Introduction
History knows several Yugoslavias: the monarchy before World War II, the socialist federation (1945-1991), and the “rump Yugoslavia” (1992-2006). It is the second Yugoslavia—federal and socialist—that many of us remember, some even with nostalgia, which lies at the heart of Uvod u Jugoslaviju (Introduction to Yugoslavia), Dejan Jović’s latest work.
The publication of Jović’s book is significant for its language, understood across the former Yugoslavia, and its connection to his earlier work published in 2003, Jugoslavija: država koja je odumrla (Yugoslavia: The State That Withered Away).[i] It resonates with younger generations seeking alternatives to the “desert of transition”[ii] and (semi)authoritarian neoliberal capitalism prevalent in the region.[iii]
Jović emphasizes that former Yugoslavia is omnipresent in collective memories yet conspicuously suppressed in official narratives. For instance, the Croatian Constitution references the royal Yugoslav state but omits the socialist Yugoslavia. This dynamic underscores the continued relevance of the topic.
The book adopts a circular structure, beginning and ending with the author’s central argument. It explores what Yugoslavia aspired to be—a socio-economic project—and analyzes its key elements, including foreign policy, self-management socialism, Tito’s evolving role, and the economic and political dynamics of Croatia and Serbia. While primarily political science, it also provides ethnographic insights into Tito’s public engagement, such as his responses to letters from citizens.
The book concludes by reassembling these elements to offer a comprehensive analysis of Yugoslavia’s collapse and its extraordinary violence. This structure allows Jović to explore not only Yugoslavia’s trajectory but also its significance as a contested and innovative socio-economic experiment.
Layers of Yugoslavia’s history
Dejan Jović adopts a methodological framework that moves away from traditional historicism, drawing instead on social constructivism.[iv] Yugoslavia’s tumultuous history, spanning five decades of attempts to apply Marxist ideology, provides fertile ground for such an approach. Jović frames Yugoslavia’s development and breakup as contingent on decisions made by federal and republic leaders. These decisions, influenced by path dependency,[v] shaped outcomes even when alternative paths might have been preferable.
A central theme of Jović’s analysis is the role of political elites in shaping Yugoslavia’s trajectory. Leaders like Josip Broz Tito and Slobodan Milošević were neither unbridled autocrats nor entirely removed from societal currents. Instead, they acted as both architects and products of prevailing political trends, navigating elite politics and public sentiment. Jović portrays Yugoslavia’s history as a dialectical interaction between political actors’ intentions and the socio-political structures constraining their choices. He emphasizes that “political decisions cannot be reduced to fixed, objective factors or the unmediated intentions of actors. Many historical events were unintended, unplanned, or even contrary to key players’ aims.”
Jović’s commitment to objective analysis avoids value judgments, aligning with his belief that “a good analysis explains what really happened and why. Nothing else!” This stance allows him to explore Yugoslavia’s history without moralistic or deterministic narratives.
Drawing on Quentin Skinner’s critique of historiographical myths,[vi] Jović challenges oversimplified narratives about Yugoslavia’s dissolution. He rejects the myth of prolepsis—the idea that the breakup was inevitable—illustrating this through the 1987 Eighth Session of the Central Committee of Serbia, where Milošević initially aimed to defend Yugoslav unity rather than promote nationalism. The myth of coherency is also dismantled as Jović highlights the fragmented, contradictory actions of Yugoslav elites, often producing unintended consequences.
Jović critiques the ideal type myth, which reduces Yugoslavia to a case of ethnic conflict or socialist failure, and addresses parochialism by situating its disintegration within specific historical contexts, including internal socio-economic developments and global trends like the end of the Cold War and the rise of neoliberalism. By applying Skinner’s principles, Jović underscores the contingent, multifaceted nature of Yugoslavia’s trajectory, offering a dynamic understanding of its dissolution.
The role of ideology in Yugoslavia’s trajectory
Jović’s central argument is that Yugoslavia’s history up to its violent collapse was shaped by the ideology of the “withering away of the state,” chosen by its leaders. This argument builds on existing critiques of Yugoslavia’s ideological foundations but presents them with greater force and focus. Allcock had already described Yugoslavia’s commitment to a “thoroughly radical and utopian” version of socialism, one that institutionalized the solidarity of “working people” through self-management principles.[vii] Jović expands on this, arguing that decentralization occurred not out of necessity but from a belief in achieving a transformative phase.
In a chapter on Croatia, Jović examines how ideology shaped interpretations of World War II history. Atrocities of the fascist Independent State of Croatia were downplayed, while the Partisan resistance was celebrated to emphasize unity. However, as Jović notes, “In independent Croatia today, it is popular to claim that the socialist system was primarily maintained through repression.” Yet political stability in socialist Croatia cannot be explained solely by repression.
Jović highlights Croatia’s role as an avant-garde of self-management socialism, noting that some of the last efforts to preserve socialist Yugoslavism emerged there in the 1980s. Socialist Croatia accepted Tito’s socialism as it aligned with republicanism and federalism, realizing key political goals of the 20th century.
A significant portion of the book examines Tito’s vision of self-management, which Jović identifies as Yugoslavia’s foundation. For Tito, self-management transcended class divisions, questioning “who decides on profit—workers or capitalists?” Economic democracy, distinct from Western liberal democracy, aimed to unify Yugoslavia’s diverse elements.
Despite this, Jović notes the paradox of a discouraged Yugoslav identity. The 1974 Constitution emphasized power belonging to “working people, citizens, nations, and nationalities,” leaving no group tied to the federative state. Decentralization, inspired by the “withering away” ideology, transferred power to republics, fostering nationalism at their level while undermining Yugoslav nationalism.
Among the greatest casualties of Yugoslavia’s collapse were self-identified Yugoslavs, numbering 1.2 million in 1984. This group, with which Tito himself identified, lost relevance after the breakup. Many were pressured to assume ethnic identities they did not genuinely feel, a process that can be compared to the experience of “Soviet Ukrainians” described by Ishchenko.[viii] Those Ukrainians, proud of Ukraine’s Soviet past and its achievements during that period, have been effectively silenced and marginalized in contemporary Ukraine, and pressed to assume an openly ethno-nationalist identity.
In analyzing Yugoslavia’s collapse, Jović reviews theories of economic crises, nationalism, cultural divisions, and elite behavior, rejecting primordial ethnic explanations and “clash of civilizations” narratives.[ix] He argues that coercion post-breakup erased Yugoslavism, not imposed it. Ultimately, Jović attributes the collapse to the contradictions of radical decentralization, offering a perspective that challenges ethnic determinism and highlights the contradictions of Yugoslavia’s socialist experiment.
Was ideology the sole culprit?
While Jović acknowledges the multifaceted nature of Yugoslavia’s collapse—including economic, political, and social dynamics—his interpretation underestimates key factors. These include the economic crisis, the interplay of ideology and nationalism, and the challenges of liberal democracy in managing ethnic conflicts.
The role of economic crisis. Jović’s claim that Yugoslavia experienced more political turbulence during its economic success in the 1960s than during the stagnation of the 1980s warrants scrutiny. The 1960s crises were tempered by economic growth, which bolstered regime legitimacy. Conversely, the 1980s’ less intense political crises escalated into state collapse due to a declining economy.
While Jović highlights federal successes under Ante Markovic—such as reducing external debt and curbing inflation—he overlooks broader issues. Since the 1970s, Yugoslavia faced “re-peripheralization,” marked by deindustrialization and weaker integration into global value chains.[x] Samir Amin’s framework[xi] reveals that this shift towards the capitalist center brought negative consequences, akin to trends in the Soviet Union. Internal market fragmentation—with republics forging separate global ties—further eroded federation cohesion, making state dissolution a rational economic choice rather than “illogical,” as Jović suggests.
Misinterpreted “economic determinism.” Jović critiques the West’s reliance on “economic determinism” during the Yugoslav crisis. However, his interpretation conflates this term with diverse political tools and strategies. He dismisses economic solutions as narrow and ineffective. This critique is worth examining, especially in light of similar approaches seen in recent history, such as Donald Trump’s first presidency. Trump’s attempt to resolve the Kosovo quagmire by promising US investments to both Kosovo and Serbia serves as a contemporary example of the limitations of such economic-centered solutions. As is well known, these efforts failed spectacularly.
Yet, Jović’s critique overlooks broader definitions of economic rationality, such as Gary Becker’s view of economics as the allocation of scarce resources, monetary or otherwise.[xii] Indeed, Jovic’s own observations confirm the validity of this broader economic logic. For example, Jović describes socialism’s reliance on informal economies, where non-monetary exchanges compensated for shortages. These behaviors align with economic analysis, challenging Jović’s dismissal of economic determinism.
The economic challenges of Yugoslavia—whether its re-peripheralization, internal market fragmentation, or the growing disparities between republics—shaped the crisis in ways that go beyond Jovic’s critique of economic determinism. A broader perspective would have provided a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between economic forces and the political collapse of Yugoslavia.
Ideology and the rise of nationalism. Jović’s emphasis on ideology undervalues nationalism’s role in Yugoslavia’s collapse. There is no denying that Yugoslavia attempted to implement a far more radical version of socialism than the other socialist countries. But it is symptomatic that the other multi-ethnic socialist states that implemented a more traditional centralized version of capitalism (the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia) also could not survive the collapse of socialism.
In Yugoslavia, ideological decline created a vacuum, but nationalism’s independent dynamics—predating the crisis—proved decisive. Yugoslavia’s federative system relied on compromises and minority protections. As ideology weakened, these structures succumbed to nationalist pressures. Jović’s analysis of Croatia supports this, noting that ideological collapse spurred Croatian nationalism, contradicting his broader thesis that nationalism was derivative. The erosion of class solidarity—a pillar of socialism—enabled nationalism’s ascendancy.
Liberal democracy and ethnic conflict. Jović’s view of liberal democracy as a mechanism for managing ethnic tensions deserves reevaluation. Smith argues that modernization and mass communication often exacerbate ethnic conflict.[xiii] Liberal democracy’s legitimacy does not guarantee ethnic harmony and may falter under crisis, as seen during Yugoslavia’s dissolution.
In all, Yugoslav nationalism should be treated as a phenomenon with its own dynamics, interwoven with politics and ideology but retaining a significant degree of independence. By framing nationalism as a derivative of ideology, Jović overlooks its central role in the collapse of multi-ethnic socialist states, including Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia’s collapse was shaped by economic, nationalistic, and structural factors beyond ideology alone. A more nuanced approach would balance these elements, offering a comprehensive understanding of its dissolution.
Contemporary lessons from Yugoslavia
Jović argues that the dissolution of Yugoslavia has become a major topic in political theory for secessionism and separatism, influencing transition theories, transitional justice, reconciliation, international law, and the potential creation of new labor-capital paradigms.
Feasibility of an alternative to capitalism. Jović’s examination of Yugoslavia’s workers’ self-management positions it as a unique attempt to forge an alternative to capitalism, emphasizing economic democracy and employee participation. Modern parallels like “participatory socialism” echo this vision.[xiv] However, Yugoslavia’s collapse raises pressing questions: Does its failure signal the impossibility of a “third way” between capitalism and communism? Can economic democracy move from ideal to practical alternative, or does Fukuyama’s “end of history” thesis[xv] prevail? Is the West’s victory in 1989 just a temporary and, historically viewed, short phase between socialism and a new, better, socialism?
Prospects for multiethnic states. Yugoslavia’s breakup created more ethnically homogeneous states—e.g., Croatia’s Croat population rose from 75% in 1981 to 90% in 2011 and the share of Albanians in Kosovo from 77% in 1981 to 93% in 2011—yet ethnic tensions persist. Bosnia and Herzegovina’s challenges highlight the difficulties of multiethnic governance. Globally, tensions in Canada, Spain, and the UK show the universality of these issues. Jović prompts questions about whether liberal democracy can counterbalance nationalism or whether federative structures like Yugoslavia’s provide sustainable models in an era of rising nationalist movements.
Economic performance and liberal democracy. Yugoslavia’s economic trajectory—spanning growth and severe decline—offers insights into political-economic dynamics. The rise of economically successful “illiberal democracies” like Serbia, Hungary, and China challenges assumptions about liberal democracy’s necessity for growth. Socialist Croatia’s 4.23% annual per capita GDP growth (1946-1990) dwarfs its post-1990 performance.[xvi] Does Yugoslavia’s experience suggest mixed or authoritarian models are inherently unstable, or can they sustain long-term success?
Viability of supranational structures. Jović frames Yugoslavia as a precursor to the EU, highlighting its federalization and decentralization efforts. While its disintegration raises concerns about supranational cohesion, the EU faces similar centrifugal pressures, exacerbated by crises like the war in Ukraine. Can the EU avoid Yugoslavia’s fate amid shifting global dynamics?
Feasibility of a multipolar world. Yugoslavia’s Non-Aligned Movement modeled a “third way” in Cold War geopolitics. Today, with tensions between the Global North/West and South/East intensifying, Jović’s reflections gain renewed relevance. As the BRICS bloc grows amidst “global fragmentation”[xvii] (IMF, 2023), is a multipolar world viable, or is new bipolarity emerging?
EU relations with the Western Balkans. The legacy of Yugoslavia’s violent dissolution continues to shape EU-Western Balkans relations. Jović describes mutual distrust: the EU blames post-Yugoslav wars for stalling unification, while the Western Balkans view the EU as complicit in Yugoslavia’s collapse. These tensions question the future of EU enlargement and Balkan integration.
Conclusion: Ideology’s legacy and beyond
The book provides a comprehensive, critical exploration of socialist Yugoslavia, presenting its history as an evolving experiment aimed at building a future communist state. This perspective highlights one of the most distinct aspects of Yugoslavia’s socialist experience.
The analysis of socialist ideology, particularly in its unique Yugoslav forms—such as the “socialization of the state” and workers’ self-management—is both profound and innovative. This focus represents a significant contribution to (post)Yugoslav studies, offering valuable insights into these pivotal concepts.
The chapter on Croatia under socialist Yugoslavia is particularly noteworthy. It resonates with readers across the successor states, especially in Croatia, where the socialist past is often silenced or framed negatively. This inclusion fosters a more nuanced understanding of the era.
However, the book’s emphasis on ideology as the primary driver of Yugoslavia’s challenges and eventual collapse leaves important dimensions underexplored. While ideology played a role, factors such as economic pressures and the rise of nationalism arguably had greater significance. Problems attributed to ideology were often the result of opposing dynamics—such as Yugoslavia’s relinking to the global capitalist center in the 1970s. Conversely, ideology sometimes acted as a bulwark against nationalism, which fragmented the country once its ideological foundations weakened.
Despite this critique, the book’s conclusion that Yugoslavia was destroyed from within, not from outside,[xviii] is convincing. While external factors, such as the loss of Yugoslavia’s strategic position with the demise of socialism, played a role, their relevance was minor compared to internal contradictions. This perspective underscores the significance of Yugoslavia’s internal issues while challenging simplistic narratives emphasizing external interventions.
The book offers a compelling and multifaceted lens for understanding socialist Yugoslavia, but a more balanced consideration of non-ideological factors would enrich its analysis and broaden its relevance for interpreting Yugoslavia’s complex history and legacy.
[i] D. Jović. Jugoslavija, država koga je odumrla (Zagreb and Belgrade: Prometej and Samizdat B92, 2003).
[ii] S. Horvat and I. Štiks. Welcome to the Desert of Post-Socialism: Radical Politics After Yugoslavia (London: Verso, 2015).
[iii] F. Bieber. The Rise of Authoritarianism in the Western Balkans (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).
[iv] P. Berger and T. Luckmann. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (New York: Doubleday, 1966).
[v] D. North. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); T. Skocpol. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
[vi] Q. Skinner. Meaning and Context (Cambridge: Polity, 1988).
[vii] J. Allcock. Explaining Yugoslavia (London: Hurst & Company, 2000).
[viii] V. Ishchenko. Towards the Abyss (London: Verso, 2024).
[ix] S. Huntington. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
[x] C.-U. Schierup. “Quasi-proletarians and a Patriarchal Bureaucracy: Aspects of Yugoslavia’s Re-peripheralisation.” Soviet Studies 44, no. 1 (1992): 79–99.
[xi] S. Amin. Delinking: Towards a Polycentric World (London: Zed Books, 1990).
[xii] G. Becker. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976).
[xiii] A. D. Smith. Myths and Memories of the Nation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
[xiv] T. Piketty. Capital and Ideology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2020); Y. Varoufakis. Another Now: Dispatches from an Alternative Present (London: Vintage, 2020).
[xv] F. Fukuyama. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006.
[xvi] M. Antić. “Kvazi-eksperimentalan pristup ekonomskom rastu Hrvatske: Jesu li Jugoslavija i socijalizam bili bolji?“ Tragovi 5, no. 1 (2021): 109–147.
[xvii] International Monetary Fund. Geoeconomic Fragmentation and the Future of Multilateralism. IMF Staff Discussion Note SDN/2023/001, January(Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund, 2023).
[xviii] A. Đilas. Razgovori za Jugoslaviju (Beograd: Prometej, 1993).