On a scale of 1 to based. How based was this dude?

Fun fact, he made a secret pact with NATO to have Fascists build underground bases in Croatia.

No really, look it up.

Attached: 56000764-E157-458B-965D-E557F116E27F.jpeg (800x450, 31.65K)

Wrong.

Excellent argument.

He was a good commander but I don't know anything beyond that. Any good reading on Tito/Yugoslavia?

False.
The non aligned movements sole mission statement was guaranteeing the independence of states that were neither NATO / WP Allies
Neither of these men "betrayed" Marxism

This does admittedly sound very cool in terms of trying to check Soviet proto-imperialist tendancies. But "non-aligned" does seem like a shitty excuse for not supporting the only existing form of socialism against the western aggression that was constantly trying to and eventually succeeded horrifically at toppling it. It seems like they could have criticized certain aspects of the USSR and their bloc without some mock "centrist" position that sounds like it ended up tacitly supporting US imperialism. I know very little about the situation I'm mostly basing my understanding off of what others are saying here so anyone feel free to correct me.

Why would you not support the WP?

Some Marxists such as Tito Mao and Hoxha began to view the WP (And the USSR's leading role in it) as 'Social-Imperialism' and 'The Soviet empire' and believed that the USSR dominated the other WP states in ways similar to imperial vassals

Thus why Mao ruled out joining CMEA / WP
Why Hoxha declared Albanian neutrality after 1968
And why Tito along with India founded a seperate power bloc (NAM)

Except it was the Soviets who expelled the Yugoslavs from the Comminform for not towing the line on Greece, it wasn’t Tito who initiated the split. Stalin made an agreement with Churchill that gave the British a free hand in Greece, and they immediately proceeded to set up a government headed by Nazi collaborators and brutally crush the KKE. Stalin refused to help them, and when Tito kept smuggling them weapons and openly criticized Stalin for abandoning them, Yugoslavia was expelled.
While I understand the logic of this argument, it seems to me like it’s inevitable conclusion is that during the Cold War every communist should have just acted as a lackey for the Soviet state regardless of how it conflicted with the interests of workers or socialism in their own countries, or the principles of socialism in general. It reduces the entirety of the worker’s movements to agents of Soviet geopolitical interests.

Attached: 745.png (318x398, 197.36K)

???
Tito and the Party which he ended up guiding for almost four decades (The league of communists of Yugoslavia) never abandoned Marxism as its guiding ideology and continued to develop a socialist economy

Damn that does look really fucking bad for the USSR, what was Stalin or his govs excuse for this?

Well if I’m going to be fair to Stalin, the deal also included a British promise not to undermine communism elsewhere in the Balkans. It was pure realpolitik on Stalin’s part, and could be defended from that perspective. However it also shows that far from being motivated by any kind of reactionary tendency, the Tito-Stalin split was caused by Tito’s refusal to reject the betrayal of the Greek revolution. Of course that didn’t stop the Soviets and their modern day brain dead followers from trying to paint Tito as some kind of reactionary for refusing to abandon the Greeks.

user, did you - by any chance - learn about Marxism from youtube?

Attached: wtf.jpeg (2000x1499, 258.6K)

No?
What is there wrong with that statement? It is factually correct in literally every way
The LCY established a Socialist economy and a Dictatorship of the Proletariate within the framework of Marxism-Leninism

From Djilas' 'Conversations with Stalin' recalling the meeting between Stalin, Molotov and co. with the Yugoslav and Bulgarian delegations.

Whose side are you on, fuckers? But go argue how fucking Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were Real Communists(tm) who established Communist Paradise(R). For fucks sake.

And it died with Tito, Yugoslavia literally died with Tito, how can you say it was the "best" socialist country to ever exist when it didn't outlive it's leader?

You just invented that criteria. Why should that even be a valid metric to measure 'success'?

And people will argue that when Stalin died an era of anti-Stalinism and revisionism was ushered. The Soviet Union, according to many people here, didn't outlive its leader, either.

Lie harder.

Honestly I feel like Stalin was in the right here.

Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the DDR and the USSR all had a higher HDI than Yugoslavia in 1990.

Wage labour did exist but that does not disqualify Yugoslavia from having a Socialist economy / state in place

Does that mean you feel the same way about Spain then?

Attached: 2d39f4e25b874c3a02ad5d00b8ad7c264e1b4b0f593e73666f9d90288026dda6.jpg (264x264, 13.15K)

But dude it had markets therefore it must be bad!!!!

GOTTA SOURCE ON THAT BUCKO?
Becuase that sounds like some latter-day SerbNat bullshit who cry about Tito was a Croat fascist that obressed the boor Srbski.

TITO GANG IS HERE

Attached: 19adee524f6b2f2d9925115a4ff9139e8a964795a638386d77c458bfcfc48d83.jpg (1024x729 46.51 KB, 141.04K)

Attached: 1558c2d09a8c124349295de0e0291e6d24536dc93d26a9d7272552749a53c4fc.jpg (600x435 100.54 KB, 43.33K)

Attached: a881c769e8e3acebb387b0ed54e5ad0c58b9c14883c8706afa26eaf0cc8401b0.jpg (537x483 41.94 KB, 77.85K)

Attached: d4a21bab9f929860b0fc1d3a0a9732d9a0f1378615cb25771fe1abe999e507f3.jpg (1602x1200 59.63 KB, 412.8K)

Attached: dbab6cd1ecff81d92c356f846bfe6da559a12a33c6128cc4fe8704904f70240f.jpg (1024x725 194.54 KB, 311.32K)

Attached: Rare butt-naked tito.jpg (620x419 52.37 KB, 38.57K)

That's a funny way of saying "wanted to annex Albania."

Now you're just plain lying, user. How about you just read the damn Resolution: sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1948cominform-yugo1.asp
Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Yugo history can attest to the truth in that document regarding the prevalence of nationalist sentiments embraced by the party. The casual chauvinism with which Yugoslavs regarded the Eastern Bloc isn't something you'll see mentioned in these 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧market socialism🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 circlejerks. Read Hoxha.

But Stalin and the Soviet position was in support of a Yugoslav-Bulgarian-Albanian federation? as was Hoxha at the time

Reminder the BCP wanted to dissolve their own country so much that after they couldn't join Yugoslavia (due to the Tito-Stalin split), they applied to join the USSR THREE FUCKING TIMES.

Damn. I never had figured Stalin for such a coward

Stalin was good buddies with Churchill so signed the naughty document: which gave Stalin eastern europe in exchange for Britain having strong ties with Yugoslavia and Greece. While the influence in Yugoslavia never materialised beyond a diplomatic level they basically ran Greece for a decade and a bit. Then Cyprus happened…

Have you ever paid attention to any of Soviet foreign policy? Or the Comintern policies? Or the Comintern itself being dissolved entirely to appease porky?
I wouldn't exactly call it 'cowardice' per se, but there was a very strong attitude against any revolutions or shake-ups that might disturb the geopolitical status quo or lead to a direct confrontation between the USSR and the capitalist powers. Be it greece, china, spain, france, poland or japan the orders from the Comintern for the local communist parties were always to not take power whenever an opportunity to try presented itself.
Stalin's policy was always to consolidate an strengthen the USSR as an unassailable bastion of socialism at all costs. If there was a 'long-term plan' there at all it was to wait capitalism out, make a better society that was safe from imperialism within the iron curtain and hope it would survive its isolation for longer than capitalism could survive itself.
Alas they didn't make it by some 20/30 years.
i do think that if only they'd made it just that bit longer the plan could've worked and capitalism would've died by now with the USSR modern and ready to pick up the pieces and bring about communism

Indeed they were. However, Tito's position was not a federation of equals, but just adding Bulgaria and Albania as Yugo republics to be ruled from Belgrade. Once Hoxha realised that, he backed the fuck out. In fact, the whole shitfest of a centralised-but-not-really federation Yugo had going on was the absolute worst way to go about preserving a state divided by ethnic lines.

Seems to me the Soviets were more than okay with the Yugoslav proposal though, at least that's the conclusion that was arrived at during their negotiations.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (871x984 222.46 KB, 321.53K)

I cant say I know much about the situation but the multiple genocides that came with balkanization seem to support that there was something fundamentally wrong with their way of organizing a multiethnic state. Of course some revival of nationalism, even extreme nationalism, is expected when reactionary forces take over but balkanization was such a bloody clusterfuck it doesnt seem possible that the Yugoslav ethnic policies didnt have some kind of contribution there.

Personally, I consider any testimony by Đilas to be on the same level as Hoxha, ie. questionable unless confirmed by other sources. At the time he wrote Conversations With Stalin, he had every reason to slander pretty much any communist he had come in touch with beforehand.
Also, if I recall correctly, an interpretation of that passage by Ivo Banac in his book about the split is that Stalin was trying to manipulate the Yugoslav leadership into openly announcing their chauvinist-nationalist intentions in order to denounce them with the full support of other communist parties. Seems legit to me.

As far as I understand Tito had decent domestic policy, but poor foreign, including friendship with west and hostility with socialist east,

One simple fact: unequal development.

To paraphrase Srećko Horvat: at the beginning of Yugoslavia the wealth gap (infrastructure, production capability, etc.) between Kosovo and Slovenia was 1:3; at the end of Yugoslavia it was 1:8.

This is what the market does. This is what Marx meant by anarchy in production and distribution. If I were a 21st century market "socialist" my number one priority would be to tackle this fact and come up with ways to counter this tendency of the market as best as I could, preparing for the inevitable.

If you think that 70+ years of a market regime is normal for a communist-oriented country, you are mistaken, deluded even. At best the market can be a transitionary phase for a socialist country.

One more thing: the resulting ethnic tensions and the inevitable breakup – under a Marxist lens, at least – can not but be explained but by said uneven development: the federated ethnicities/cultures reacted to economic realities, and expressed them through chauvinism.

Every attempted explanation that tries to put it in terms of one or the other people's (/leader's) fault is completely unmarxist in its method.

Deal with it.

See also: second part of this book (from p.55 onward).

Please don't put Dilas and Hoxha on the same level.

Dilas was your typical opportunist back in his youth, starting as a self-proclaimed Stalinist. After falling out with the party he suddenly realizes that "nomenclature:bad" and writes his theory about the "New class," wherein he introduces the term "red bourgeoisie:" a supposed new class that dresses itself in red clothing – a position completely in opposition to the Marxist method (for one, the nomenclature did not own the means of production).

His critique of the bureaucracy, etc. is the usual run-of-the-mill contrarianism. This is not to say that there was no problem with the bureaucracy – for from it –, but that his rejection of the bureaucracy in a modern, industrial, and urbanized society was misguided. We simply need it, but we need better, more accountable versions of it.

far from it

Thanks for the book comrade.

Thank me after you've read it.

That’s not what the split was about.

Zig Forums is now a Tito board.

Attached: a0371d97adce6e9f4779ee5eb7a303d50ce44027.jpeg (640x640 40.32 KB, 82.93K)

Attached: e38cfac4663c377cd60a1c3372468c7ad0a54640.png (1197x873 29.43 KB, 572.73K)

On a general level, you're absolutely right. Đilas was an absolute opportunist brainlet when compared to Hoxha who was actually a Marxist.
However, I do remain somewhat skeptical regarding Hoxha's memoirs, mostly due to the fact he was never willing to engage in self-criticism. The most glaring is the way he described his relationship with the Chinese right before the Sino-Soviet split. Because those memoirs were written after Albania's split with the Chinese, he tried to paint this picture of having been suspicious of them from the very start, rather unconvincingly imo.

Attached: E5D58088-FCC1-45F2-8163-C6725C975587.jpeg (565x354, 17.47K)

While his theories about social imperialism are pretty shit, his book on how the Yugo economy works is actually quite decent. If for nothing else then because of the numerous times he quotes Kardelj (whose works are incredibly difficult to find in English).

I strongly believe that if non-Yugo anons on leftypol could actually read the utter shit Kardelj wrote and passed on as Marxist economic theory, Titoposters would be laughed off the website for good.

I'm totally unversed in Albanian communist history. (Let's be honest here: it is somewhat arcane historically…) What you are talking about seems entirely possible to me. (I'd rather us restrict ourselves to the topic at hand, hence:)
More on Dilas:
I know that it is somewhat of a fallacious kind of argumentation, but here it goes. To look at the 'essence' of any kind of leftist theory, just look at its later followers.

I'm from the region of post-socialist Eastern-Europe, and it is typically anarchists and leftcoms who take Dilas as sacrosanct. Their typical thinking is: "really existing socialism was shit, therefore Dilas' analysis was correct. Down with the red bourgeoisie!"

Needless to say, these pseudo-comrades substitute actual Marxist analysis for a 'proper Name' (not accidentally praised at the time by the West). For them this person's account, which 'proves' their own biases and superficial analysis, is 'objective.'

One example would be G.M. Tamás, from Hungary.

Attached: 3ada0e0233ed658c106565871c9db5b73895bb49cf63190030da05930356e1e7.png (572x380, 355.7K)

Not worth paying attention to

Makes one THUNK

Attached: 1-35-29.png (320x291, 85.2K)

wonder why

Attached: Screenshot_82.jpg (600x600, 31.85K)

I wouldn’t disagree, I don’t think it’s really up for debate that market socialism isn’t socialism, although I’d argue that it’s not capitalism either. What irks me about people attacking Tito is when they try to claim that neutrality is equivalent to being pro-Western, or deny that the USSR had a highly chauvinistic attitude to its allies in Europe which contributed to the split. As far as Yugoslavia’s ambitions in Albania are concerned, as abhorrent as they may have been, they don’t mean that the Soviet attitude to Yugoslavia wasn’t itself paternalistic and un-socialist. I think Mao actually made a point to this effect at the time, arguing that Yugoslavia was both the victim and perpetrator of national chauvinism, from the USSR and towards Albania respectively.

Attached: 5b59f84a6197d5606a465bd238b2b1586d561945214f69a70a0b9228b06af96e.png (403x450, 11.86K)

Tbh, I had no idea Đilas still had clout with left circles today. In Yugo, he's the dissident darling of liberals and other "intellectual anti-communists," but not much else.

I like this take, haven't heard it before.
I might be wrong, but I actually think a degree of paternalism from the USSR was warranted (or at the very least, excusable) after WWII. The Party of October was sure to have a better grasp of how to run a socialist state than parties with zero experience in statecraft.

Yugoslavia in particular would have benefited from looking up to the USSR more. There's a reason why there were distinct Communist Party branches for Ukraine and Belarus, while Russia didn't have one of its own. Yugo should have adopted the same model, and not have allowed Serbia to have a distinct branch. Doing so would have allowed for more stable governance without constant accusations of Serb hegemony that slowly set the stage for the whole thing to fall apart. Instead, you ended up with everyone else being afraid of Serb hegemony, while the Serbs were afraid everyone else wanted to carve them up. Recipe for disaster.

It's pretty much the same everywhere in post-socialist Eastern-Europe, sadly. The groups are threefold:

The intellectual I alluded to, for instance, believes himself to be an ancom, while daily supporting socdems, idpol, etc., even going as far as participating in funding "Marxist" parties every four years or so. Total dismay.

As I said before (search: uneven development) this is not a proper Marxist take. You are literally moving the goalpost from economic analysis to a supranational, political one. Stop it.

Unequal development does not necessarily result in civil war and genocide. To detach the economic from the political is anything but Marxist. A better political structure would have made it harder for party structures to be co-opted by chauvinist wreckers, for one. Not saying that it would have saved Yugoslavia, just that it might have averted years of needless bloodshed.

No.

If the USSR didn’t want it’s allies in Eastern Europe to tell them to fuck off then they shouldn’t have treated them the way they did.

the ussr reverted to capitalism also. Self management allows better planned production in the long term because you have better feedback between planners workers and consumers

the only thing so far I can find on it is some "yugoslavia can into space" documentary "exposing" Tito selling Soviet space program material to the US.
balkaninsight.com/2012/01/11/hidden-yugoslav-technology-put-america-in-space/

Good ole Joe never annexed nuffin tho

So what China has done

It is quite obviously wrong. Marxism is about abolition of market exchange, while Tito argued that market exchange is okay.

Soviet Union did not expand as a nation, but as a driving force of Revolution. Such a thing cannot be said about SFRY.

The refutation here is that "social imperialism" is a bullshit concept.

That's a mockumentary about as serious as the one about the mermaids a few years back

my sides are in orbit

No problem, friend. May I direct you to:

May your eye-sight and reading comprehension grow better by the day!

Attached: 97-44.png (248x250, 76.12K)

Iirc that's a comedy film…

t. Engels

People on the left should finally read fucking post modernists like baudrillard an Foucault for their analysis of the postmodern society and its power dynamics since, and it hurts me that I even have to say it, a revolution like 1918 will never ever happen in a first world country again which these retarded ☭TANKIE☭ larp about 24/7
I mean at least read society of the spectacle since it pretty much did that, not much in detail but from a marxistic perspective

Attached: a44b0bafe282beb427b9d64732bd14416489e3d39ff7927a5a96eb134976956b.jpeg (1200x773, 112.59K)

Sry I somehow managed to post this in the wrong thread it was meant for the "what fields should leftists learn about" one

t. sanctimonious mouthbreather espousing the virtues of vulgar economism.

nothing spells sanctimonious like use of the word 'sanctimonious'

That was in response to the last part in black, biding it’s time, developing capital until it wins at capital

Then you clearly didn't understand what it meant.
China isn't just 'developing capital' and that you consider a notion like 'winning at capital' to be anything other than contradictory betrays your and other dengist shills' deeply unmarxist attitude

< we should not provide help to revolutions in other nations because of some quote
Well, Engels lucked out. If he wasn't long dead, he'd have to do some explainations (assuming, of course, that you did not rip the quote out of context or somesuch).

Attached: wait what.jpg (401x399, 21.5K)

I’m not saying we shouldn’t help revolutions, I’m saying we shouldn’t go around imposing socialism on people who don’t want it. Often the working class is possessed by reactionary spooks, and are hostile to socialism despite being in its own interests. In situations like these attempting to force socialism on them accomplishes nothing.

We shouldn't? How many Capitalists want Socialism? I'm feeling we should shelve the whole idea, as we are not going to ever get any noticeable amout of Capitalists on board.

In fact, even Petit-Bourgeois don't give a fuck about socialism.

What is this "working class"? If one worker out of thousand is "possessed by reactionary spooks", does this mean that revolution should not happen?

If it doesn't, if it is permissible to force this worker into socialism, then you don't have an argument - you are only bargaining about specific share of "working class" that is permissible to subject to threats and violence.

None, but I’m talking about workers.
You have a pretty optimistic view there m8. The vast majority of workers in most countries unfortunately are hostile to socialism, I’m talking about situations like that. If you try to impose it on them then all you do is anger and alienate them, while being forced to do away with proletarian democracy since nobody actually supports you.

And you are ignoring my point.

wrong there even monument in belgrade that honor dead 1000 soviet troops that liberate belgrade
before war yugoslavia was under dictatorship because of growing tensions and murder in parlament when racic was murdered
or stalin dint have power like in poland
what??
yes by investing most of money in slovenia and croatia since muhhh yugoslavia is not big serbia which now serbia pay for those loans he took
he dint held he OWN yugoslavia and as soon he died soros and other jews wanted to give "freedom" to balkan by funding nationlist partys in every modern state

i will give it 2 since he was in prison in moscow for short time

Attached: 1544803313168.jpg (720x617, 114.19K)

tbh, you're the one ignoring his point as you're diverting what is really a question of pragmatism and how to most effectively spread revolution into a some search for a universal principle of justification for revolutionary action.
Its self-evident that a socialist government, any government, which does not have the support of at least a plurality of the population it governs is going to have to resort to widespread repressions in order to maintain control, these are not desirable and should be avoided. Sometimes we must realise that revolutionary conditions in one country coincide with a particularly reactionary mood in another and that an attempt to bring revolution from the outside to a region where the population opposes it will only consolidate reaction.
Sure with sufficient military might and state power it would be possible to subjugate the entire world to a single state even if not a single person wanted it, but realistically revolutionary forces will never have that sort of might, we always have been and almost certainly will be strained with limited means and to gamble on exporting the revolution to countries where a revolutionary mood does not dominate is foolish adventurism.

Attached: 0f3b8fa658e957dd05cd2b5150e1da2019e5bf6f06ffac2f39da840bcd89450c.png (633x758, 107.37K)