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

The 1974 Constitution of the SFRY

POST REPLY
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 24 Jul 2011, 22:44
This is a question that has been debated in several of my history classes, so I thought I would see what everyone here has to say.

In the late 1960's, the Croatian Republic began to demand more autonomy within the federation of Yugoslavia. The goals of this movement, known as the Croatian Spring, included decentralization of the economy (allowing Croatia to retain more of its profits from tourism rather than equally distributing them among the republics) and the recognition of a separate Croatian language (instead of the accepted Serbo-Croatian language). Because such open displays of Croatian nationalism were still associated with the NDH and the Ustashe, this stirred up many fears among the other nationalities of the SFRY. Some of the dissidents were arrested, but ultimately a new constitution was adopted in 1974 that led to a considerable degree of decentralization within the federation. Many argue that this constitution ultimately paved the way for the collapse of Yugoslavia, giving Croatia enough autonomy to develop the means to secede from the federation. Others believe that the concessions that were made were, in fact, inadequate and should have provided an even greater degree of decentralization (turning the federation of Yugoslavia into a confederation). By placating the Croatian people in this way, there would have been less of a desire for secession. My own opinion is closer to the first argument, but what do you think?
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 24 Jul 2011, 23:13
Quote:
In the late 1960's, the Croatian Republic began to demand more autonomy within the federation of Yugoslavia.

I see this a logical result of Tito's market socialism.More developed Republics like Slovenia and Croatia wanted more "autonomy" since their national bourgeoisie was tired of having to subsidy poorer Republics.With more "autonomy" Croatia and Slovenia could more easily exploit the advantage of being more industrialized than other republics,thus making the exploitation of poorer Republics much easier.Croatian national bourgeoisie didn't want to spend their (Republic's) hard currency on the development of Bosnia when it was more profitable to keep Bosnia undeveloped,so that Croatian companies wouldn't have to compete with Bosnian ones.

Quote:
The goals of this movement, known as the Croatian Spring, included decentralization of the economy (allowing Croatia to retain more of its profits from tourism rather than equally distributing them among the republics) and the recognition of a separate Croatian language (instead of the accepted Serbo-Croatian language).

I fully support Tito in his decision to squash the so called "Croatian Spring",but he could only placate the Croatian national bourgeoisie so far and delay things for some time.The '74 Constitution decentralized Yugoslavia significantly,but it didn't solve its main problem:some republics being developed while others lagging behind.
The language thing is controversial even today,and i don't have the necessary knowledge to properly address it.But the fact that despite the official common language being Serbo-Croatian Croatian newspapers etc. still wrote in Croatian,while Serbian ones wrote in Serbian language should indicate that it wasn't the best solution.
I think that Tito should have allowed each republic to have its own language.Because his insistence on one Serbo-Croatian language gave winds in the sails of Croatian nationalist bourgeoisie who could rally the people over what in reality was and is a minor issue.

Quote:
Many argue that this constitution ultimately paved the way for the collapse of Yugoslavia, giving Croatia enough autonomy to develop the means to secede from the federation. Others believe that the concessions that were made were, in fact, inadequate and should have provided an even greater degree of decentralization (turning the federation of Yugoslavia into a confederation).

Neither of these were,IMO,the real solution because of the nature of Tito's system itself.Tito could only delay the inevitable without changing the real basis upon which nationalists grew and sprang from:the Market which eventually forced the republics to compete among each other,which resulted in Croatia becoming the country's strongest economy (albeit less developed in terms of per capita income than Slovenia),enabling her to start exploiting other,less fortunate republics.

Personally,i think that the cause for the breakup of Yugoslavia lies in the year 1948 when Tito broke up with Stalin,abandoned genuine socialism and embarked on a new path,path of revisionism and faux-socialism.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.