U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Login ] [ Active ]

Opinions on Josip Broz Tito and Titoism

Log-in to remove advertisement.

Opinions on Titosim

Tito was a good leader and Titoism was a good system.
Tito was a poor leader but Titoism was a good system.
No votes
Tito was a good leader but Titosim was a poor system.
Tito was a bad leader and Titoism was a poor system.
Total votes : 37
Post 09 Apr 2012, 23:41
I've seen a couple of threads about revisionism and on other forums I’ve seen people criticize Tito and his version of socialism, Titoism. Calling it revisionist in a negative connotation but I think that there are lots of positive elements of Titoism that should be implemented in every socialist country like workers self-management but to a degree. but on the other hand I think Tito went too far in some respects. I also think Tito was a strong charismatic leader who stood up to Stalin's imperial ambitions after WW II
By Stalin's imperial ambitions i ment in regards to the satellite states in eastern Europe and how he in essence took them over.
Last edited by The Mighty O on 10 Apr 2012, 11:11, edited 1 time in total.
Post 09 Apr 2012, 23:52
Voted "other" because I'm not so sure.

What I wonder is how much "workers' self-management" there actually was apart from sloganeering. From what I've gathered, it ended up creating a more or less typical layer of managers who ran things in practice. But I'd like to be corrected on this.

What "imperial ambitions" did Tito stand up to anyway? Was it not also an "imperial ambition" to try and incorporate Albania? And did Tito's stand not lead to practically siding with the imperialists?
Post 09 Apr 2012, 23:55
Tito was a great leader, and Titoism was a good system. The only thing I would criticize Tito for was that he made too many concessions to the nationalists (such as the 1974 Constitution), and he allowed too much decentralization. Things should have been more centralized on a federal level both politically and economically (really, the SFRY was more of a confederation than a federation). Overall, Titoism put quality of life over dogma, which I think made it a more positive example of the possibility of "socialism in one country" than the USSR. I think there is much to be learned from the Yugoslav experiment, such as ways of overcoming (and not overcoming) divides within a multiethnic state, the possibilities of implementing workers' self-management without falling into a market system, etc.
Post 10 Apr 2012, 01:19
Tito was a great leader but Titoism was a poor system. Tito is one of the most charismatic leaders of the XX Century. He managed to keep Yugoslavia united under his leadership despite all the instability of the region and once he died all the Federation fell apart. He was also successful internationally as a leader of the Non-Aligned countries. However, the failure to resolve the national problems, the fast dissolution of the Federation, the FMI loans which forced Yugoslavia to liberalize its economy by external pressure and all the social economic problems in the 80's (high unemployment rate, heavy debt, etc) shows how the system was poor and fragile. When one system doesn't resist the man who created it's not good in my opinion.

I don't know why you said "Stalin imperial ambitions". If Stalin had imperial ambitions the borders of the USSR and Europe generally would not have been those that were established in 1945, believe me. Tito confrontation with Stalin was more a war of egos than a politic dispute. Just like Mao breakup years later. Both Tito and Mao wanted their countries to replace USSR as the nation leaders of the socialist world. Both failed.

The breakup with USSR was also strategical. He knew that by doing that he would avoid to become too much dependent of the USSR and could extract benefits from being in the middle of the two blocs of the Cold War like he did. Yugoslavia exported to both western and eastern markets.
Post 13 Apr 2012, 13:56
Tito was a criminal, murderer (worked for the NKVD in the 30s, killed many Trotskites etc. but he also sent some of the best Yugoslav communists to their death...) and a traitor to Communism.
Stalin should have intervened in 1948 to remove that counterrevolutionary clique from power. Many Yugoslavs would have sided with the USSR and the rest of the world communist movement.
His secret police UDBA (which also employed some ex-fascist butchers) killed and tortured tens of thousands of honest Communists.
Tito = modern Kautsky.
Post 14 Apr 2012, 16:33
Any sources or evidence to prove your claims?
Post 14 Apr 2012, 18:30
None that i can think of that are in English.
Post 14 Apr 2012, 18:44
I've found this: ... s-revealed

I don't know how much credible this is but nonetheless is here to everybody reach its own conclusions.
Post 14 Apr 2012, 19:38
Hmmmm they find these secret documents only now, 30 years after his death? Also didn't Stalin do something similar and people still follow him. I know Morris has an extensive knowledge of Yugoslavia maybe he could shed light on to these claims.
Post 15 Apr 2012, 01:50
JAM wrote:
When one system doesn't resist the man who created it's not good in my opinion.

I couldn't agree more on this.
Post 15 Apr 2012, 01:51
Loz wrote:
None that i can think of that are in English.

To argument without basis is not acceptable.

Post your sources, we can translate them on google.
Post 15 Apr 2012, 12:36
V. Dapčević: "Ja, IB-ovac"
I. Banac: With Stalin against Tito: Cominformist splits in Yugoslav Communism. Cornell University Press.
Group of authors : "Naši Španci. Zbornik fotografija i dokumenata o učešću jugoslovenskih dobrovoljaca u Španskom ratu 1936-1939" (doesn't really say much about Tito, but in it was published a photo of Josip Broz having a shower in a French conc. camp, though he himself denied ever being there. The book, published by Yugoslav veterans of the Spanish C.W. , was later confiscated.)

Comrade JAM already posted something too: ... s-revealed
Post 15 Apr 2012, 17:39
Voted good and good. I haven't studied him in detail, but I have a positive image of him in general and I admire how he kept all those ex-Yugoslavian nations in solidarity all those years.
Post 17 Apr 2012, 12:56
Loz wrote:
His secret police UDBA (which also employed some ex-fascist butchers) killed and tortured tens of thousands of honest Communists.

What is the different between UDBA and OZNA, comrade?

Although I didn't know much about Tito, I think he was good leader. Tito had some similarities with Sukarno.
Is Titoism accept Trotskyism?
Post 17 Apr 2012, 20:04
What is the different between UDBA and OZNA, comrade?

OZNA (Department of National Security) was the Yugoslav security agency / "secret police" from 1944 to 1946 when it was renamed UDBA (State Security Administration).

Is Titoism accept Trotskyism?

Post 14 May 2012, 21:51
Tito with assorted revolutionary heroes (and a cannibal









Post 14 May 2012, 22:01
How are all these pictures relevant to Tito being a traitor? I suppose Marx himself was a traitor to communism because he wrote of letter to congratulations to Lincoln on his re-election? And I suppose Lenin was a traitor because he took a German train to Denmark?
Post 14 May 2012, 22:07
They're not really relevant, i put them here just for "flavor".
But you can find a nice article on why Tito indeed was a traitor on the site that hosts the pictures... (right click on image-show information about the image)
Post 15 May 2012, 02:16
I thought the Pope was cleared of those cannibalism charges... or are you talking about Nixon?

What happened to the nude picture? Did someone complain?
Post 15 May 2012, 22:53
I think that he was a pretty good leader domestically and foreignly (Better than Hoxha) and that his system should be studied by Communists as an alternative to Dengism because under Tito's system, the workers were in control.
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Privacy.
[ Top ]