simply a Bosnian. Whether that be a Muslim (Bosniak), Serb or Croat. Everyone can be what they feel that they are, and no one has a right to force a nationality upon them. Does that sound nationalistic to you?

I always said that Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot belong to this or that, only to the people that lived there since the beginning of time. How about this?

No one questioned "who is a Serb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serb), who is a Croat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croat), who is a Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims_by_nationality) (Bosniak)" we were all one people, that's how it was back then, and I still think it is that way today. From quotes such as these it really doesn't seem he gave a shit where you were from?