delphiandomine 86 | 17823
18 Nov 2009 / #91
however, Tito had his own version of Communism and it was a more liberal form
I'd argue that Tito's version wasn't more liberal - his way of keeping Yugoslavia intact involved practically destroying any attempt at nationalism by any means. It's why his 1974 constitution is so bizzare - and I can only assume that he was making preparations for after his death in the knowledge that most men wouldn't be able to dominate in the way that he did. Obviously in many respects, it was more liberal - but Tito wasn't adverse to playing hardball as and when it suited him.
Tito might have allowed foreign travel and so on - but he was a master in playing West and East off against each other to give him the best possible deals and conditions. Allowing foreign travel was a simple gesture - and if people stayed abroad, they would always send money back to Yugoslavia. Likewise - his Market Socialism concept did wonders for keeping people happy while still controlling them from above.