Tito and Titoism: A Reassessment

最近关于南斯拉夫崩溃的研究大多集中在结构性因素上，如种族结构、国际关系、经济和文化政策或意识形态。我自己的书（Jugoslavija - drzava koja je odumria，2003）促进了对这种崩溃原因的多因素分析-其中包括意识形态和个性的作用。我现在想进一步探讨一下1945-1980年期间的核心政治人物约瑟普·布罗兹蒂托在维持南斯拉夫统一方面所起的作用。我还想根据南斯拉夫和后南斯拉夫历史和政治的新发展，重新评估蒂托的政策和意识形态。该项目考察了“蒂托因素”（包括作为政治学说的“铁托主义因素”）在1945 - 1980年期间确保南斯拉夫稳定和在后蒂托时期未能维护其统一方面的作用。本研究的具体目标如下：1.评估蒂托的人格及其政策对1945-1980年南斯拉夫国家发展和维护的重要性; 2.根据各种企图延续或中断蒂托政治遗产及其政治意愿的情况，评估铁托时代后的十年（1980 - 1990）; 3.研究铁托主义遗产与1989-1992年南斯拉夫实际崩溃之间的关系; 4.分析官方和非官方对蒂托和蒂托的南斯拉夫在崩溃后的表现，包括官方记忆（或缺乏官方记忆），以及新的后南斯拉夫精英的政治纲领与铁托遗产之间的任何最终联系; L 5。从蒂托去世25年后的角度重新评估他的遗产; 6.加强我们对独裁政权（特别是冷战期间在东欧发展起来的独裁政权）以及这些政权中领导人物的作用的理解; 7.为研究从专制政权过渡做出贡献。为实现这些主要目标，将处理以下具体问题：1.蒂托对马克思主义的解释--以及他的社会主义自我管理的政治思想--的起源是什么？2.哪些问题尚未得到适当解决-与他掌权、行使权力和/或统治国家有关？3.蒂托对南斯拉夫的统一有多重要--以及他的死对南斯拉夫的分裂进程有多重要？4.他利用什么机制来推进他的政治和意识形态目标？5.他的民族背景对他为南斯拉夫制定的民族问题政策有多重要？6.他在多大程度上是一个独裁者--他总是能够把自己的意志强加给其他相关的政治参与者吗？7.蒂托在国际竞技场的地位对他在国内的作用有多重要？8.蒂托的官方代表是如何构思的，它成功了吗？9.后南斯拉夫国家的新统治者在多大程度上把自己塑造成“新铁托”--或“反铁托”？10.蒂托在意识形态和政治上取得的成功有没有持续下去--如果有，是哪些？11.最近蒂托和铁托主义的正面形象复兴的来源和解释是什么？12.他和他的时代将如何被历史地看待？

Much of the recent work on the collapse of Yugoslavia focuses on structural, factors - such as its ethnic structure, international relations, economic and cultural policy, or ideology. My own book (Jugoslavija - drzava koja je odumria, 2003) promotes multi-factored analysis of the reasons for this collapse - which includes both ideology and the role of personalities. I would now like to take a step further by looking at the role that Josip Broz Tito, the central political personality of the 1945-1980 periods played in keeping Yugoslavia together. I would also like to offer a reassessment of ¦ Tito's policy and ideology in light of new developments in Yugoslav and post-Yugoslav history and politics. The project examines the role of the Tito factor' (including the 'factor of Titoism' as a political doctrine) in both securing stability of Yugoslavia in the period of 1945 -1980, and - in the post-Tito period - failing to preserve its unity. The research will have following specific objectives: 1. To assess the importance of Tito's personality and his policies for the development and preservation of the Yugoslav state from 1945-1980; 2. To assess the post-Titoist decade (1980 - 1990) in light of the various attempts to continue or discontinue Tito's political legacy and his political will; 3. To examine the relationship between the Titoist legacy and the actual collapse of Yugoslavia in 1989-1992; 4. To analyse official and unofficial representations of Tito and Tito's Yugoslavia in the aftermath of the collapse including official memories (or the lack of them), and any eventual link between the political programs of new post Yugoslav elites and Titoist legacy; L 5. To offer a reassessment of Tito's legacy from a distance of 25 years since his death; 6. To enhance our understanding of authoritarian regimes (especially those which developed in Eastern Europe in the Cold--War), and of the role of the leading personalities in these regimes; 7. To contribute to studies of transition from authoritarian regimes. In pursuing these main objectives, the following specific questions will be addressed: 1. What were the origins of Tito's interpretation of Marxism - and of his political ideology of socialist self-management? 2. What issues have not yet been properly addressed - related to his accession to power, exercising power, and/or ruling of the country? 3. How important was Tito for the unity of Yugoslavia - and, consequently, his death for disintegrative processes in Yugoslavia? 4. What mechanisms did he use to further his political and ideological objectives? 5. How important was his ethnic background for the policies on the national question he developed for Yugoslavia? 6. To what extent was he an autocrat - and was he always in position to impose his will to other relevant political participants? 7. How important for his role domestically was Tito's position in the international arena? 8. How was the official representation of Tito conceived and was it successful? 9. To what extent did the new rulers of post-Yugoslav states model themselves as 'new Titos' - or as 'anti-Titos'? 10. Have any of Tito's ideological and political successes been sustained - and if so, which? 11. What is the source and explanation of the recent revival of positive images of Tito and Titoism? 12. How will he and his time be viewed historically?