4 ms·

Off topic, but ha, this funny. "Tito" and "anti-authoritarian" in the same paragraph, just LOLz. The intro is a bit off, politically. On a less off-topic note,

by jd115 6y ago

Off topic, but ha, this funny. "Tito" and "anti-authoritarian" in the same paragraph, just LOLz. The intro is a bit off, politically. On a less off-topic note, checkout Bulgaria's wildly successful clone of the Apple II in 1979: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravetz_computers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravetz_computers

acqq 6y ago
The introduction in the article is historically accurate, compared to the countries behind the so called “iron curtain” that land was indeed different. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain “Soviet-installed governments ruled the Eastern Bloc countries, with the exception of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which retained its independence and changed its orientation away from the Soviet Union in the late 1940s to a progressively independent worldview.” From the article: “Along with Egypt, Ghana, India, and Indonesia, the country founded the “non-aligned movement,” a patchwork of developing nations aspiring to chart a decolonial “third option” of formal neutrality during the Cold War. This constituted one of the few genuine anti-authoritarian, anti-imperial international alliances of the twentieth century.” That doesn’t mean that the leader wasn’t treated as the “unique and only.”
- disabled 6y ago
  Correct. Croatian-American here who has family that emigrated from former Yugoslavia. While Yugoslavia was east of the iron curtain, it was never actually behind the iron curtain. It was never an eastern soviet bloc state, and it was never a part of the USSR. This whole page deserves a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominform#Expulsion_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominform#Expulsion_of_Yugosla... There were inherent flaws in the soviet system from the beginning, that would ultimately be Achilles heels. For example, the Yugoslavian passport allowed you to effectively travel freely (without visas, usually) back and forth on both sides of the iron curtain. Also, while Americans refer to Yugoslavia's government system as communism, it was technically socialism. Yes, it was effectively a form of communism, and Tito was recognized as "benevolent dictator", but there were differences compared to the soviet bloc states. I am not excusing the horrors and the suffering that went on in Yugoslavia or the soviet bloc states either. It should be noted that the US would give funds to Yugoslavia to stir up conflict east of the iron curtain. The Yugoslavian system was no more economically successful than the soviet bloc states. It was inherently flawed. There are also wild stories that come out of the Balkans too: After Tito refused to align with the soviet bloc, Stalin ultimately tried to assassinate Tito 22 times (that we know of). Tito sends Stalin a letter and tells him to stop sending people to Yugoslavia to assassinate him. Because if Stalin does it again, Tito will personally send an assassin to Moscow to kill him (Stalin), and it will only take 1 try.
  - acqq 6y ago
    > east of the iron curtain I only don't understand why "east of the iron curtain" when the country is on the west of the countries behind the iron curtain, as per Wikipedia link I've given?
- hh3k0 6y ago
  > The introduction in the article is historically accurate, It is not. > compared to the countries behind the so called “iron curtain” that land was indeed different. Different, yes. Anti-authorian? A dictatorship? No.
  - qpiox 6y ago
    You should look at this from the point of view of a simple citizen. The old government (king and families) capitulated and some fled. So the country was left on the mercy of the fascists. The people self-organized and self-liberated their country. Those who were the true leaders of this fight, got to lead the newly freed country in 1945. This is why people trusted all these leaders until they died. Tito was one of them but you have to have in mind it was a federation of several independent countries and each had their own local leadership, close to the people. Unfortunately many of those who succeeded this initial leaders, and this occured during late 80ies and 90ies, in the end become too corrupt. As for the socialism? All factories were owned by the people. All companies were owned by the people. Try to imagine that all workers in Google jointly owned Google and all major decisions (such as a new CEO, new politics, acquisitions etc) must be agreed upon by all workers (with a vote). So, when someone preached that capitalism was better and more productive, he was essentially preaching to the workers that they should give away their own company to a single person that would benefit from their effort, or that their own company is stolen from them in the interest of a single person (or a handful of persons). This system had many flaws and was not sufficently eficient to gain enough to support itself, but people were free. Had guaranteed jobs. Had guaranteed appartments when they formed their own families. Had guaranteed health care. Had guaranteed right of opinion (until they preached stealing other's property).
    - deagle50 6y ago
      This, until you needed $1m Dinar for an ice cream cone...
    - bitwize 6y ago
      Yes, it was a system that benefited the ordinary citizens, and all the people loved it. All decent people, anyway. If someone came up to criticize it, obviously they were a criminal, and the benevolent Tito, in his love and mercy, would have them locked away so as to prevent them from further damaging glorious Yugoslavian society and harming the people with their corruptive influence, and rehabilitate them into a better person. It was all for their own benefit, you see. Communism always ends up the same way -- Soviet ties or not.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > This constituted one of the few genuine anti-authoritarian, anti-imperial international alliances of the twentieth century It...didn't, though. It wasn't anti-authoritarian at all. Not was the NAM much of an alliance. Nor, as a number of countries closely aligned with the superpowers joined, was it even particularly even a group of non-aligned countries.
qpiox 6y ago
In fact it really was anti-authoritarian. Just a simple comparison to western democraties. In a typical democracy the parties list candidates and you vote for them. Here candidates for representatives were proposed by interested members of the public on larger gatherings, by simple shouting someones name.

by jd115 6y ago

acqq 6y ago

The introduction in the article is historically accurate, compared to the countries behind the so called “iron curtain” that land was indeed different. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Curtain “Soviet-installed governments ruled the Eastern Bloc countries, with the exception of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which retained its independence and changed its orientation away from the Soviet Union in the late 1940s to a progressively independent worldview.” From the article: “Along with Egypt, Ghana, India, and Indonesia, the country founded the “non-aligned movement,” a patchwork of developing nations aspiring to chart a decolonial “third option” of formal neutrality during the Cold War. This constituted one of the few genuine anti-authoritarian, anti-imperial international alliances of the twentieth century.” That doesn’t mean that the leader wasn’t treated as the “unique and only.”

disabled 6y ago
Correct. Croatian-American here who has family that emigrated from former Yugoslavia. While Yugoslavia was east of the iron curtain, it was never actually behind the iron curtain. It was never an eastern soviet bloc state, and it was never a part of the USSR. This whole page deserves a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominform#Expulsion_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cominform#Expulsion_of_Yugosla... There were inherent flaws in the soviet system from the beginning, that would ultimately be Achilles heels. For example, the Yugoslavian passport allowed you to effectively travel freely (without visas, usually) back and forth on both sides of the iron curtain. Also, while Americans refer to Yugoslavia's government system as communism, it was technically socialism. Yes, it was effectively a form of communism, and Tito was recognized as "benevolent dictator", but there were differences compared to the soviet bloc states. I am not excusing the horrors and the suffering that went on in Yugoslavia or the soviet bloc states either. It should be noted that the US would give funds to Yugoslavia to stir up conflict east of the iron curtain. The Yugoslavian system was no more economically successful than the soviet bloc states. It was inherently flawed. There are also wild stories that come out of the Balkans too: After Tito refused to align with the soviet bloc, Stalin ultimately tried to assassinate Tito 22 times (that we know of). Tito sends Stalin a letter and tells him to stop sending people to Yugoslavia to assassinate him. Because if Stalin does it again, Tito will personally send an assassin to Moscow to kill him (Stalin), and it will only take 1 try.
- acqq 6y ago
  > east of the iron curtain I only don't understand why "east of the iron curtain" when the country is on the west of the countries behind the iron curtain, as per Wikipedia link I've given?
hh3k0 6y ago
> The introduction in the article is historically accurate, It is not. > compared to the countries behind the so called “iron curtain” that land was indeed different. Different, yes. Anti-authorian? A dictatorship? No.
- qpiox 6y ago
  You should look at this from the point of view of a simple citizen. The old government (king and families) capitulated and some fled. So the country was left on the mercy of the fascists. The people self-organized and self-liberated their country. Those who were the true leaders of this fight, got to lead the newly freed country in 1945. This is why people trusted all these leaders until they died. Tito was one of them but you have to have in mind it was a federation of several independent countries and each had their own local leadership, close to the people. Unfortunately many of those who succeeded this initial leaders, and this occured during late 80ies and 90ies, in the end become too corrupt. As for the socialism? All factories were owned by the people. All companies were owned by the people. Try to imagine that all workers in Google jointly owned Google and all major decisions (such as a new CEO, new politics, acquisitions etc) must be agreed upon by all workers (with a vote). So, when someone preached that capitalism was better and more productive, he was essentially preaching to the workers that they should give away their own company to a single person that would benefit from their effort, or that their own company is stolen from them in the interest of a single person (or a handful of persons). This system had many flaws and was not sufficently eficient to gain enough to support itself, but people were free. Had guaranteed jobs. Had guaranteed appartments when they formed their own families. Had guaranteed health care. Had guaranteed right of opinion (until they preached stealing other's property).
  - deagle50 6y ago
    This, until you needed $1m Dinar for an ice cream cone...
  - bitwize 6y ago
    Yes, it was a system that benefited the ordinary citizens, and all the people loved it. All decent people, anyway. If someone came up to criticize it, obviously they were a criminal, and the benevolent Tito, in his love and mercy, would have them locked away so as to prevent them from further damaging glorious Yugoslavian society and harming the people with their corruptive influence, and rehabilitate them into a better person. It was all for their own benefit, you see. Communism always ends up the same way -- Soviet ties or not.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> This constituted one of the few genuine anti-authoritarian, anti-imperial international alliances of the twentieth century It...didn't, though. It wasn't anti-authoritarian at all. Not was the NAM much of an alliance. Nor, as a number of countries closely aligned with the superpowers joined, was it even particularly even a group of non-aligned countries.

qpiox 6y ago

In fact it really was anti-authoritarian. Just a simple comparison to western democraties. In a typical democracy the parties list candidates and you vote for them. Here candidates for representatives were proposed by interested members of the public on larger gatherings, by simple shouting someones name.