Why I am a Titoist

[khlib]

And Tito was a dictator. People in Yugoslavia were as free as people are now under Lukashenko in Belarus. Maybe there is not a severe degree of repression, but it still is a dictatorial country that lacks basic freedoms.

Could you please elaborate on what "basic freedoms" exactly people lacked?

Firstly, Yugoslavia wasn't Socialist.
Secondly, fuck Serbia.

In what ways was Yugoslavia not a socialist country? And we don't need this ethnic hatred on the board. How can you be an anarchist and say "Kosovo is Albania"? You do know Albania is a state, yeah? Saying any territory "belongs" to a state does not seem very anarchist to me.

[ZeroNowhere]

Why I am a Titoist

Excuses, excuses.

[tir1944]

Comrade Polish Lenin,the Bihać program was written in a situation where the Comparty was still in no position of (legitimate/recognized) power.It had to be implemented because otherwise the Allies would hesitate on recognizing Tito instead of the Royal Government in London,and the British would have most likely refused military (and other aid).
Actually,Yugoslavia became a "one party" state only some time after the end of WW2,after the period where it even had a Royal prime minister...

Secondly, fuck Serbia.
Thirdly, Kosovo is Albania.

What is this shit?
Fuck Serbia?
Chill out man.

[Искра]

Some people are so thick and ignorant. Why do people like Nox and IronFelix have an urge to post such stupid crap?

Ok, now... one by one. Firstly I’ll answer to OP and then to really good post by PolskiLenin.

The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed. Under Tito's rule, its accomplishments were outstanding:

I'm very fond of Yugoslavia and it represents field of my academic interest. All of you could notice that in quite a few occasions when Yugoslavia or post-Yugoslav countries were discussed. Also, as a person who know quite a lot about history of Yugoslav nations I could agree with this statement that “under Tito’s rule, its accomplishments were outstanding”. This is true. Yugoslavia was turned into big industrialized country from semi-feudal ancien regime. Accomplishments were not just economical, but also political; for example: right of women to vote and participate in political life etc. Still, those accomplishments can not hide true state capitalist nature of Yugoslavia. In Communist Manifesto you could find a lot of places where Marx & Engels praise capitalism and praise economical and political accomplishments of capitalism and liberalism, but still they say that this is not enough and we need a socialist revolution. My position towards Yugoslavia is almost the same.

-Tito was the leader of the non-aligned movement, never becoming a pawn of the imperialist or Soviet spheres.

This is still open question. I’m still trying to learn more about non-aligned movement. So, I won’t answer on this question, but I’ll give you nice book to read on this subject: Tvrtko Jakovina: Treća strana hladnog rata. You said that you understand our language. This book is based on documentation of foreign ministers of Yugoslavia.

-People could travel freely. The Yugoslav passport was one of the best in the world.

This is true, but I can’t see how that is important. With Croatian passport you can travel freely. I can see only one good argument here and it’s against Eastern Bock, but those countries were in stage of constant siege and paranoia.

-Tito managed to bring together all of the different nationalities of Yugoslavia under the banner of brotherhood and unity immediately following a bloody ethnic war.

This was success, I agree, but only short termed because it was based on few myths which were closely related to Tito’s person. I wrote some time ago about this, so I’ll just quote myself.

Yugoslavian state ideology was based on a few myths. I don’t use this term “myth” to refer something which is not true or which is fabricated, but I use it to name something that is almost transcendental, something which is giving sort of an identity to this community. In the case of Yugoslavia these myths were (i) National Liberation Struggle (cro. Narodno oslobodilačka borba – NOB), (ii) socialist self-management, (iii) “brotherhood and unity” (cro. “bratstvo i jedinstvo”) and (iv) cult of marshal Tito. These myths were never questioned. First, myth is saying that all nations of Yugoslavia liberated themselves using their own power, without Allied intervention (there was a small Soviet intervention in Serbia, but that’s quite irrelevant when we analyze whole struggle), and that they defeated Germans, Italians and their collaborators (Croatian Ustaše, Serbian Četnik’s and Nedić’s forces, Albanian Balije’s, Russian Čerkez’s, Slovenian White Army etc.). Yugoslav post-war propaganda always empathies great sacrifices of Yugoslav partisans, brutality of enemy etc. You can see this myth by watching Yugoslav partisan movies (which are great!). Second myth is based on struggle against Stalin and creation of specific Yugoslav socialist path – workers self-management. It’s also important to emphasize that ideology of workers self-management claimed that in order to reach communism it’s important to dissolve the Party and to let worker councils to run the factories and economy, but also neighborhoods etc. In order to dissolve Party Tito changed name of Communist Party of Yugoslavia (and all its national branches) into Union of Communists. There was no real difference in practice, but ideological idea was to include more and more people in managing the society. Of course, Yugoslav self-management was nice on paper (which is really true, it’s really interesting experiment and if you are interested you should really read about that), but, as we say here in Croatia, paper can take everything, or in other words ideology was far from reality. State never dissolved, but it grew stronger, so did Party (even Tito retired centralists – note: he didn’t killed them, he really retired them) etc., and workers never self-manage their work places, but instead of them that job was done by beurocrats – new ruling class. I won’t write much here about economy and “market socialism” since it’s not topic, but it’s important to know that this form of state capitalism was more liberal comparing to Russian (Soviet), so some forms of private property existed. Third myth was “brotherhood and unity” which is maybe most important myth in order to understand collapse of Yugoslavia. Tito and his right hand Kardelj were aware of history of nationalism of south Slavs and idea of Yugoslavia etc. Since state ideology was to dissolve the state Tito never tried to turn all people in Yugoslavs. That was idea of Aleksandar Ranković who was centralist, but he was retired in 70’s. Kardelj said that Yugoslavia is consisted of “nations” and “nationalities”. Nations were: Slovenians, Croats, Serbs, Bosnians, Montenegrins and Macedonians. Each nation had its republic. Serbia was special, because it also had two autonomous regions: Vojvodina and Kosovo. Nationalities were something which we would now, in liberal democracy, called minorities. Biggest were, of course, Albanians on Kosovo, but there were also Germans, Italians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, Hungarians etc. Each nation had its own communist party (union of communists) and after Tito died each nation gave their representative into new formed body called “predsjedništvo” which ruled Yugoslavia. Also, it’s important to say that Bosnian and Macedonian nations did formally exist before Yugoslavia. We could also say something similar regarding Montenegrins. Yugoslav paradigm regarding national question in Yugoslavia is that there were no majorities and minorities. That is really important! This is what “brotherhood and unity” was all about. This principle of inclusion was everywhere. Yugoslav authorities were always trying to keep balance, so that in every important position in the country is one representative of each nation. For example in Yugoslav National Army there were 6 generals and one was Croat, one was Serbian etc. You get the picture? Problem was with some nationalities, such as Albanians who were huge in numbers but were not represented as nations were. At the end of 80’s Albanians wanted to have status of nation which was a spark for a Serbian nationalism, at least for an excuse... Forth myth was Tito’s cult... and we all know what that was about. He was hero of WW2 (he’s only Allied leader who was wounded in a war, because he was always with his troops), founder of Non-aligned movement, he showed Stalin middle finger etc. etc. In the end, his cult was glue of Yugoslav unity, and that’s why shits started to happen when he died. (Source: http://www.revleft.com/vb/serbia-bla...06#post2250406 )

-Unlike Stalin, Tito was the true successor of Marx and Lenin, attempting to create a socialist state that was actually led by the proletariat through his system of self-management.

This is just about rhetorical ideological games. Although, Tito was maybe closer to Marx and Lenin because he said that state must fade away, this was only rhetoric and in practice Yugoslavia had really a lot of similar with USSR. Self-management way also only about rhetoric, but I’ll come to that later.

-The Yugoslav partisans defeated the Nazis with little help from the Red Army.

This should never been forgotten.

-Unlike in the Soviet Union, there was little censorship of art, allowing Yugoslav cultural production to flourish.

This is true. Yugoslavia didn’t have blockade of art or pop culture from West like Soviet Union used to have. You could buy for example 2 Tone records in Yugoslavia or The Clash’s LP’s.

-Tito rejected Stalin's perversion of Marxism-Leninism. Marx advocated the liberation of man, while Stalinist policies were aimed at man's repression.

You should not forget that Yugoslav system was also repressive state capitalist regime. There were no gulags but there was Goli otok for Stalinists and numerous jails for political enemies.

PolskiLenin your answer is like an answer of real Trotskyite Yeah, it’s true that Tito “purged” CPY from Trotskyites and social democrats when he gain power. He was very “ruthless” and as an NKVD’s agent he participated in Spanish Civil war, where he was staioned on a border with France where he used to execute anarchists and anti-Stalinists who were running to France after 1937.

It’s true that during the WW2 Tito was as Stalinist as you can be. Communist Party of Yugoslavia was one of most loyal parties to Soviet Union and to Stalin. CPY followed all Comintern directives and policies – such as People’s front. That is why their politics was conservative and cautious and just like all Stalinists – they collaborated with bourgeoisie. For example, it’s well known fact that CPY tried to reach as much as possible members of Croatian Peasants Party (HSS) – leading Croatian party from Kingdom of Yugoslavia. They succeed in that, even trough many of HSS’s members remained loyal to “London government” and to ban Ivan Šubašić. At the beginning of a war Tito even tried to make an alliance with Četnik’s, because they were against Germans back then, but Draža Mihajlović and his scum decided that it’s more important to defeat “inner enemy” and relay on victory of Allies, so that they can establish Great Serbia. Also, it’s a fact that after WW2 elections were held on which CPY won their power and Šubašić was defeated. That’s how socialist regime was established.

So, after all of this it’s clearly that during the WW2 Tito was really good Stalinist. Now, regarding spilt with Stalin I would like to quote myself again, but I wrote that replay in Zapadni Balkan forum on Croatian so fuck it.

Tito and Stalin spit came because Yugoslav elites opposed to Soviet imperialism. It’s well known fact that Soviet Union, in order to recover its economy after WW2, created certain amount of enterprises in its satellite countries. Those enterprises where created by Soviet and satellite capital, but all surplus values went straight to Soviet Union. That left satellite countries in deep shit. Yugoslavia opposed creation of such enterprises. Also, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union were in fight because of “Trieste crisis” and because CPY gave money, food and weapons to Greek partisans, even Soviet Union agreed that Greece should be British after WW2 ends.

What was Titoism and did it worked? I answered on that question here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...08&postcount=2

[R_P_A_S]

oh for fuck-sake.. lols.. an other "ist" and "ism" to add to the stagnation of the revolutionary left.. YAWN!!

[Yuppie Grinder]

ya'll authoritarian socialists sure are sectarian at times

[Sir Comradical]

Tito sold his country to the IMF which ended up plunging Yugoslavia into serious debt, division and eventually inter-ethnic slaughter.

[Искра]

Tito sold his country to the IMF which ended up plunging Yugoslavia into serious debt, division and eventually inter-ethnic slaughter.

Cool propaganda, but it wasn’t like that. Inner-ethical conflicts happened because of political liberalization, which caused secessions (Slovenian & Croatian), which caused creation of nation-states and nationalism. Croatian now has bigger dept than Yugoslavia and regarding IMF it didn’t cause anything but bigger economical liberalization (which is bad as it is, but still it didn’t cause a war). Problem with Yugoslavia was that its ideology was defeated with fall of Berlin Wall.

[Tim Cornelis]

[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium]Really? I've always heard that he supposedly achieved almost 100% employment (though that could just be propoganda). [/FONT]

Nope, 16,5% unemployment rate.

Unemployment was a major problem for Yugoslavia in the late 1980s. During that period, over 875,000 Yugoslavs worked abroad and as much as 25 percent of workers employed in the productive social sector were classified as surplus labor; nevertheless, more than 1.2 million people were registered as unemployed in 1988. This was about one-sixth of the total working-age population of Yugoslavia that year ... Because unprofitable Yugoslav enterprises often were supported by the government and prevented from going into bankruptcy, workers in the social sector rarely lost their jobs before the reform of 1990. Therefore, a large proportion of job seekers in the 1980s were young people. In 1988 over 92 percent of the unemployed were under age forty, and nearly 57 percent were under age thirty. Yugoslav unemployment also tended to be long-term: according to official statistics for 1988, although almost one-quarter of the unemployed were able to find work in less than six months, almost 62 percent were without a job for over one year, many for more than three years. A third characteristic of Yugoslav unemployment was the large regional differences in unemployment rates. In 1986 Slovenia was at virtually full employment while the underdeveloped region of Kosovo had more than one job seeker for every two workers employed in the social sector.

source.

Could you please elaborate on what "basic freedoms" exactly people lacked?

The fact people did not control their own lives, the fact you could be imprisoned for stating your opinion, the fact you could be murdered for stating your opinion, the fact Yugoslavia was a dictatorship.

Also, on Tito as a person:

Milovan Djilas, in his books such as Anatomy of a Moral, The New Class and Rise and Fall, describes how Tito took over the former royal palaces and the best hunting preserves for his own use, as well as the royal train (Milovan Djilas, Rise and Fall, 1985, pp.14-16). Lower functionaries followed this example; the best hotels were commandeered for use by federal government agencies and veterans of the partisan war. Special stores, on the model of Stalin’s Russia, were set up for the exclusive use of top party officials and the like; they were unpopular right from the word "go", and after some years Kidrić and Djilas persuaded Tito to do away with them. However:

"Even after the special stores were abolished, members of the Politburo and a lesser number of top officials continued to have privileged sources of supply. They were fed by Tito’s farms and, through his staff, were provided with first-class merchandise at advantageous prices" (Djilas, p.19).

And why workers' self-management in Yugoslavia was a farce:

"Yugoslav governments, at all levels, but especially at communal level, exercise final control over all major investment decisions in ‘their’ enterprises. They sanction credits from local banks, despite the fact that the banks are supposed to be controlled by the enterprises. They force local firms to take on additional quotas of workers, irrespective of whether they are needed or not. They choose the directors of local enterprises and banks, ensuring that they are politically reliable, and often give these posts to politicians who are not well qualified to fill them. And they even put pressure on local enterprises to follow a policy of autarky. For example, they block enterprise plans to invest in other communes (or republics); and they try to ensure that, so far as possible, local enterprises buy their supplies from other local enterprises....

"So, in spite of the high claims for the self-management system, the workers were not to be trusted to manage their own affairs. They were to be kept strictly under the control of the local party bureaucracy. The motives for this policy were not, of course, simply ideological. If the workers had been allowed to exercise genuine rights of self-management, tens of thousands of party bureaucrats would have lost their power and their comfortable jobs" (Lydall, pp.78-9).

So, in conclusion. Tito lived like a monarch, workers' self-management was non-existent, and the market economy had significant negative drawbacks such as unemployment and income inequality.

The SFRY was the greatest socialist country to have ever existed? Yeah right

[Sir Comradical]

Cool propaganda, but it wasn’t like that. Inner-ethical conflicts happened because of political liberalization, which caused secessions (Slovenian & Croatian), which caused creation of nation-states and nationalism. Croatian now has bigger dept than Yugoslavia and regarding IMF it didn’t cause anything but bigger economical liberalization (which is bad as it is, but still it didn’t cause a war). Problem with Yugoslavia was that its ideology was defeated with fall of Berlin Wall.

Well yes, the overthrow of Yugoslavia has a lot to do with the overthrow of the workers states to the north and north-east. Economic problems leading to job insecurity and worsening standards for the workers is the breeding ground for nationalism/secessionism. This is the impression I got from Parenti's book 'To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia'.

[Искра]

Nope, 16,5% unemployment rate.

There was unemployment in Yugoslavia just like in all other socialist countries. Other socialist countries just manage to better hide this information from people. So, let’s use real statistic, shall we?

Here’s article by Croatian political economy professor Zdravko Petak on collapse of Yugoslavia: http://www.cpi.hr/download/links/hr/7309.pdf. It’s on Croatian, but type “nezaposlenost” (unemployment) and you’ll get data. So, articles say that until 80’s (or after Tito died) unemployment wasn’t big issue in Yugoslavia. In 1990 unemployment in Slovenia was 4.8% and on Kosovo it was 38.4%. Slovenia was most developed part of Yugoslavia while Kosovo was quite opposite. In 70’s Tito opened borders work Yugoslav workers to go to work on West so that he could solve unemployment problems.

The fact people did not control their own lives, the fact you could be imprisoned for stating your opinion, the fact you could be murdered for stating your opinion, the fact Yugoslavia was a dictatorship.

This is not true. Have you hear for Marxist-Humanist magazine called Praxis? Do you know that in 70’s and 80’s first works of Kropotkin, Bakunin, Mao Tse Tung, Proudhon, Karl Korsh, Paul Mattick etc. were translated on Croatoserbian? Do you know that in Yugoslavia academics wrote freely about “civil society” and other liberal democratic stuff? Also, you could listen to western music and a lot of Yugoslav bands had really anti-system songs, but still they were not killed, imprisoned or anything like that. So, yes Yugoslavia was an one party dictatorship but people there had much greater liberties than other people from Eastern Block.

Also, on Tito as a person:

How cares about Tito as person? Also quoting Djilas is like quoting Šubašić.

And why workers' self-management in Yugoslavia was a farce:

It was a farce.

So, in conclusion. Tito lived like a monarch, workers' self-management was non-existent, and the market economy had significant negative drawbacks such as unemployment and income inequality.

Moralist and week conclusion. Yugoslavia failed because it was a state capitalist regime and ruling class wanted more power and greater profits, so it was for stronger economical liberalizations. Unemployment is product of all capitalist economies. Regarding Tito, he lived like all “communist” dictators and the way he lived is not essential for analysis of Yugoslavia. Self-management failed because of its practice, not theory.

[Искра]

Well yes, the overthrow of Yugoslavia has a lot to do with the overthrow of the workers states to the north and north-east. Economic problems leading to job insecurity and worsening standards for the workers is the breeding ground for nationalism/secessionism. This is the impression I got from Parenti's book 'To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia'.

I agree, still regarding political liberalisation read my post here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/serbia-bla...06#post2250406

[Искра]

Oh, yeah and I made Yugoslav Study Group here so that we can have one place to discuss SFRY. Feel free to join up

[Conscript]

Since the breakup of the USSR, there have been many ethnic conflicts in the former republics (Chechens, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Georgia-Ossetia, Georgia-Abkhazia, Ossetia-Ingush, and Moldova-Pridnestrovje), showing that national questions were not overcome any more in the USSR than in Yugoslavia.

The soviet government was never overcome with national chauvinists like in yugoslavia. A lot of the ethnic conflict in the former USSR came after the collapse, after the ending of autonomous oblasts and generous state investment. Instead countries like georgia and russia want to rule those minorities.

I'm not familiar with the problem in moldova though, so I can't comment.

could you elaborate, please?

Market socialism is self-defeating and dangerous, especially when it's limited to one country like Yugoslavia and vulnerable to external market forces. Communists don't wish to retain a system of exchange, why should we buy and sell not only resources, but labor power, between ourselves, with the goal of making profit?

Only a planned economy can properly run things. No market will provide according to need and produce with the goal of abundance. No market will guarantee full employment, honest insurance, and incentivizing subsidies.

Titoism is the name of the practical implementation of the theories of Marx and Lenin in the Yugoslav context under Josip Broz Tito, just as Stalinism refers to the implementation of Marxism-Leninism under Stalin in the USSR and the Eastern Bloc. "Stalinism," referring to the policies of Joseph Stalin, is often credited for the victories of the USSR during WWII, as Stalin was the Marshal of the Soviet Union (head of Red Army). In the same way, Titoism can be credited for the victories of the Yugoslavia during WWII because Tito was the Marshal of Yugoslavia, leading the partisans to victory.

So, titoism merely amounts to tito's personal achievements? The ideology implements partisan victories?

[Искра]

The soviet government was never overcome with national chauvinists like in yugoslavia. A lot of the ethnic conflict in the former USSR came after the collapse, after the ending of autonomous oblasts and generous state investment. Instead countries like georgia and russia want to rule those minorities.

I'm not familiar with the problem in moldova though, so I can't comment.

All ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia started after collapse of Yugoslavia. Except on Kosovo. Still, USSR and Yugoslavia situation is the same.

Market socialism is self-defeating and dangerous, especially when it's limited to one country like Yugoslavia and vulnerable to external market forces. Communists don't wish to retain a system of exchange, why should we buy and sell not only resources, but labor power, between ourselves, with the goal of making profit?

Only a planned economy can properly run things. No market will provide according to need and produce with the goal of abundance. No market will guarantee full employment, honest insurance, and incentivizing subsidies.

Picking between 2 capitalist system won't lead you anywhere.

So, titoism merely amounts to tito's personal achievements? So the ideology implements partisan victories?

No, it's more than that.

And of course that implements partisan victories.

[Conscript]

All ethnic conflicts in Yugoslavia started after collapse of Yugoslavia. Except on Kosovo. Still, USSR and Yugoslavia situation is the same.

The wars did, but there was friction before that in places like Croatia (croatian spring) and kosovo. Not to mention, not long after tito the government was led by nationalists like Milosevic.

Picking between 2 capitalist system won't lead you anywhere.

A planned economy is not capitalist. There is no capital, and the means of production are owned in common and run according to raw need, not monetary 'demand'.

If your referring to a planned economy of the likes of Gosplan, then I agree it is capitalist.

No, it's more than that.

I guessed but I was hoping to be informed.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Spit on Tito all you like, but he made more for his country than any of your other so called progressive "socialist" leaders could imagine. In my honest opinion he was one of the greatest political leaders of the 20th century. I would rather live in Tito's "revisionist" state, than any of your "socialist utopias". Yugoslavs didn't get sent to gulags, Yugoslavs didn't have to be terrified of their state, Yugoslavs were free to travel anywhere in the world, unlike the USSR, Albania, Czechoslovakia etc. etc. where people waited up to three years to get approved to come to Yugoslavia to visit the beach.

Yugoslavia had the greatest system to actually function in the world to date. Our debt was miniscule, however when Tito died the IMF saw their chance and ruined us by setting conditions which we could not meet. Ethnic hatred was a result of a mixture of the hard times and politicians wanting support. As we all know, people under crisis tend to turn towards nationalist ideologies before they turn to leftist ones.

I suggest watching the documentary "The weight of chains" to get a better understanding of Yugoslavia and its demise.


As for Nox, spreading ethnic hatred, in a region where this same kind of talk has caused so much bloodshed (and will more than likely cause more) is really immature, and shows how childish you really are. What are you, like 15 or so? Start reading, and learning, and stop talking, it will do you a world of good. What you just said was quite, quite insulting to an entire nation of people.

[Искра]

The wars did, but there was friction before that in places like Croatia and Albania. Not to mention, not long after tito the government was led by nationalists like Milosevic.

I could probably find you same amount if not more of nationalism and national related issues in USSR.

A planned economy is not capitalist. There is no capital, and the means of production are owned in common and run according to raw need, not monetary 'demand'.

If your referring to a planned economy of the likes of Gosplan, then I agree it is capitalist.

I'm referring to SU's state capitalism.

I guessed but I was hoping to be informed.

Well read my posts...

So, what did exactly Titoism advocated?

First, it was disappearance of state in order so that Yugoslavia can reach communism. It’s important to emphasise that this “idea” also came as opposition to Stalinism. Stalinism was declared revisionist, nationalists and beaucratic deviation of Marxism-Leninism. Yugoslav leadership was against Stalinism and one-party state. According to Tito and Kardelj state should firstly disappear from “market”, from economical sphere and give it to workers councils at factories and workplaces. Workers councils should run economy. In workers councils all workers should discuss and vote on how to run their workplace. There should be also some kind of “experts” who will give their advices to workers, but decisions should be up to workers council. There were also communal councils which should act as political bodies (I still don’t know much about them - sorry). Yugoslav leadership was against one-party state (like in Soviet Union), but they were also against plural-liberal democracies (like Milovan Djilas proposed, but then he was forced to emigrate). Their “invention” was called direct democracy which was, according to Kardelj’s speech from 1968, above “West and East”. Yugoslav leadership also declared that in order to achieve communism Communist party must dissolve. Therefore Tito renamed Communist Party of Yugoslavia into Union of Communists. In reality change was only in name, as Yugoslavia was still one-party state in Soviet Union style, even there were greater political liberties. There’s also one important concept regarding Yugoslavia. That was “no minority-no majority” concept which tried to establish equality between Yugoslav nations in order to suppress nationalism. Regarding economy – economy was still planned. I wasn’t exact like in Soviet Union and its puppet states, but it was planned, with bigger liberation of marked, where numerous of workers run enterises and cooperatives were formed, but also certain private property enterprises were allowed. Sometimes some “radical leftists” from ex-Yugoslavia tell this joke: Yugoslavian economy was based on Marx on table, but also on Proudhon under the table. In the end, all ideas of Yugoslav political elites failed. Workers didn’t run their workplaces, but “experts” did. Later “experts” manage to get some capital trough corruption and to form their enterprises and later demand greater liberalisation of market and economy. Concept of “no minority-no majority” failed with political liberalisation as Yugoslav national elites were afraid to become “minorities” so they decide for independence of their republics. (Source: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...08&postcount=2)

[Conscript]

Yugoslavia indeed accomplished a lot, compared to rest of the communist countries it was a model. I just don't think it is model for socialism, thus my dislike of 'Titoism'.

I could probably find you same amount if not more of nationalism and national related issues in USSR.

You can, but there's not much outside of baltic nationalism by the time Stalin died.

[Искра]

Well I dislike all socialism so far.