Changes

:::Not only did I not write it, but he ''was'' a dictator. That's common knowledge. He established a one-party communist state. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:53, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

:::Not only did I not write it, but he ''was'' a dictator. That's common knowledge. He established a one-party communist state. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:53, 8 April 2018 (EDT)

::::That's a lie, because Yugoslavia in practice, I repeat, has never manifested itself as a "dictatorship." Tito's Yugoslavia had a lot in common with the United States, Yugoslavia had private property, there was free travel abroad (with the United States and some EU countries Yugoslavia had a visa-free regime), it was possible to watch and distribute erotic films / porn, it was possible to acquire weapons just like in Mexico or Switzerland, there was self-management of workers, and I'm not even talking about the fact that Yugoslavia was allowed to criticize communism, even if it was not so often. After all of the above, do you really think that Tito established a dictatorship in Yugoslavia simply because he had ruled for a long time and had only one ruling party in it? According to your logic, Finland was a dictatorial state because of Urho Kaleva Kekkonen (he was a president of Finland for 25 years), many "democratic" countries at that time had only one ruling party in power, and the United States still has only two political parties in it's goverment to this day. The only thing in which Tito's Yugoslavia was really autonomous is in the repression of nationalists and racists (just like the current US, irony), but anti-nationalist policies are far from being a factor of a "dictatorial" country. If you do not know the detailed history of certain countries, do not rush to call it "dictatorship" or "democratic", there's a big difference between dictatorship and anocracy.

::::That's a lie, because Yugoslavia in practice, I repeat, has never manifested itself as a "dictatorship." Tito's Yugoslavia had a lot in common with the United States, Yugoslavia had private property, there was free travel abroad (with the United States and some EU countries Yugoslavia had a visa-free regime), it was possible to watch and distribute erotic films / porn, it was possible to acquire weapons just like in Mexico or Switzerland, there was self-management of workers, and I'm not even talking about the fact that Yugoslavia was allowed to criticize communism, even if it was not so often. After all of the above, do you really think that Tito established a dictatorship in Yugoslavia simply because he had ruled for a long time and had only one ruling party in it? According to your logic, Finland was a dictatorial state because of Urho Kaleva Kekkonen (he was a president of Finland for 25 years), many "democratic" countries at that time had only one ruling party in power, and the United States still has only two political parties in it's goverment to this day. The only thing in which Tito's Yugoslavia was really autonomous is in the repression of nationalists and racists (just like the current US, irony), but anti-nationalist policies are far from being a factor of a "dictatorial" country. If you do not know the detailed history of certain countries, do not rush to call it "dictatorship" or "democratic", there's a big difference between dictatorship and anocracy.