MIA > Archive > Draper > Titoism
From Labor Action, Vol. 14 No. 1, 2 January 1950, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive.
Will the totalitarian regime in Yugoslavia soften its dictatorship as a result of the break with Moscow and "democratize” itself?
Such is the hope held out (especially to themselves) by some of the new- fledged “pro-Titoists” we discussed last week. The tendency is naturally more plentiful among leftists in Europe than in this country, but it is around here too.
One thing is certain: any evidence pointing to such a happy event is not visible either to the naked eye or under a microscope. Perhaps the most concrete attempt to point to a tendency toward democratization which we have heard has been an attempt to make something of Djilas' statement repudiating any intention to form a "Fifth International." Djilas gave as his reason: the formation of a centralized international would be "undemocratic.”
A thin enough straw to grasp at! Djilas mouths the word democracy and it becomes a tendency toward democratization by the Titoists! Even apart from the fact that Stalinists habitually make a positive fetish of verbally justifying anything and everything they do in the name of democracy, the real case is that the formation of a Titoist international, even if it were possible, would be thoroughly distasteful to the totalitarian masters of Yugoslavia. It could not, for obvious reasons, be formed as a mere creature of Belgrade, as the Comintern in its day became (and the present Cominform is) a mere creature of Moscow; and the formation of any other international body with autonomy of its own, to which the Yugoslav CP would be. formally subordinated, would be even more undesirable to the Titoist bureaucrats. In any case, for all the stirrings in CP circles, there are. no Organizations today to be formed into a Titoist international.
But the hope is there, and other “evidence” will be forthcoming, no doubt. Franco recently staged a farcical “municipal election” to demonstrate to the West that Spain still has a ballot. No one took it seriously. If Tito makes as meaningless a gesture, we will hear more talk about the “democratization of Titoism.” If a Kostov had pulled his surprise repudiation of his confession in a Yugoslav court instead of at the Bulgarian trial, we would have heard profound deductions drawn on the significance of this unprecedented departure from the pattern of East European trials.
And it is far from excluded that Tito will be forced info concessions – not so much to democracy as to Western imperialism. The latter is especially interested in "religious freedom" since the church, particularly the Catholic Church, is a powerful lever for them. In a tight spot, it is certainly possible that Tito may trade a point – provided no vital concessions toward the restoration of capitalism are required. We have here a totalitarian dictator who, like Franco, is under a squeeze from the West and who, unlike Franco, has already been squeezed from the East.
Coupled with the discovery of democratic tendencies in the Yugoslav regime go time-honored rationalizations for its totalitarianism. The regime has to defend itself against Russian spies and diversionists – how can one expect it to “introduce democracy overnight”? It is beleaguered on all sides – the government must keep a tight rein, etc. These have all been heard before in extenuation of the Moscow tyranny itself – not, to be sure, by the new-fledged pro-Titoists but by Stalinoids of various types; indeed in the latter case it is also coupled with hopes of eventual democratization. The pattern is familiar.
Meanwhile the reality in Tito Yugoslavia remains: the ubiquitous secret police, which is indeed somewhat more efficient in Yugoslavia than in the other East European lands; the one-party system; complete terror against any and all opponents of the regime; leader-worship; labor camps (“voluntary,” naturally) ; and the rest of the apparatus. As the Cominform demagogically but truthfully pointed out, the Yugoslav CP did not even hold a congress until the break forced it to muster its forces. Whether the White Guard Russians on trial in Belgrade are guilty as charged or not, the trial procedure under which they faced the bar differed in not a whit from the totalitarian courts of “justice” of the Russian satrapies, etc.
Today, the Tito dictatorship has no need for many forms of spectacular display of brutal suppression which are to be seen in the Russian domain; it is true without doubt that Tito’s resistance to Moscow domination has forged a kind of national unity.
But the regime is anxious above all that this upsurge of real patriotism be channelized within totalitarian forms, and not be allowed to spill over into any self-movement of the masses. As we shall point out, Tito's resistance to Moscow has the potentiality of creating a Frankenstein monster, but the Frankenstein monster of democratic stirrings is a monster which is feared by Tito: and for him this very fact doubly underscores the necessity of maintaining the totalitarian straitjacket, not of loosening it.
So there is not the slightest sign of democratization to be pointed to. Can it, however, be shown that democratization, whether visible yet or not, is in the cards as a necessary consequence of Tito’s break with Moscow? This view can be held only by those who consider a break with Moscow as equivalent to a break with Stalinism.
This is why we have been emphasizing that an evaluation of Titoism can get nowhere without the understanding that Stalinism is not a Russian-limited phenomenon but is a new exploiting social system – one which is also the social system of Tito Yugoslavia, the system of bureaucratic collectivism. The Titoist bureaucracy is not simply a clique of adventurers teetering between class forces: it is a class, the ruling class of Yugoslavia, classbrother to its rival ruling class in Russia, as yet insecurely seated in the saddle but striving to consolidate its national power and assure the remaking of all phases of the society in its image.
This bureaucratic ruling class bases itself on its ownership of the state power, and through the state power, on its exploitation of a completely statified economy. As is the case with the Russian bureaucracy, democratization means its abdication as a ruling class. No matter what gestures will be made, this abdication will not be seen. Yugoslavia will be democratized through the overthrow of the dictatorship, not by its softening.
Last updated on 25 February 2023