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

Tell me about Yugoslavia

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 156
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2005, 14:57
Pioneer
Post 02 Feb 2006, 08:08
I have seen lately that people like Dariuz and company have praised Yugoslavia and almost made it seem it was a land of milk and honey under Tito. Then I realized I didn't know anything about Yugoslavia. What were the living conditions? What were the politics used? In what extent were communes used? What "titoism" includes? What Tito ate for breakfast?
Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10797
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2004, 23:53
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 02 Feb 2006, 14:20
Yugoslavia was part of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961. It was neither Warsaw Pact or NATO. The quality of life was better than the Warsaw Pact but I don't have any statistics.

Titoism is just like Maoist, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyites, ect. After the name of Josip Broz Tito. Its main difference is that communism should be obtained through the particular needs of that country. Unlike how the Soviets proposed how communism should be set up in Eastern Europe.
Image

"By what standard of morality can the violence used by a slave to break his chains be considered the same as the violence of a slave master?" - Walter Rodney
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 344
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 May 2005, 17:11
Komsomol
Post 02 Feb 2006, 19:24
Yugoslavia was the most prosperous Eastern European country in communist days, the living standard was much higher than in the Warsaw Pact, and there was a lot of freedom, no restrictions to travel where you wanted to. Tito himself was a great leader, he didn't enlighten himself like a god like a lot of other communist leaders did, he was a real man of the people, when he died in 1980 the whole country cried and mourned (literally), he had a great state funeral in Belgrade with the attendance of almost all important world leaders, because he was respected over the whole world. Het was one of the founders of the Non-aligned Movement, and didn't want any foreign military intervention and only what was best for Yugoslavia. When he died the real problems for Yugoslavia began, there was a great power vacuum and people didn't knew how to go on without Tito, there was a rotating presidency between the six republic, chaning every year, this were the last 10 years of Yugoslavia, and then the war came and that's the whole reason I don't live in my own country anymore.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 344
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 May 2005, 17:11
Komsomol
Post 02 Feb 2006, 19:35
People who came for vacation in Yugoslavia from the Warsaw Pact always came to buy a lot of western stuff and products they even never knew existed, we had it so much better in Yugoslavia
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4500
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 02 Feb 2006, 22:35
Was the living standard in Yugoslavia better than East Germany and Hungary? I have read that they had 1st world level economies by the 1980s.

Also, how were professionals kept loyal to the country? -One of the main reasons for the Berlin Wall in Germany was that professionals were leaving in such a great proportion that it was threatening the economy and costing billions in education expenses. How did Yugoslavia deal with this in allowing for free travel?
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 60
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 20:36
Pioneer
Post 02 Feb 2006, 22:56
I think Tito's contribution to communism was his implementation of self-governing socialism in real life. In that way Yugoslavia came close to the ideal. For very short period of time. Tito and his fellow - comrades (especially Edvard Kardelj - the ideologist of the state) really intended to weaken purposely the institution of the state - to a point where the state itself would not be needed anymore. In contrary to Soviet Union where EVERYTHING was directed and controled from Moscow, in Yugoslavia we had institutions called OOUR - Općinska Organizacija Udruzenog Rada, which is translated something like "Comune Organization of United Labour". In life that was Yugoslav mirror image of western "Company" or "Enterprise", but with no private property. On the head there was a Direktor, but he/her had to plan actions together with "Radnicko Vijece", or Workers Comitee - which made the decisions and elected the directors. Mindless to say - usually they all HAD to be members of KPJ (Komunisticka Partija Jugoslavije). One could stay out of Communist party, and nothing bad would happen to him, but he/she could forgett about career of any kind.
Za Domovinu s Titom, napred!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 60
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 20:36
Pioneer
Post 02 Feb 2006, 23:03
To Soviet 78:

Professionals were not kept tied to the country, they could leave anytime they wanted. But most of them just wanted to stay and work in their countries, especially in Slovenia and Croatia, two most prosperous ones. Some of them stayed because of simpathy for the idea, and as loyal socialists they got all the opportunities for decent life, which was offered to them by the State.
Za Domovinu s Titom, napred!
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 03 Feb 2006, 14:01
Yugoslavia is a success stories in many ways.

Tito was a great state leader by any stretch - he was independent, but not a jingosit; he was stable, but not a tyrant.

Yugoslavia was able to unite itself and put its productive powers in to the common good for the first time in history, and it became the fourth most prosperous country in Europe.

The real key to it was introcucing dielectic materialism in to the country - the centuries of hatred and bloodshed and ethnic strife came to an end and the common man was elevated to be important.

The problem with Yugoslavia, however, was that Tito was almost too successful at what he tried to accomplish. While the centuries of bloodshed and production problems had been solved, the basic problem was that the Yugoslavian people began to rely on Tito - and Tito began to represent the state. While the problem with bureocracy was kept largely under control under Tito, it more or less grew out of control afterward - and this manifested itself in power struggle, which found its most obvious form in age-old hatred.

Tito and the others in power should have insisted on more localized proletarian government after unificationa nd stability. This, of course, would be a tricky thing to accomplish as regionalism was king before, but if it had been done on the basis of industry instead of region, I think this could have worked.

I could learn more about it, but that's my general feeling - having visited there and been seeing a Montegengran girl for a while before that.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 60
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 20:36
Pioneer
Post 03 Feb 2006, 15:30
I think one of main problems with Y. is that there have never been, and never will be Yugoslav nation. People of Y. lived in one state, but only few declared themselves as Yugoslav (about 4 % in 1981 census, all from mixed marriages an most of them in Bosnia). All the nationalities of the former state were big majority in their republics, and their right to declare themselves as such was guaranteed by the Constitution.

That order made posible to national movements to rise so quickly after definite fall of communism in Eastern Europe, and their will to gain independency was particulary strong in Slovenia (most developed) and Croatia (strongest in economic potentials, tourism) wich felt that too much of their money went to underdeveloped areas for the building of "Potemkin villages" and to Belgrade (capital of Y.,Serbia).

By the way, after Tito's death Communist Party grew much more centralistic, and Belgrade had became "one and only" center of power, especially controling the Federal Yugoslav Army and indoctrinated its staff.
Za Domovinu s Titom, napred!
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 03 Feb 2006, 16:00
Quote:
By the way, after Tito's death Communist Party grew much more centralistic, and Belgrade had became "one and only" centre of power, especially controling the Federal Yugoslav Army and indoctrinated its staff


That's what I heard. I was more or less trying to say the same with:

Quote:
...basic problem was that the Yugoslavian people began to rely on Tito - and Tito began to represent the state. While the problem with bureocracy was kept largely under control under Tito, it more or less grew out of control afterward - and this manifested itself in power struggle, which found its most obvious form in age-old hatred.


-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 344
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 May 2005, 17:11
Komsomol
Post 03 Feb 2006, 16:15
After Tito's death Yugoslavia was starting to dissolve, because Yugoslavia was Tito and Tito was Yugoslavia. People saw him as the great leader and he would always find an answer to problems, but when he was gone people started to think what they are going to do without him, how is it all supposed to go on without Tito was the main question. He inspired the nation, and when he was gone there was no one to follow anymore.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 156
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Nov 2005, 14:57
Pioneer
Post 03 Feb 2006, 18:53
Interesting so far. So, I could use Tito's Yugoslavia as a counter-argument to the claim that socialism naturally is about tyranny and oppressing people, which seems to always pop around. Thanks for enlightening me.
Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.23
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 344
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 May 2005, 17:11
Komsomol
Post 03 Feb 2006, 20:29
Yes, you could, Yugoslavia is the only socialist country where socialism really worked and the government wasn't opressive. We had a great living standard, there even was a feeling of superiority to the rest of the eastern european country's, when Polish and Czechoslowakian people came to Yugoslavia for vacation we laughed at them because they were so poor dressed
Image
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1942
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jul 2005, 01:11
Party Member
Post 04 Feb 2006, 05:49
Quote:
Yugoslavia is the only socialist country where socialism really worked and the government wasn't opressive.


Yes, Yugoslavian socialism worked so well that the state withered away, broke up into a few factions and fought a decade long war and is fully capitalist. And I laugh at your notion that the government wasn't oppressive. A government can ONLY be oppressive, thats why it exists. It creates laws and oppresses what it deems illegal.

Quote:
when Polish and Czechoslowakian people came to Yugoslavia for vacation we laughed at them because they were so poor dressed


Some socialist you are, riduculing people based upon their material wealth. I bet if a Tito era Yugoslav came to my house, I could laugh the night away.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 344
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 May 2005, 17:11
Komsomol
Post 04 Feb 2006, 11:44
I mean that the government wasn't that oppressive like in Warsaw Pact country's and about the material wealth is just the fact we got our country developed better than any other Warsaw Pact country.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 60
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 20:36
Pioneer
Post 04 Feb 2006, 18:14
The government was not so hard as in soviet and WP states, but the system was very vigilant about its "inner enemies". Secret police (UDBA) was also omnipresent, and doing its dirty work like in other eastern states. But if you minded your own bussines (just not PRIVATE, for Lenins sake) and ocasionaly declared some paroles about Tito, great battle of partisans in WW2 and such, nobody bothered you, and a person could feel pretty free in that departed state of Yugoslavia
Za Domovinu s Titom, napred!
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1942
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 12 Jul 2005, 01:11
Party Member
Post 04 Feb 2006, 18:21
Yugoslavia's infrastructure was not developed according to Tito's version of socialism but rather by western capital. Do you deny that Yugoslavia had received foreign aid?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 344
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 15 May 2005, 17:11
Komsomol
Post 05 Feb 2006, 02:15
I do not deny it, Yugoslavia did receive some Marshall-aid, but it was not significantly large
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 60
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 20:36
Pioneer
Post 05 Feb 2006, 11:06
Can you imagine - in the fifties yugoslav army received both soviet and US aid in arms and weapons. Ilyushin bombers were escorted by P-47 Thunderbolts, Yugoslavia had US jet fighters, T-34 soviet tanks and M-105 US howitzers. And nevertheless remained very communist and closed for everybody until 1962, when free travelling was allowed and first "normal" passports were issued.

Characteristic state in any point of view.
Za Domovinu s Titom, napred!
Soviet cogitations: 17
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 28 Aug 2005, 18:27
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 21 Mar 2006, 01:52
I admire Tito for his ability to apply Socialism in a country in a non-dogmatic form. Yugoslavia's economic system for a long time was very close to the NEP of Lenin and it had a great standard of living. If it had not seperated, I think by now it would be in the advanced stage of Socialism and representing a strong path to Communism.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.