(3 of 3)
What Is Titoism? There was no direct connection, and not even much sympathy, between Titoists in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Poland. Kostov himself was one of the first to join in last year's general cry denouncing Tito. In his turn, Tito last week denounced Kostov as a capitalist agent. The various men who are becoming known as Titoists are not connected by political machinery or common purpose—although they may be some day. Titoism is not an ideology. It is a human reflex against Stalin's policy of putting Soviet Russia, the "Motherland of the Revolution," ahead of all other Communist states.
Paradoxically, Titoism is a consequence not of Communist weakness but of Communist strength. Before the war, few national Communist parties questioned Russia's leadership. But when the Reds actually conquered power, or came close to it, in half a dozen European countries, personal ambition and the patriotism of a Yugoslav or a Bulgar or a Frenchman, even though Communist, was apt to be stronger than loyalty to Moscow.
The Communists had often used a people's nationalist feelings as an instrument of their own power drives; they are now doing so in Asia. But Tito and his followers are driven by a genuine nationalism as strong as Russia's own. World communism had been rent by differences and ideological conflicts before; most were over tactics. Titoism stabs at the very heart of Communist power and doctrine.
How Far to Go? Titoism presents a tremendous opportunity to the West, as well as a serious problem. How far can the West go in supporting Titoist regimes? It makes sense to support Tito just enough to keep him in fighting trim against Stalin. But if this policy were to be extended indiscriminately, the U.S. might soon find itself subsidizing Communist police states hostile to itself (e.g., Yugoslavia), without real assurance that they will remain hostile to Moscow. A case in point is China's Mao Tse-tung, who is currently being sold to the U.S. as the Tito of Asia by Authors Edgar Snow, Owen Lattimore and others who until recently used to peddle the disastrous line that China's Communists were mainly "agrarian reformers."
The conditions for Titoism exist in Communist China: a separate army, strong nationalism, economic interests possibly conflicting with Russia. The Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee, meeting in Peiping last month for the first time in four years, formally decided that the period of agrarian communism—Mao's policy—was over, that emphasis would now shift to the cities and to speedy industrialization. At least on the face of it, Mao was in complete agreement with the new line. If he was turning into a Tito, he gave no evidence of it.
Whether Stalin can contain Titoism within its present manageable proportions, or whether it will widen into an irreparable schism, is a question for the best Russian brains. But Titoism has already achieved one thing—it has exploded the theory that communism, if it came to power, could bring the world unity and peace. For that, at least, loudmouthed Dictator Tito deserved the West's gratitude. As one American observer in Europe put it last week: "The time is surely come when the West should stop thinking of communism as a block which might splinter but can never crack."