I mean, Yugoslavia collapsed because the ethnic tensions were ratcheted up to a fever pitch once Tito wasn't around as a trusted good-faith actor to broker between sides. And it was hardly the only country to try "play both ends against the middle" on the world stage, to disastrous results. Half the Middle East/Mediterranean, from Iraq to Libya, got caught in the crunch when the USSR fell. Meanwhile, Israel and the Saudis and S. Korea made out like bandits simply by being on the winning side.
If these regional dictatorships get to persist into a US/China bipolar world, I don't really consider that a point favor of multipolarity persisting.
It's much more complicated than that, even if ethnic tensions were underlying it. To oversimplify a bit, Yugoslavia's economy was reliant on loans taken from the IMF to sustain its "Market Socialist" model. When the USSR declined in power, the West saw fit to tighten the screws on any other socialist experiment, aligned or not. Naturally, as they held the IMF, they utilized it (via increased interest) to drive Yugoslavia into the situation it found itself in, in 1992.
If these regional dictatorships get to persist into a US/China bipolar world, I don’t really consider that a point favor of multipolarity persisting.
The countries that could survive could be anything from "regional dictatorships" to actual national liberation movements, with perhaps a chance of them being socialist. Even in the former case, it still denies the Imperial Core the resources and strategic staging area of the nation in question. To quote Stalin:
The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism.
I mean, Yugoslavia collapsed because the ethnic tensions were ratcheted up to a fever pitch once Tito wasn't around as a trusted good-faith actor to broker between sides. And it was hardly the only country to try "play both ends against the middle" on the world stage, to disastrous results. Half the Middle East/Mediterranean, from Iraq to Libya, got caught in the crunch when the USSR fell. Meanwhile, Israel and the Saudis and S. Korea made out like bandits simply by being on the winning side.
If these regional dictatorships get to persist into a US/China bipolar world, I don't really consider that a point favor of multipolarity persisting.
It's much more complicated than that, even if ethnic tensions were underlying it. To oversimplify a bit, Yugoslavia's economy was reliant on loans taken from the IMF to sustain its "Market Socialist" model. When the USSR declined in power, the West saw fit to tighten the screws on any other socialist experiment, aligned or not. Naturally, as they held the IMF, they utilized it (via increased interest) to drive Yugoslavia into the situation it found itself in, in 1992.
The countries that could survive could be anything from "regional dictatorships" to actual national liberation movements, with perhaps a chance of them being socialist. Even in the former case, it still denies the Imperial Core the resources and strategic staging area of the nation in question. To quote Stalin:
Idk, man. That sounds like how you end up with guys like Nicolae Ceaușescu and Khrushchev running the show.
Also, didn't Stalin and Tito have a falling out precisely because Tito wanted neutrality during the Cold War?
1950s were much preferable in terms of revolutionary prospects than today, I'll say that much.
And Tito broke with Stalin for a variety of factors. The tear began when Stalin refused to back the Greek communists in their civil war.