Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Opinions on Josip Broz Tito and Titoism

POST REPLY

Opinions on Titosim

Tito was a good leader and Titoism was a good system.
20
54%
Tito was a poor leader but Titoism was a good system.
0
No votes
Tito was a good leader but Titosim was a poor system.
10
27%
Tito was a bad leader and Titoism was a poor system.
6
16%
Other.
1
3%
 
Total votes : 37
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 11 Jul 2012, 22:46
EdvardK wrote:

If I was forced to choose between a "theoretical marxist state" or "self-managing socialist state" I'd go for the latter. No contest. The quality of living was way higher in SFRY than in "theoretical marxist countries".


All of them? The whole time? Do you have a source for that?

Was Tito's Yugoslavia moving towards communism? I find it hard to believe.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 17
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Jul 2012, 06:55
Ideology: Maoist
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 12 Jul 2012, 07:30
Quote:
If I was forced to choose between a "theoretical marxist state" or "self-managing socialist state" I'd go for the latter. No contest. The quality of living was way higher in SFRY than in "theoretical marxist countries".

No, it wasn't. Also, you would rather live in a Capitalist state than a Marxist-Leninist one? That's disturbing.
Quote:
Was Tito's Yugoslavia moving towards communism? I find it hard to believe.

It wasn't, Tito's Yugoslavia was barely a nominally Socialist state. They discouraged the reading of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and upheld extremely revisionist theories. Yugoslavia was nothing but a Capitalist cesspool.
"Dialectical materialism works like cocaine, let's say. If you sniff it once or twice, it may not change your life. If you use it day after day, though, it will make you into an addict, a different man." -Nicolae Ceauşescu
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Jul 2012, 10:13
Quote:
It wasn't, Tito's Yugoslavia was barely a nominally Socialist state. They discouraged the reading of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and upheld extremely revisionist theories. Yugoslavia was nothing but a Capitalist cesspool.


sorry but that's a load of bullshit. i've got several marxist theoretical books at home from yugoslav era and majority of professors at our university are marxists and got their education in "anti-marxist" yugoslavia. had hoxha been as "awesome" marxist theoretician as you say, albania should have been paradise on earth, not the second poorest cesspool in europe with mafia-based economy.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 12 Jul 2012, 10:34
Truth be told, works by the Classics were published in Yugoslavia, even Stalin's Leninism got a second edition in the 80s.
However, from what i gathered, the general level of political education of even the Party cadres was very low and the knowledge was shallow. People say that "Marxism/Workers self-management", an obligatory school subject, was widely hated, mocked and not taken seriously.
Tito himself was a very weak theorist, the main "expert" on Yugoslav "theory" was Kardelj, of course a hard-core revisionist.
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3553
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Jul 2006, 00:10
Ideology: Other Leftist
Forum Commissar
Post 12 Jul 2012, 10:42
after being in power for as long as it did, communist party was of course riddled with opportunists, what party wasnt? still that doesnt means people were discouraged from reading marx or lenin. also kardelj had far less power than it is believed and he still was responsible for crushing liberalism in slovenia and imposing administrative socialism.
Image


Jugoslavija je bleda slika
premrzlega partizana
zato je njeno ljudstvo navajeno trpeti
zato je njeno ljudstvo pripravljeno umreti.

-Via Ofenziva

Forum Rules
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1023
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 12 Jul 2012, 14:49
Zhelovski wrote:

No, it wasn't. Also, you would rather live in a Capitalist state than a Marxist-Leninist one? That's disturbing.

No, you're disturbing, talking shit about a thing you know nothing about. I lived and studied in SFRY. We studied marxism in high school already. Quote me ONE person who discouraged reading books in Yugoslavia.

I would prefer to live in SFRY than in any other country of your choice.

Zhelovski wrote:
Was Tito's Yugoslavia moving towards communism? I find it hard to believe.

So, everyone had to move towards "communism" just because you read that in a 150 year old book? Doesn't that remind you on some other book which is about 2000 years old and claims about divine intervention which will come eventually?
You are liking communism with religion. No point in discussing/debating this with you.

Zhelovski wrote:
It wasn't, Tito's Yugoslavia was barely a nominally Socialist state. They discouraged the reading of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and upheld extremely revisionist theories. Yugoslavia was nothing but a Capitalist cesspool.

Look, you can have your opinion, just as my opinion is that you're full of shit, probably coming from some albanian ass-licking hoxha-admiring dump.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1023
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 12 Jul 2012, 14:58
Loz wrote:
Tito himself was a very weak theorist, the main "expert" on Yugoslav "theory" was Kardelj, of course a hard-core revisionist.

I won't even reply to other ramblings, but this one is really interesting. So, basically, what you guys claim is that every head of state should be downright scientist (possibly communist theorist), yes?
If that is the main quality of a leader, i would never want to live in your envisioned country.
FYI, Tito was a self-made man and leader. He managed something that no one else did - he led 20 million people to the victory over the nazis, organizing resistance and winning after 4 years of fierce battles and innumerous victims. AFter that, he managed the reconstruction of the entire country, bringing prosperity to it, while at the same time +95% of the population was supporting him and his policies. One cannot say that for Stalin, Khruschev, let alone any leader of the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe, including your idol Hoxha.

To summ it up: he "won" in a couple of categories, as a military leader, as a "change manager" during the reconstruction, as a politician during the period of stability.
I can come up with only one other person who achieved "world-class" status in three different categories (although very different from marshall Tito): Arnold Schwarzenegger. He was a world-class body-builder, world-class movie star, and a governor of the most powerful state in the union of the USA. Respect! But I'm not endorsing him or his policies at all, merely recognizing his achievements.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 12 Jul 2012, 15:18
Quote:
We studied marxism in high school already.

Yes and how did most pupils feel about that class?

Quote:
AFter that, he managed the reconstruction of the entire country, bringing prosperity to it, while at the same time +95% of the population was supporting him and his policies.

Where are you getting this from?
There were many people who didn't like the man at all, and they didn't appear out of nowhere in 1989 or so...
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 12 Jul 2012, 17:40
EdvardK wrote:
So, everyone had to move towards "communism" just because you read that in a 150 year old book? Doesn't that remind you on some other book which is about 2000 years old and claims about divine intervention which will come eventually?
You are liking communism with religion. No point in discussing/debating this with you.

This is my quote actually, so I'll respond.

Yes, in order for me to approve of Tito, Titoism, or the policies of the former Yugoslavia under Tito, there should be an advancement towards communism, since "high standards of living" exist in a capitalist state (like the US), and remain temporary successes (Yugo sucked in the 90's remember?).

Your comparison of my analysis to "religion" is not only far out of left field, since I didn't mention any bullshit about dogma or any Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Marx quotes. It seems like that is simply your go to argument whenever somebody has a semi decent argument.

Communism is a science: me saying that Tito's Yugoslavia wasn't preferable because it wasn't moving towards communism isn't treating it like a religion. It's being critical of a state that remained a market socialist economy at best and never moved adequately towards collectivization and the elimination of the market economy.

Yeah, you've always been incredibly defensive and immature on this board whenever somebody doesn't refer to Tito as the second coming of Christ. If this is the way you react to confrontation, maybe you should refrain from bringing up the former Yugoslavia at all. Or just refrain from posting all together.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 12 Jul 2012, 18:37
Prole, I usually agree with you, but you're pretty off here.

proletarian wrote:
Yes, in order for me to approve of Tito, Titoism, or the policies of the former Yugoslavia under Tito, there should be an advancement towards communism, since "high standards of living" exist in a capitalist state (like the US), and remain temporary successes (Yugo sucked in the 90's remember?).

A. Let's talk about what you mean by "advancement towards communism." First of all, according to Marx, the creation of a bourgeois capitalist state from a feudal monarchic state IS an advancement towards communism. Even if Yugoslavia was completely capitalist (which it wasn't), it would still be a step towards communism. Tito attempted to create a socialist state, run by and for the workers, with some market elements. He managed to industrialize and modernize the country -- steps that are necessary in order to achieve "communism." He also managed to do this without any large-scale repression, while at the same time maintaining a high standard of living for workers. Secondly, the SFRY was founded out of the rubble of a bloody ethnic war. The mere fact that Tito was able to create a functioning state in those conditions is extremely progressive and a move towards internationalism.

B. Unless you're extremely well-off (which I am guessing you are), high standards of living do not exist in the U.S. in any comparable way to the SFRY. Things like higher education and health care only exist for the richest citizens, workers can barely afford food and shelter with their wage labor, and the public education system is a joke (here in Detroit, only 25% of people graduate high school).

C. Yugoslavia sucked in the 90's? Yugoslavia didn't exist in the 90's. The League of Communists of Yugoslavia was dissolved in Jan. 1990 ("remember"?).

Quote:
me saying that Tito's Yugoslavia wasn't preferable because it wasn't moving towards communism

Preferable to what?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 14 Jul 2012, 01:34
Quote:
A. Let's talk about what you mean by "advancement towards communism." First of all, according to Marx, the creation of a bourgeois capitalist state from a feudal monarchic state IS an advancement towards communism. Even if Yugoslavia was completely capitalist (which it wasn't), it would still be a step towards communism.

It's clear that he was talking in the context of Tito being some kind of a leftist/socialist.
There's no point for this nitpicking.

Quote:
Secondly, the SFRY was founded out of the rubble of a bloody ethnic war.

So? Most socialist countries were born out of a civil war.

Quote:
The mere fact that Tito was able to create a functioning state in those conditions is extremely progressive and a move towards internationalism.

Kingdom of Yugoslavia wasn't dis-functional either. And yet KPJ called it the "prison of peoples".

Quote:
Unless you're extremely well-off (which I am guessing you are), high standards of living do not exist in the U.S. in any comparable way to the SFRY. Things like higher education and health care only exist for the richest citizens, workers can barely afford food and shelter with their wage labor, and the public education system is a joke (here in Detroit, only 25% of people graduate high school).

Yes, but America is an Exception. It would make more sense to focus on Europe, that is, Yugoslavia's neighours.


Quote:
C. Yugoslavia sucked in the 90's? Yugoslavia didn't exist in the 90's. The League of Communists of Yugoslavia was dissolved in Jan. 1990 ("remember"?).

Yugoslavia, as a state, most certainly existed in 1990 and early 1991, de jure if not de facto ( even though JNA still recruited soldiers from all republics as late as Summer 1991 )
But yeah, Marković, the last PM of "SFRY" started a huge privatization/liberalization campaign in 1989 in collaboration with ( in fact, under the command of) the IMF and others that left dozens of thousand unemployed and hundreds of factories liquidated.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 3765
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Nov 2009, 07:13
Ideology: Other Leftist
Politburo
Post 14 Jul 2012, 03:08
khlib wrote:
Prole, I usually agree with you, but you're pretty off here.

Appreciate ya.
khlib wrote:
Let's talk about what you mean by "advancement towards communism." First of all, according to Marx, the creation of a bourgeois capitalist state from a feudal monarchic state IS an advancement towards communism. Even if Yugoslavia was completely capitalist (which it wasn't), it would still be a step towards communism.

Like Loz said: nitpicking. I'm referring of course to the fact that in its dialectical process, Yugoslavia was not moving past capitalism, and retained its market elements, refusing to collectivize for damn near 40 years.
khlib wrote:
Tito attempted to create a socialist state, run by and for the workers, with some market elements

Socialist states are moving towards the elimination of markets. Yugoslavia's failure to due so is the apex behind its failure as a Marxist state.
khlib wrote:
He managed to industrialize and modernize the country -- steps that are necessary in order to achieve "communism."

Great, so did China and the USSR, only they did it through collectivization, not the market (with exception of Deng's market reforms of course).
khlib wrote:
Secondly, the SFRY was founded out of the rubble of a bloody ethnic war

Tragic, that doesn't change the fact that Tito's policies weren't advancing towards the elimination of the market and full collectivization.
khlib wrote:
The mere fact that Tito was able to create a functioning state in those conditions is extremely progressive and a move towards internationalism.

Ok, but internationalism=/= communism.
khlib wrote:
Unless you're extremely well-off (which I am guessing you are),

Identity politics are unnecessary. That was a quick jab that nobody here would appreciate.
khlib wrote:
high standards of living do not exist in the U.S. in any comparable way to the SFRY.

The GDP and income per capita of the US are higher than the SFRY. The standard of living is higher in the US even for some of the poorest people. Certainly the median standard of living is higher.
khlib wrote:
C. Yugoslavia sucked in the 90's? Yugoslavia didn't exist in the 90's. The League of Communists of Yugoslavia was dissolved in Jan. 1990 ("remember"?).

I was of course referring to the awful Serbian conflicts that arose in the early 90's. Should have clarified.
khlib wrote:
Preferable to what?

An orthodox Marxist state moving progressively towards communism of course. I'd rather have no oppression under communism than "better standards of living" under capitalism/market socialism.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 16 Jul 2012, 19:35
Quote:
nitpicking.

I don't think Marx would say so.

Quote:
I'm referring of course to the fact that in its dialectical process, Yugoslavia was not moving past capitalism, and retained its market elements, refusing to collectivize for damn near 40 years.

Can you please explain (in plain English) what you mean by "in its dialectical process"? They also DID collectivize.

Quote:
Identity politics are unnecessary. That was a quick jab that nobody here would appreciate.

Whoa there, how is that a jab or identity politics? I'm just saying that no one living anywhere near the poverty level in the U.S. would claim that the standard of living is higher here than in the SFRY. I understand, however, that a lot of wealthy Americans don't realize this. GDP is not a good measure of the quality of life for the average person because it does not take into account the huge wealth disparity in the U.S. I am glad you are doing well, going to college, and able to afford healthcare and food. That is not a jab. The reality, however, is that many Americans cannot.

Quote:
I was of course referring to the awful Serbian conflicts that arose in the early 90's. Should have clarified.

You're trying to say that Yugoslavia was a bad socialist country because the quality of life was poor during wartime when it was dissolving?


Quote:
An orthodox Marxist state moving progressively towards communism of course. I'd rather have no oppression under communism than "better standards of living" under capitalism/market socialism.

An orthodox Marxist state that skips capitalism and tries to implement socialism in one country?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Jul 2012, 20:19
As for the income inequality in Yugoslavia, there are sources with GINI indexes for SR Croatia ( it is reasonable to assume that inequalities were even more acute in less developed republics and AP Kosovo ).
In fact, the GINI coefficient for 1973 is slightly HIGHER than the GINI index for 1998!
Wealth disparity in Yugslavia was higher in comparison to for example FR Germany and some other W. Eurpean countries.

1978 / 83 / 88 / 98 : 0.300 / 0.271 / 0.286 / 0.297

Yes, in Yugoslavia there existed great inequalities.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 16 Jul 2012, 20:30
We're talking about the SFRY vs. the U.S. In 2009, the GINI coefficient for the U.S. was .46. That is way higher than the SFRY. The lowest global GINO coefficient is currently Sweden, with .23. That means that the SFRY was doing pretty damn well.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Jul 2012, 20:34
Quote:
Loz, that's absolute nonsense.

What is nonsense? There are all valid facts.

Quote:
That is way higher than the SFRY.

Of course it is, not many developed capitalist countries beat the US in regards to that.

Quote:
The lowest global GINO coefficient is currently Sweden, with .23. That means that the SFRY was doing pretty damn well.

Worse than a good part of W. European capitalist states, not to mention the then-existing Socialist block.
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 16 Jul 2012, 20:37
Loz wrote:
Worse than a good part of W. European capitalist states, not to mention the then-existing Socialist block.


Source?

EDIT:
" The Soviet Union was measured to have relatively high income inequality: by some estimates, in the late 1970s, Gini coefficient of its urban population was as high as 0.38,[19] which is higher than many Western countries today."

Image

Only a small portion of Western Europe and Scandinavia have lower than .3.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1023
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 16 Jul 2012, 21:12
khlib wrote:
We're talking about the SFRY vs. the U.S. In 2009, the GINI coefficient for the U.S. was .46. That is way higher than the SFRY. The lowest global GINO coefficient is currently Sweden, with .23. That means that the SFRY was doing pretty damn well.


Touche!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1023
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 08 Aug 2011, 22:59
Ideology: Other Leftist
Party Member
Post 16 Jul 2012, 21:52
proletarian wrote:
Your comparison of my analysis to "religion" is not only far out of left field, since I didn't mention any bullshit about dogma or any Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Marx quotes. It seems like that is simply your go to argument whenever somebody has a semi decent argument.

Communism is a science: ...


Prole, i never claimed - as you try to make me look - that marshall Tito was infallible, immaculate, undeniably correct in everything he did. What i am saying, though, is that you treat communism as religion because you judge contemporaries by standards of yesterday. Mind you, where in Das Kapital does it say that industrialization and for example agriculture need to be done by using anything but horses and carts. Invention of airplanes was outright anti-communist, yes? Your taking "communism" so literally in the 1850s context that you are missing the whole point and in that process - you're making it look like a religion.
So, if Tito was not a scientist, you are correct. And I'm glad he wasn't. If Tito was pragmatically looking to enchance people's lives by seeing what's around in 1950s and "actively disregarding the lessons from 1850s", he did the right thing. He made mistakes, too. And I recognize that as well. What you don't want to recognize or even want to discuss, is the fact that the 1850s communism was all wrong and unapplicable one hundred years later. THAT, prole, THAT is dogma, that is RELIGION.
Live in your world of make-believe and think of yourself as a communist scientist. People in the real world would find your ramblings pathetic at best or outright stale of rot at worst.
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 16 Jul 2012, 22:00
As we can see here, SFRY's neighbours had somewhat lower income inequality:

World Bank data on GINI coefficients from 1989:

Bulgaria 23.43
Hungary 25.05
Romania 23.31

Anyway your quote says:
Quote:
Comparing income distributions among countries may be difficult because benefits systems may differ. For example, some countries give benefits in the form of money while others give food stamps, which might not be counted by some economists and researchers as income in the Lorenz curve and therefore not taken into account in the Gini coefficient. The Soviet Union was measured to have relatively high income inequality: by some estimates, in the late 1970s, Gini coefficient of its urban population was as high as 0.38,[19] which is higher than many Western countries today. This number would not reflect those benefits received by Soviet citizens that were not monetized for measurement, which may include child care for children as young as two months, elementary, secondary and higher education, cradle-to-grave medical care, and heavily subsidized or provided housing. In this example, a more accurate comparison between the 1970s Soviet Union and Western countries may require one to assign monetary values to all benefits – a difficult task in the absence of free markets. Similar problems arise whenever a comparison between more liberalized economies and partially socialist economies is attempted. Benefits may take various and unexpected forms: for example, major oil producers such as Venezuela and Iran provide indirect benefits to its citizens by subsidizing the retail price of gasoline.




When it comes to Human Development Index i'd just like to quote a very good post by Red Daughter:
Quote:
One way we could go by is the UN's Human Development Index. It calculates 'human development' based on three factors: Life Expectancy, Education (adult literacy and gross enrollment), and GDP. The earliest statistics I can find online are from 1990.

130 countries ranked, with the 130th the most developed (in this case Japan with 0.996). An index of 1 would be perfect.

The GDR ranks 110th with 0.953
Czechoslovakia ranks 106th with 0.931
The USSR is 105th with 0.920
Bulgaria is 104th with 0.918
Hungary is 101st with 0.915
Yugoslavia is 100th with 0.913
Poland is 98th with 0.910
Romania is 90th with 0.863

For some comparison:
Canada is 126th with 0.983
The Federal Republic of Germany is 119th with 0.967
The USA is ranked 112th, with 0.961
Cuba is 92nd with 0.877
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.