Tito's Yugoslavia - a look back...

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

Yes - the ultimate power of the government rested in Tito's hands - our own monarchs are nothing but tomorrow's chip wrappings.

Tito (with some concessions to the, also unelected, Communist Party) ruled the country. Whilst pretty much all democracies leave much to be desired, I think the discussion on quality of life starts somewhere after the point of democracy.

I don't know, a benevolent oligarchy could ensure that people have a good quality of life. The trouble is people aren't altruistic enough for a benevolent oligarchy to last for long even if one could truly exist at all.

 

[scaramanga]

I don't know, a benevolent oligarchy could ensure that people have a good quality of life. The trouble is people aren't altruistic enough for a benevolent oligarchy to last for long even if one could truly exist at all.

I know this is veering more towards philosophy than practicality, but without the freedom to choose, what quality of life is there?

For me, none.

 

[Crab.C.Nesbitt]

I know this is veering more towards philosophy than practicality, but without the freedom to choose, what quality of life is there?

For me, none.

It depends. I'm not sure that freedom of choice is necessary to having a good quality of life.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Yugoslavia was able to run an independent line and also stay out of the Warsaw Pact, due to their lack of reliance on the Red Army for liberation after WW II. Tito's partisans saw to that.

 

[vkn17]

It was under the control of a dictator and the Communist Party - is there anything else we need to know?

yep, that people lived 100 times better then than they do now in their respective countries. A dictator? Depends on who you ask or what you read mate.
FYI I was born in former Yug

 

[glorygloryeze]

yep, that people lived 100 times better then than they do now in their respective countries. A dictator? Depends on who you ask or what you read mate.
FYI I was born in former Yug

Thanks for posting in this thread. I'd love to hear more about what daily life was like in Tito's Yugoslavia from your point of view..

 

[r-u-s-x]

I'd also be interested, but the question of quality of life really stops at the point where someone declares themselves "President for life"

Democratic Iraq / libia or one under a dictator. For the majority where is the better quality of life?

 

[braineclipse]

I don't know, a benevolent oligarchy could ensure that people have a good quality of life. The trouble is people aren't altruistic enough for a benevolent oligarchy to last for long even if one could truly exist at all.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Can you point me to an example in history where a benevolent oligarchy has been stable form of government over some time?

Democratic Iraq / libia or one under a dictator. For the majority where is the better quality of life?

This is a very interesting question, at least on Iraq. But life under Saddam was not a good place to be. To put it very quickly the people we now hate at ISIS were working as officials in his Iraq... You think they were sane stable people running a fair country?

How do you think life was for anyone in or close to Iraq's army during the war with Iran that he started?

A whole host of the problems currently seen in Iraq can be traced back to Saddam. Unsurprisingly a sadistic dictator will cause problems that are difficult to solve and that cause immense human suffering.

 

[r-u-s-x]

My in laws are from Iraq and the place was a lot better for them. The majority of people were better off "pre" topple - same with Gadhafi at least you had a working state, day to day you were safer etc. Yes they were not very nice people and yes they did horrible things with no reason and discriminated regions / peoples but at least it wasn't a failed state / war zone.

I am not arguing for Saddam, just pointing out that "quality of life begins with democracy" is not valid.

 

[vkn17]

Thanks for posting in this thread. I'd love to hear more about what daily life was like in Tito's Yugoslavia from your point of view..

It was pretty damn great to live in a country ruled by a dictator who organised the most effective anti Nazi resistance in Europe and brought stability to a region with a long history of ethnic conflict. Yugoslavia made huge steps forward under Tito in terms of infrastructure and industrialization. Huge amount of natural resources, beautiful mountains, a coastline and 4th strongest army in Europe.

Although I was just a child when Yugoslavia split up (11 years old) I have great memories from it and same goes for my older family members. We had everything and more. A brand new apartment, car, country house in Bosnia and a summer house in Croatia. It wasn't fancy or anything but we were happy. Everyone got along. I cant remember anyone ever talking about religion, nationalities etc. You could travel whenever or wherever you wanted to - the Yugoslav passport gave you the ability to work abroad and travel freely to most countries. Now I can get killed in my hometown because I have a Serbian name.

Of course the country and the system had its shortfalls - main problem was trying to balance the interests from republics such as Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia etc which obviously failed once Tito died. It's pretty interesting that there were something like 200 delegations from 127 countries present at his funeral.

All in all, I would trade it back in a second if I could.

 

[glorygloryeze]

It was pretty damn great to live in a country ruled by a dictator who organised the most effective anti Nazi resistance in Europe and brought stability to a region with a long history of ethnic conflict. Yugoslavia made huge steps forward under Tito in terms of infrastructure and industrialization. Huge amount of natural resources, beautiful mountains, a coastline and 4th strongest army in Europe.

Although I was just a child when Yugoslavia split up (11 years old) I have great memories from it and same goes for my older family members. We had everything and more. A brand new apartment, car, country house in Bosnia and a summer house in Croatia. It wasn't fancy or anything but we were happy. Everyone got along. I cant remember anyone ever talking about religion, nationalities etc. You could travel whenever or wherever you wanted to - the Yugoslav passport gave you the ability to work abroad and travel freely to most countries. Now I can get killed in my hometown because I have a Serbian name.

Of course the country and the system had its shortfalls - main problem was trying to balance the interests from republics such as Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia etc which obviously failed once Tito died. It's pretty interesting that there were something like 200 delegations from 127 countries present at his funeral.

All in all, I would trade it back in a second if I could.

Thanks for posting. Interesting.

In your opinion, what was it about Tito (apart from being a Dictator) that enabled there to be balance regarding the interests of the different Republics as you say?
Was it just a case that there was dissent because of differing interests and this was simply crushed?

 

[vkn17]

No problem, I always get nostalgic and emotional when I think/talk about it.

Well, during WW2 he was doing it by Nazi resistance, uniting all ethnicities in the region and post WW2 it was trough communism. He was very well respected by majority of the people as well as world leaders. When he died everything slowly started to crumble and there was no natural successor.

 

[elltrev]

I know this is veering more towards philosophy than practicality, but without the freedom to choose, what quality of life is there?

For me, none.

That's quite surprising / amazing to me that you can feel so definitively that democracy comes before quality of life. Though maybe it depends on how we're defining quality of life. How are you defining it?

 

[scaramanga]

That's quite surprising / amazing to me that you can feel so definitively that democracy comes before quality of life. Though maybe it depends on how we're defining quality of life. How are you defining it?

I'd rather be a penniless free man than a rich man without freedom.

 

[glasgowspur]

Thanks vkn, fascinating stuff.

 

[vkn17]

Thanks vkn, fascinating stuff.

Cheers mate.

There is a saying now post 92 war that goes : "before the war you couldn't say everything but you could sleep everywhere (as in being safe) Now you can say anything but can't sleep anywhere"

25 years later there is more hate in the region than ever, unemployment in Bosnia is something like close to 40% and corruption is only growing. Other ex Yug countries are not far off either.

I know what I'd prefer.

 

[the dza]

This is an interesting thread, and a subject I know nothing about. Cool to hear from those with some first hand experiences too.

 

[braineclipse]

My in laws are from Iraq and the place was a lot better for them. The majority of people were better off "pre" topple - same with Gadhafi at least you had a working state, day to day you were safer etc. Yes they were not very nice people and yes they did horrible things with no reason and discriminated regions / peoples but at least it wasn't a failed state / war zone.

I am not arguing for Saddam, just pointing out that "quality of life begins with democracy" is not valid.

If Iraq wasn't already a failed state it was well on it's way to becoming one. Oil production was probably the only reason it wasn't already a failed state.

Remember too this was the Iraw where no-fly zones were being enforced from outside to stop Saddam bombing/attacking ethnic minorities within his own borders... So safe for who exactly?

It was pretty damn great to live in a country ruled by a dictator who organised the most effective anti Nazi resistance in Europe and brought stability to a region with a long history of ethnic conflict. Yugoslavia made huge steps forward under Tito in terms of infrastructure and industrialization. Huge amount of natural resources, beautiful mountains, a coastline and 4th strongest army in Europe.

Although I was just a child when Yugoslavia split up (11 years old) I have great memories from it and same goes for my older family members. We had everything and more. A brand new apartment, car, country house in Bosnia and a summer house in Croatia. It wasn't fancy or anything but we were happy. Everyone got along. I cant remember anyone ever talking about religion, nationalities etc. You could travel whenever or wherever you wanted to - the Yugoslav passport gave you the ability to work abroad and travel freely to most countries. Now I can get killed in my hometown because I have a Serbian name.

Of course the country and the system had its shortfalls - main problem was trying to balance the interests from republics such as Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia etc which obviously failed once Tito died. It's pretty interesting that there were something like 200 delegations from 127 countries present at his funeral.

All in all, I would trade it back in a second if I could.

Cheers. Always great to get first hand information, though this is different from the impression I've gotten from others.

No problem, I always get nostalgic and emotional when I think/talk about it.

Well, during WW2 he was doing it by Nazi resistance, uniting all ethnicities in the region and post WW2 it was trough communism. He was very well respected by majority of the people as well as world leaders. When he died everything slowly started to crumble and there was no natural successor.

This to me is part of the key. Assuming you accept the use of "dictator" here, even if you get someone truly benevolent (I don't think Tito was) what will happen when he passes and someone else comes in to take over? History of the Roman empire provides a host of examples. What stability is there is almost certainly going to be (relatively) short lived.

Though other problems may arise and a "transition period" (euphemistic I know) is likely going to be painful, at least with a democratic national state you have the chance of stability over time.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I'd rather be a penniless free man than a rich man without freedom.

Gee Scara, you do post some flimflam on this site. Freedom only comes through agency (money.) The only freedoms the poor have are to be hungry, homeless and powerless. I will set Down and Out in Paris and London as your reading home work.

 

[scaramanga]

Gee Scara, you do post some hogwash on this site. Freedom only comes through agency (money.) The only freedoms the poor have are to be hungry, homeless and powerless.

What emotive tosh.

The poor in this country have the freedom to become just about anything they want. I did, many of those who work for me have or are doing.

Power comes through money. Freedom is the default state in a democracy. The poor don't just have the freedom to vote for whomever they wish, they can start their own party and shape things precisely the way they want.

I will set Down and Out in Paris and London as your reading home work.

TL: DR - 20 word summary?