Changes

::::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.

:::::User:Cnsrvpdsosethui, you need to get over yourself and bone up on a little history.  Tito was a communist, he was the head of a one-party state, he frequently purged those he considered a threat to his rule.  One person rule, unchecked power.  It's either a monarchy or a dictatorship, and Tito didn't wear a crown, did he? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

:::::User:Cnsrvpdsosethui, you need to get over yourself and bone up on a little history.  Tito was a communist, he was the head of a one-party state, he frequently purged those he considered a threat to his rule.  One person rule, unchecked power.  It's either a monarchy or a dictatorship, and Tito didn't wear a crown, did he? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 03:50, 9 April 2018 (EDT)

::::::With this message you just confirmed that you and your wiki are very poorly versed in the history of certain countries, in particular Tito's Yugoslavia. How many Tito killed the dissidents during his presidency? No more than three thousand people (taking into account the population of Yugoslavia in more than 20 million people and Tito's very long rule of the state, this is a very low number of executed people compared to the United States or the Soviet Union). And what you've wrote about Tito may be said about Harry Truman: He was a Democrat, he was the head of a two-party state, he frequently purged those he considered a threat to his rule (do not forget about repressions and murders of thousands of American citizens simply because they sympathized with communism). If you won't ignore all the qualities of Tito's Yugoslavia, which I listed in the previous message, then you will admit a little disappointing conclusion for you that Socialist Yugoslavia was almost the same like USA, only with free medicine, free higher education and the absence of racism. By the way, "thanks a lot" for blocking the ability of my account to edit the discussion (that's why I created a new account), but there's absolutely no need for it. While the Internet exists, I will write in your discussion what I want to write. No your blocking methods and no your anti-socialist views will help you.

::::::With this message you just confirmed that you and your wiki are very poorly versed in the history of certain countries, in particular Tito's Yugoslavia. How many Tito killed the dissidents during his presidency? No more than three thousand people (taking into account the population of Yugoslavia in more than 20 million people and Tito's very long rule of the state, this is a very low number of executed people compared to the United States or the Soviet Union). The way how you've wrote about Tito may work with Harry Truman: He was a Democrat, he was the head of a two-party state, he frequently purged those he considered a threat to his rule (do not forget about repressions and murders of thousands of American citizens simply because they sympathized with communism). If you won't ignore all the qualities of Tito's Yugoslavia, which I listed in the previous message, then you will admit a little disappointing conclusion for you that Socialist Yugoslavia was almost the same like USA, only with free medicine, free higher education and the absence of racism. By the way, "thanks a lot" for blocking the ability of my account to edit the discussion (that's why I created a new account), but there's absolutely no need for it. While the Internet exists, I will write in your discussion what I want to write. No your blocking methods and no your anti-socialist views will help you.