Modern State Formation: The Case of Former Yugoslavia

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

War historians and political analysts are in agreement that the ideological, economic and political conflicts between the Soviet Union and the United States immediately after World War 2 influenced, in large part, the formation and political orientation of many countries in Eastern Europe.

Indeed, the deep-rooted ideological, economic and political differences between the two countries coupled with the Soviet’s Union’s gradual influence in Europe before the end of the war played a significant role in initializing the Cold War era (Eskridge-Kosmach, 2009).

This paper purposes to analyze how the former Yugoslavia regime functioned during the Cold War Era.

In particular, the paper will analyze the pillars of the regime’s support, the extent to which it employed the cult of personality or ideology, how it re-organized the nation’s economy and society, and how it fitted into the overall picture of European and International politics.

Under the firm control of Josip Tito, the former Yugoslavia regime central pillar of support came in the form of embracing a vigorous program of socialization that was deeply rooted in Marxist theories.

Although Tito leaned towards the socialist policies learned from his former training in the Soviet Union, he pursued an independent course in foreign relations and refused to be subdued by what he termed as the Soviet’s bureaucratic caste and the its attempts to subjugate Yugoslavia’s economy (Banerji, 1950).

This implies that the regime benefited from Financial, military and technology aid from the United States and other Western powers, who were keen on using Tito’s uncompromising stand on the Soviet’s socialist policies to nip its budding influence on Eastern European countries.

It is also imperative to note that the regime thrived on crushing opposition voices, executing leaders perceived to entrench a different ideological orientation other than communism, and limiting intellectual freedom (Marxists Internet Archive, n.d.).

Tito’s regime in former Yugoslavia was deeply rooted in communist and Marxist ideologies. Individuals like Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin were exalted for providing the art and the science through which the regime thrived, and any form of capitalism or revisionism was dispelled (Banerji, 1950).

A comprehensive analysis of some of Tito’s works reveals that Lenin’s personality cult was deeply entrenched in Yugoslavia in the form of a strict system of command as well the people’s unconditional obedience to the rule’s and demands of the regime (Marxists Internet Archive, n.d.).

Consequently, Tito, the regime leader, was able to overwhelmingly impose himself upon the national communist party and the state.

Tito’s regime in former Yugoslavia re-organized the national economy along the contours of redistribution of wealth.

The regime decried the economic model used by the Soviet Union, which it said perpetrated capitalism through selling commodities as high as possible to achieve as much financial gain as possible from other socialist countries (Banerji, 1950).

The regime re-organized the national’s economy by giving factories to the working class with the aim of strengthening this group of the population. This, according to Tito, was in line with the science of Marxism and Leninism.

In redistribution of wealth, profitable organizations were taxed to subsidize unprofitable ones, and employed workers were taxed to subsidize unemployed workers in line with the socialist policy of profit-sharing among community members (Vodopivec, 1990).

A national fund for capital accumulation was established, and each factory or organization was obliged to give a proportion of its accumulated funds – calculated in relation to its productivity – to improve the living standards of the workers and to promote general industrial development (Banerji, 1950).

The compression of personal income disparities within an organization was also encouraged for the purpose of achieving equality among the working class (Vodopivec, 1990).

This compression was also aimed at minimizing discontent among the masses that, according to the regime, could be triggered by unequal distribution of wealth.

Lastly, it can be argued that Tito’s national socialist regime was lukewarmly accommodated by western powers, mainly by Truman and Eisenhower administrations in the U.S., particularly in its conflict with Stalin and its blatant refusal to align its internal and overseas policies to the Soviet hegemony (Marxists Internet Archive, n.d.).

The two U.S. administrations were willing to ignore the ideological differences that existed between the former Yugoslavia and the Western world in order to attain potentially substantial geopolitical advantages (Eskridge-Kosmach, 2009).

However, other European countries had their reservations for an independent but still socialist Yugoslavia.

Reference List

Banerji, K. 1950. “Interview with Marshal Tito.” Fourth International 11, no. 6, 188-192. Web.

Eskridge-Kosmach, A.N. 2009. “Yugoslavia and U.S. Foreign Policy in the 1960-1970’s of the 20^th Century.” Journal of Slavic Military Studies 22, no. 2, 383-418.

Marxists Internet Archive. n.d. “Josip Broz Tito 1892-1980.” Web.

Vodopivec, M. 1990. “How redistribution hurts productivity in a socialist economy (Yugoslavia).” World Bank. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

Modern State Formation: The Case of Former Yugoslavia

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)