Vulnerabilities of Titoist economy

Chris Burford cburford at gn.apc.org
Tue Aug 3 15:21:23 PDT 1999


At 07:29 03/08/99 -0400, you wrote:
>> Essentially land appears to have been owned communistically.
>> Chris Burford
>
>about 85% of agricultural land was privately owned small parcels, about
>2/3rds of housing stock (village houses, private apartments, single-
>family dwellings) was on privately owned land...non-agricultural, non-
>residential land not committed to collective farming or state allocated
>social housing was considered to be owned by society... Michael Hoover

So land was a mixture of petty bourgeois private ownership and communistic state ownership.

The broad contention remains from the original post. That a social market in leasehold land, auctioned by the state, with social planning in the use of the land, would have permitted flexibility in industrial and commercial initiatives, would have generated income for the state, and most importantly in view of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, would have provided a mechanism whereby more economically active regions would have automatically contributed more to the federal assets for smoother federal economic planning.

Chris Burford



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list