Tito

A success or failure?

Other urls found in this thread:

balkaneu.com/serbia-pays-titos-debts/
youtube.com/watch?v=6cCxrBkzoak
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Tyrant whose regime killed one million people.

Failure, the debt from his rule are still being payed by former Yugloslav Republics. He also let the Serbs ruin everything, as they tend to do.

What about the socialized markets, how did they function and were they successful?

I'm gonna go with failure seeing as when he died, all of Yugoslavia broke apart and was the scene to some of the bloodiest conflicts in Europe in the second half of the 20th century.

Would the region be more or less industrialized, did Yugoslavia's brand of communism do any better or worse than the soviet unions would you say?

He left his country in a hole of debt that they still have not escaped from.

balkaneu.com/serbia-pays-titos-debts/

They outdid the Soviets in terms of economic growth but that's like saying that you can run faster than a cripple.

I'm most interested in the impact of market socialism and how that worked exactly under tito

Workers had more of a say in their jobs but corps still owned by state. From what I remember.

>Communism
>Success

These two words, could they really be used in a sentence together like that!?

> implying that that isn't Goring under a new name

The region he ruled over achieved its zenith of influence in global affairs and the people lived better than they ever had before or since. Anyone who denies that is a moron. The argument that some idiots like to bring up about Tito driving Yugoslavia into debt which caused the nation to collapse is a joke. The sheer growth in the standard of living of the average person in Yugoslavia increased dramatically from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia to the the time of Tito. If you ask any reasonable person who lived in Yugoslavia how it compared to life before or after they would tell you about the success of that nation and the opportunities they had growing up.

Nice meme.
Not an argument.

I could make an argument if you'd like. I just like memeing is all.

If I had to boil it down without writing a paper about it, I'd say my main issues with Communism are four things:

1. The Abolition of Private Property
2. Communism's tendency towards centralization of governmental power
3. The entire mentality of the "us versus them" oppressor versus oppressed Marx argues for.
4. Marx's argument for the abolition of religion, the family, and individuality seem not just a departure from Western ideals, but a departure from humanity itself.

>1. The Abolition of Private Property
muh brobberdyy

>2. Communism's tendency towards centralization of governmental power
Only when the USSR was around, because at the time the USSR seemed to be functioning so everyone else followed in the footsteps. The USSR also needed satellites, so they wanted all their satellites to use the same model. It's not a given in a post-USSR world.

>3. The entire mentality of the "us versus them" oppressor versus oppressed Marx argues for.
Maybe they should stop oppressing people.

>4. Marx's argument for the abolition of religion, the family, and individuality seem not just a departure from Western ideals, but a departure from humanity itself.
Marx was radically individualistic, said religion would wither away by itself, and capitalism already abolished the traditional family in favor of the nuclear family. You may not realize this, but Marx's abolition of the family meant way back when arranged marriages to consolidate business ties and enforce hierarchies was common. Capitalism is eroding that with or without Marx. He wanted people to be able to form families without having to base it around matters of inheritance and property, just like the romantic notion of love.

id say he was a success

he turned himself into a lovable meme dictator that everyone liked and was like a leader of the third world, and successfully resisted stalin

i don't like him becausebut you can't say he wasn't a success

Ultimately Tito's goal of a unified Yugoslavia failed because the country couldn't last a decade after his death. However, he did manage to make Yugoslavia a pretty relevant nation. He played a big part in the organization of the Non Aligned movement and was the only eastern block commie nation to tell Stalin to fuck off.

I don't think you could argue that he was a success or failure, if you want to be blunt I guess you could say failure. One of the most important things he did was put Yugoslavia on the map, he really made it known. Yugoslavia had a decent standing in sports and gained a reputation for being European's favorite vacation getaway. The country was diverse and beautiful, but still very poor in many areas (even today in certain parts of the former yu).

Nostalgia is nice but you have to realize how recent the conflict is and how bad it was. I know it's not part of the question but Yugoslavia probably is returning for a very long time, maybe ever. How could you ask someone to forget or forgive atrocities committed towards them and their families? Truly I get sickened when I think about it, all those people living together for years and then suddenly they just go apeshit.

I don't see how you can give Tito the blame for Croats being violent savages. If anything, we should respect him all the more that during his reign they were kept in check.

also
youtube.com/watch?v=6cCxrBkzoak

The crimes of all sides fade in comparison to the same crimes by all sides in WW2. So how could you ask them to forgive and forget the first time?

He had a fully debt based economy. The problem was the people didn't really notice, or care, they thought it's free money. Despite the old saying "What you don't pay on the bridge you will pay on the overpass".
Basically the government would take loans, to import luxury items, and to give out wages. Companies were run in a way that wages were not an expense, so they cut corners everywhere else, most of the time they didn't even pay amortization and the equipment (or the (((means of production)))) was/were basically scrap metal.
Also, a lot of factories just didn't make fucking sense. For example every state had a steel mill, and they're all unsustainable. Producing things without demand, fuck it, just produce. Job stability>Sustainability
Sub par infrastructure network. You're only getting your roads maintained if some government official uses them.
>He also let the Serbs ruin everything, as they tend to do.
Leave your hateful prejudiced rhetoric on /int/ He completely broke the political power of Serbia, and the Serbian part of the communist party. He purged every nationalist Serbian politician. Serbs felt increasingly uncomfortable with this. And after his death, when Slovene and Croat factions of the party advocated for even further decentralization they created Milosevic that fucking retard. And then they all played their own nationalist games at the price of human lives.
Simply because of western funding. The socialist self-management was a failure on all fronts. Instead of creating worker run companies, it created a new class of managers and workers with no intensives to work, read the whole post to see how it functioned.
It was so bad, the film parody of that class became a box office hit and had 3 sequels. Corrupt incompetent management.

(you)

>and then suddenly serbs go apeshit

fixed it for you

My grandma worked as a cook in a police station and she told me how the serbian policemen got along with everyone and that no one treated them any differently, even when it was apparent that shit was going south. One day, to everyone surprise, because people actually considered them to be friends and colleagues, they simply emptied the armoury during the night and disappeared.

>what are orders?

I think you misunderstood, they were working as policemen in the socialist republic of croatia, when croatia declared independence they fucked off and became insurgents. But to be fair, there were some serbs that remained loyal, some even served in the army.

They were under orders. Just like the whole plane intercepting helicopters incident.
You just want to blame everything on "Serbs" for some reason. The world is not a nationalist zero-sum game.

his goal was power, pussy, tobacco and booze and he was quite successful at achieving it

You are delusional if you believe conflict and exploitation will be replaced by peace love and dope.
Also, Marx was an idiot who misinterpreted Britain's caste divide between Norman aristocrats and Anglo underlings as a "class" divide. Not everything is about economics.

>they were under orders

They were yugoslavian policemen, and when croatia declared independence, they became croatian policemen and such were legally bound by no other loyalties other than to the croatian state. I don't see how it is so hard to comprehend, they deserted their posts as policemen and became insurgents.

You seem very naive. Just as the Croats encircled the barracks to get weapons, so did the Muslims and so did the Serbs, in different places.

Here, i'll give you an example from my mom's coworker.
He was serving at the time and was stationed in Bosnia. He had a Muslim officer friend. And the night the barracks was to be taken by the Bosnian forces the officer invited him over to his house, and despite him saying that he's on duty the officer insisted. So he went and that probably saved his life.

>so did the serbs

Why would serbs attack YNA controlled barracks given that the YNA was dominated by a serbian officer cadre and everyone else who wasn't serbian deserted en masse? I'm not trying to demonize serbs but the fact remains that the majority of the blame lies on local serbs being goaded by Belgrade chimping out.

Chimping out is a bad phrase. But i agree with you that the it was the locals being prompted by the Serbian government.
It was a thought out method of coercion, threat and blackmail. That it backfired is another thing entirely.
Another thing is that the turnout for the draft in Serbia was around 13%

>The entire mentality of the "us versus them" oppressor versus oppressed Marx argues for.
Marx explictly states how it's the capitalist which serves capital. Capital is an impersonal force, capitalists and workers merely fulfill their historical role. Every capitalist could dissapear and you'd have no guarantee of abolishing capitalism.

Alright, someone explain this debt meme. How is debt relevant? Production and consumption form a closed cycle (atleast, on the global scale), just because you have more paper (AKA money) doesn't mean you can suddenly summon more food out of thin air, labor has to be expended to obtain anything.

International debt means at some point labour from country X was used to build goods that were consumed by country Y, and country Y entered a contractual agreement to repay the favour some time in the future.

Country Y doesn't actually have to do this, of course. They could delay, or refuse to pay the debt back, but this will have diplomatic repercussions.

Yeah, this makes more sense. Was Yugoslavia flooded with western consumer goods then?

>No enemy bomber can reach the Ruhr
>If one reaches the Ruhr, my name is not Göring.
>You can call me Josip Broz

t. Chetnik / Ustasha

explain?

I think it was mostly oil, as they didn't get that sweet, subsidised Soviet gas. But I'm not an expert.

Tito was actually Goering, which would explain his funny accent.

so, did he touch on something that has any potential with socialized markets? I feel like you could make the comparison that copyleft free software is socialized free market, thoughts?

He actually said "you can call me meyer", but he and tito look incredibly similar.

Jeans, coke, that sort of stuff was.
People often went to Italy for shopping trips.
Also, there was an interesting black market where people from Yugoslavia would go to Eastern Block countries and sell a few pieces of western clothing.
Grandma bought some high quality Bohemian crystal stuff that way.

Is this a meme? Yugoslavia had just went through the Great Depression and WW2. Of course it is going to be more prosperous and the standard of living rises during the time of peace that follows after.

it sounds like inefficiency and mismanagement is was killed his legacy, had the books been great when he died people probably would have been more motivated to keep the union alive?

>Kept the Bosnians, Serbs, Croats, and all the other meme ethnicities from killing each other for 30 years
>Successfully remained independent of both the US and the USSR

Absolute Success

that's because it was the only actual conflict in europe in the second half of the 20th century