What is SP opninion on Josip Broz Tito?

What is SP's opninion on Josip Broz Tito, his market socialism and his relationship with the USSR?

I am not SP, but I don't get the impression it was implemented all that well.

TriniSary wrote:I am not SP,

SP is for Socialist Phalanx.
After this post I'm going to edit my last one.

The most crucial thing to bear in mind about socialist Yugoslavia is that it wasn't the abject failure many of its conservative and state socialist critics accuse(d) it of being. On the contrary, between 1952 and 1960 the nation had achieved the highest rate of growth internationally; and from 1960 to 1980 it still ranked third in terms of growth per capita among low- and middle-income countries. The Yugoslav experiment conclusively proved that a backwards country could rapidly develop its forces of production in a participatory manner, given a tolerable geopolitical climate.

There are several reasons why Yugoslavia ultimately imploded, none of which had to do with the practice of workers' self-management per se. First of all, bureaucratic interference within enterprises produced several inefficiencies. For example, in addition to the state routinely overturning decisions made by workers' councils, a law was enacted which made the dismissal of employees a rather cumbersome process and that surely had a negative effect on national productivity in the long run. Secondly, as was the case for many developing countries, Yugoslavia entered into ill-advised agreements with the IMF, the outcome of which was a bill of debt the country could never repay. And finally, the inability of the government to solve the ethnic tensions which existed within the borders of the country (partially exacerbated by uneven regional development) culminated in a disastrous civil war.

As for market socialism, I find it objectionable on a number of levels but nevertheless consider it an unavoidable successor to capitalism during the transition to communism. The law of value, pernicious as it is, cannot be dispensed with until the working class has attained proficiency in the practice of self-management and an alternative method of coordinating production internationally has been experimented with.

With respect to your last question, Tito's break with the Eastern bloc is very a contentious subject among Marxist historians, and I must confess to not possessing a great deal of interest in the matter. There were no easy choices before Yugoslavia in 1948. Remaining within the Soviet sphere of influence meant surrendering a considerable amount of sovereignty, while trading with the West subjected the country to bourgeois sabotage and the vicissitudes of the global capitalist market. Either way, Yugoslav socialism was doomed to the same fate, i.e., capitalist restoration.

I'm not opposed to coopertivism etc, I'd appreciate any sources you might have already researched.

TriniSary wrote:I'm not opposed to coopertivism etc, I'd appreciate any sources you might have already researched.

We have a great deal of information pertaining to the history, theory, and practice of the worker cooperative movement located here.