ACTA HISTRIAE 
27, 2019, 1 

UDK/UDC 94(05) ACTA HISTRIAE 27, 2019, 1, pp. 1-198 ISSN 1318-0185 
UDK/UDC 94(05) ISSN 1318-0185 (Print) ISSN 2591-1767 (Online) 

Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper Societa storica del Litorale - Capodistria 
ACTA HISTRIAE 27, 2019, 1 
KOPER 2019 
ISSN 1318-0185 (Tiskana izd.) UDK/UDC 94(05) Letnik 27, leto 2019, številka 1 ISSN 2591-1767 (Spletna izd.) 
Odgovorni urednik/ 
Direttore responsabile/ Editor in Chief: 

Uredniški odbor/ 
Comitato di redazione/ Board of Editors: 
Uredniki/Redattori/ Editors: 
Gostujoči uredniki/ 
Guest Editors: Prevodi/Traduzioni/ Translations: 

Lektorji/Supervisione/ 
Language Editor: Stavek/Composizione/ Typesetting: 
Izdajatelj/Editore/ Published by: 

Sedež/Sede/Address: 
Tisk/Stampa/Print: Naklada/Tiratura/Copies: 

Finančna podpora/ 
Supporto finanziario/ 
Financially supported by: 


Slika na naslovnici/ 
Foto di copertina/ Picture on the cover: 
Darko Darovec 
Gorazd Bajc, Furio Bianco (IT), Flavij Bonin, Dragica Čeč, Lovorka Čoralić (HR), Darko Darovec, Marco Fincardi (IT), Darko Friš, Aleksej Kalc, Borut Klabjan, John Martin (USA), Robert Matijašić (HR), Darja Mihelič, Edward Muir (USA), Egon Pelikan, Luciano Pezzolo (IT), Jože Pirjevec, Claudio Povolo (IT), Marijan Premović (MNE), Vida Rožac Darovec, Andrej Studen, Marta Verginella, Salvator Žitko 
Gorazd Bajc, Urška Lampe, Arnela Abdić 
Goran Musić, Jure Ramšak, Mateja Režek 
Urška Lampe (slo.), Gorazd Bajc (it.), Petra Berlot (angl., it.), Jure Ramšak (slo.), Mateja Režek (slo.) 
Urška Lampe (angl., slo.), Gorazd Bajc (it.), Arnela Abdić (angl.) 
Založništvo PADRE d.o.o. 
Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko - Koper / Societa storica del Litorale 
- Capodistria© / Inštitut IRRIS za raziskave, razvoj in strategije družbe, kulture in okolja / Institute IRRIS for Research, Development and Strategies of Society, Culture and Environment / Istituto IRRIS di ricerca, sviluppo e strategie della societa, cultura e ambiente© 
Zgodovinsko društvo za južno Primorsko, SI-6000 Koper-Capodistria, Garibaldijeva 18 / Via Garibaldi 18 e-mail: actahistriae@gmail.com; www.zdjp.si 
Založništvo PADRE d.o.o. 300 izvodov/copie/copies Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije / Slovenian 
Research Agency, Mestna občina Koper, Luka Koper d.d. 
Drugi kongres samoupravljalcev, Sarajevo, 1971 / Secondo congresso degli autogestori, Sarajevo, 1971 / Second Congress of Self-managers, Sarajevo, 1971 (Muzej istorije Jugoslavije). 
Redakcija te številke je bila zaključena 11. maja 2019. 
Revija Acta Histriae je vključena v naslednje podatkovne baze / Gli articoli pubblicati in questa rivistasono inclusi nei seguenti indici di citazione / Articles appearing in this journal are abstracted and indexedin: Thomson Reuters: Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), Social Scisearch, Arts and HumanitiesCitation Index (A&HCI), Journal Citation Reports / Social Sciences Edition (USA); IBZ, InternationaleBibliographie der Zeitschriftenliteratur (GER); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)(UK); Referativnyi Zhurnal Viniti (RUS); European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS); Elsevier B. V.: SCOPUS (NL) 
Vsi članki so v barvni verziji prosto dostopni na spletni strani: http://www.zdjp.si.All articles are freely available in color via website http://www.zdjp.si. 
UDK/UDC 94(05) Letnik 27, leto 2019, številka 1 ISSN 1318-0185 (Print) ISSN 2591-1767 (Online) 
VSEBINA / INDICE GENERALE / CONTENTS 
Albert Bing: Socialist Self-Management between Politics and Economy .................. 1 
Autogestione socialista tra politica ed economia 
Socialistično samoupravljanje med politiko in ekonomijo 
Stefan Gužvica: Retrospective Lessons and Generational Gaps: The Impact of Yugoslav Communist Émigrés in Interwar Czechoslovakia on the Postwar Yugoslav State ..................................................................................... 35 
Lezioni retrospettive e divari generazionali: i comunisti jugoslavi emigrati in Cecoslovacchia tra le due guerre mondiali e il loro impatto sulla Jugoslavia del dopoguerra 
Retrospektivni nauki in generacijski prepadi: jugoslovanska komunistična emigracija na Češkoslovaškem med obema vojnama in njen vpliv na 
povojno Jugoslavijo 
Natalija Dimić: In Search of an Authentic Position: The First Phase of Political and Ideological Cooperation between Yugoslavia and the West European Left, 1948–1953 ................................................................................. 55 
Alla ricerca di una posizione autentica: la prima fase della cooperazione politica e ideologica tra la Jugoslavia e la sinistra dell’Europa occidentale, 1948–1953 
V iskanju avtentične pozicije: začetki političnega in ideološkega sodelovanja med 
Jugoslavijo in zahodnoevropsko levico, 1948–1953 
AleksandarV. Miletić: The Relationships between Yugoslav Communists and Scandinavian Socialists in the Light of Yugoslav Sources (1950–1953) .................... 75 
Le relazioni tra i comunisti jugoslavi e i socialisti scandinavi alla luce delle fonti jugoslave (1950–1953) 
Odnosi med jugoslovanskimi komunisti in skandinavskimi socialisti v luči 
jugoslovanskih virov (1950–1953) 
Una Blagojević: The International Philosophical Problem of Self-Managing Socialism: The Case of Praxis ..................................................................................... 89 Il problema filosofico internazionale del socialismo autogestito: il caso Praxis Mednarodni filozofski problem samoupravnega socializma: primer Praxis Darko Štrajn: The Politics and Aesthetics of Democratic Socialism in Yugoslav Modernity. The Case of Yugoslav Modernism and its Impact: Some Examples of Breakthrough Art in the Context of Self-Management ................................................ 
La politica e l’estetica del socialismo democratico nella modernita jugoslava. Il caso del modernismo jugoslavo e il suo impatto: alcuni esempi di arte innovativa nel contesto dell’autogestione 
Politika in estetika demokratičnega socializma v jugoslovanski moderni. 
Primer jugoslovanskega modernizma in njegovega vpliva: nekaj zgledov 
prebojne umetnosti v kontekstu samoupravljanja 
Benedetto Zaccaria: Blowing Up the Self-Management Bubble: Yugoslav Propaganda and Italian Reception in the early 1970s .................................................. 
La bolla dell’autogestione: propaganda jugoslava e ricezione in Italia 
nei primi anni Settanta 
Razblinjenje samoupravnega mehurčka: recepcija jugoslovanske propagande v Italiji v začetku sedemdesetih let 
Igor Duda: Consumers and Self-Managers: Consumer Protection and its Challenges during the Yugoslav Economic Crisis of the 1980s .................................. 
Consumatori e autogestori: la protezione dei consumatori e le sue sfide durante 
la crisi economica jugoslava degli anni Ottanta 
Potrošniki in samoupravljalci: varstvo potrošnikov in njegovi izzivi v času 
jugoslovanske gospodarske krize v osemdesetih letih 
Catherine Samary: 1968: The Yugoslav Self-Management System at the Cross-Roads: A “Concrete Utopia” Revisited in 2018 ................................................ 
1968: il sistema di autogestione jugoslavo a un bivio: un“utopia concreta” 
rivisitata nel 2018 1968: jugoslovanski sistem samoupravljanja na razpotju: revizija 
“konkretne utopije” leta 2018 
Navodila avtorjem ..................................................................................................... Istruzioni per gli autori .............................................................................................. Instructions to authors ............................................................................................... 
107 
125 
143 
163 
187 190 194 
Received: 2018-11-28             DOI 10.19233/AH.2019.07 
BLOWING UP THE SELF-MANAGEMENT BUBBLE: YUGOSLAV 
PROPAGANDA AND ITALIAN RECEPTION IN THE EARLY 1970S 
Benedetto ZACCARIA 
European University Institute, Department of History and Civilization, Via Bolognese 156, 50139 Florence, Italy e-mail: benedetto.zaccaria@eui.eu 
ABSTRACT 
Drawing on primary sources from the Archives of Yugoslavia and several Italian ar­chival collections, this article shows that, in the early 1970s, faced with mounting inter­nal problems, the Yugoslav leadership reappraised its self-management propaganda in order to convey the image of a reforming and modernising country. This was functional to the external projection of the country’s stability, and to favouring its relations with Western European partners, Italy in primis. This article develops in three sections. First, it reappraises the historical development of Italian-Yugoslav relations after World War II, to highlight their political limitation and their link to Yugoslavia’s policy towards Western Europe. Second, it shows how the internal crisis experienced by the Yugoslav federation in the early 1970s led to the rediscovery of self-management propaganda. Particular attention is paid to the organisation of the Second Congress of Yugoslav self-managers in Sarajevo (May 1971) and its clear-cut external dimension. Third, this paper discusses the instrumental dimension of the self-management discourse in Italy until the mid-1970s. 
Keywords: Yugoslavia, self-management, Italy, Western Europe, Democrazia Cristiana, Partito Socialista Italiano, Partito Comunista Italiano 
LA BOLLA DELL’AUTOGESTIONE: PROPAGANDA JUGOSLAVA E RICEZIONE IN ITALIA NEI PRIMI ANNI SETTANTA 
SINTESI 
Basato su fonti primarie provenienti dall’archivo centrale jugoslavo (Arhiv Jugosla­vije) a Belgrado e da svariati fondi archivistici italiani, il presente articolo dimostra che nei primi anni Settanta, di fronte a crescenti problemi interni, la leadership jugoslava riscopri l’uso dell’autogestione per rappresentare l’immagine di un paese riformista e moderno. Cifu funzionale alla proiezione esterna della stabilita della federazione ed a favorire le relazioni con i paesi dell’Europa occidentale, in particolare l’Italia. L’articolo si sviluppa in tre sezioni. La prima presenta lo sviluppo delle relazioni italo-jugoslave dopo la Seconda Guerra Mondiale, per evidenziare i limiti politici di tali rapporti ed il loro legame con la politica jugoslava verso l’Europa occidentale. Il secondo dimostra come la crisi interna della federazione jugoslava nei primi anni Settanta condusse alla ri­scoperta della propaganda sull’autogestione. Particolare attenzione e prestata all’orga­nizzazione del Secondo Congresso degli Autogestori jugoslavi a Sarajevo (maggio 1971), e alla chiara dimensione internazionale di quest’ultimo. In terzo luogo, l’articolo discute 
la dimensione strumentale del discorso pubblico sull’autogestione in Italia fino alla meta 
degli anni Settanta. 
Parole chiave: Jugoslavia, autogestione, Italia, Europa occidentale, Democrazia Cristia­na, Partito Socialista Italiano, Partito Comunista Italiano 
INTRODUCTION1 
This article addresses the external use of self-management as Yugoslavia’s propa­ganda tool to foster its rapprochement to Western Europe, and Italy in particular, during the early 1970s. Traditionally, Yugoslavia’s self-management has been considered as a domestic phenomenon, and historiographical attention has therefore concentrated on its internal origins and later developments (Unkovski-Korica, 2016; Musić, 2016). Only re­cently have scholars started to assess the reception of the Yugoslav “laboratory” abroad. The very first published studies on the circulation of self-management “ideas” beyond Yugoslavia have taken into particular regard their theoretical dimension (Estrin & Uvalić, 2008) and the indirect influence on the development of industrial relations in Western Europe during the 1970s (Zaccaria, 2018a; Georgi, 2018). However, the use of self-man­agement propaganda as a foreign policy instrument represents an under-researched field. 
The present essay aims at filling this historiographical gap. Moving beyond the strict­ly scholarly dimension of Western debates on Yugoslavia’s labour-managed system, this analysis illustrates how self-management was used by the Yugoslav leadership to shape a “modernity label” in order to favour Yugoslavia’s relations with its Western European partners, with particular attention to the Italian case. As shown by recent literature, since the mid-1960s Italy had emerged as Yugoslavia’s main political partner in Western Eu­rope, as sanctioned by the Treaties of Osimo of November 1975, which settled the border problem between the two countries – a troubled legacy of World War II – and envisaged the development of bilateral relations in the political and economic spheres (Zaccaria, 2018b; Mišić, 2018; Bucarelli, 2013; Škorjanec, 2007; Pirjevec, Klabjan & Bajc, 2006). The rapprochement between Rome and Belgrade between the late 1960s and early 1970s made Italy a fertile ground for Yugoslavia’s propaganda and the development of debates on self-management in the Italian political arena. This essay investigates the rationale of such debates, focusing on the specific reception by Italy’s leading political parties: the Christian Democrat party (Democrazia Cristiana – DC), the Italian Socialist Party (Partito Socialista Italiano – PSI) and the Italian Communist Party (Partito Comunista Italiano – PCI). This article develops in three sections. First, it reappraises the historical development of Italian-Yugoslav relations after World War II, to highlight their political limitation and their link to Yugoslavia’s policy towards its Western European partners. Second, it shows how the internal crisis experienced by the Yugoslav federation in the early 1970s forced Belgrade to use self-management as a propaganda tool to convey the image of a reforming country. Particular attention is paid to the organisation of the Second Congress of Yugoslav self-managers in Sarajevo (May 1971) and its clear-cut external dimension. This section also considers the coincidence between the reappraisal of self-management in Yugoslavia and the mounting discourse on “industrial democracy” among socialist and social democratic parties in Western Europe. Third, the article dis-
The research leading to this article is part of the project PanEur1970s, which has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant Agreement No. 669194). 
cusses the instrumental dimension of the self-management discourse in Italy until the mid-1970s. The study concludes that an indirect and yet converging interest developed 
between the Yugoslav leadership and Italy’s major political parties to foster propaganda 
on Yugoslavia’s peculiar system. 
YUGOSLAVIA, ITALY AND WESTERN EUROPE 
After the end of World War II, Yugoslavia emerged as one of the most loyal and or­thodox allies of the Soviet Union. Very soon, however, Tito’s reaction against Stalin’s hegemonic plans in Eastern Europe altered the course of relations between Moscow and Belgrade, leading to the Tito-Stalin split (1948). In Western Europe, the public image of Yugoslavia changed accordingly: from an orthodox Soviet ally to a courageous opponent of Soviet rule. At internal level, the Yugoslav government reformed the country’s eco­nomic organisation. The Basic Law on the Management of State Enterprises was passed (1950), leading to the constitution of workers’ elected councils. The newly established system, based on radical economic de-Stalinisation, envisaged the withering away of the state as a central planner, the social ownership of the means of production and, at least in theory, the direct participation of workers in the management of enterprises (Denitch, 1976). This was a political move, linked to the need to legitimise Yugoslavia’s national road to socialism, faced with the rise of “anti-Titoist” campaigns in the Soviet bloc (Un-kovski-Korica, 2016). 
At international level, the rupture with Moscow obliged Belgrade to look for new partners: this meant a renewed relationship with post-colonial leaderships, resulting in the establishment of the non-aligned movement in 1961 (Bogetić, 2006; Rajak, 2014). However, in the immediate aftermath of the Tito-Stalin split, Belgrade’s attention turned towards the West. The Western powers, and the United States in primis, were not deaf to Yugoslavia’s requests for support: Tito was therefore kept “afloat” through financial and military assistance (Laković, 2006 and 2015; Lees, 1997; Heuser, 1989). Since the mid-1950s, the United States were replaced by Western European countries as Belgrade’s most prominent economic and political partners. This was the immediate result of the economic boom which had characterised Western Europe since the mid-1950s. Among the member states of the European Economic Community (EEC), Italy gradually emerged as Yugoslavia’s most important commercial and political partner. This rapprochement was somehow revolutionary. Indeed, since the end of World War II, relations between the two countries had been affected by the definition of the state border and, later, by the implementation of the so-called Free Territory of Trieste (FTT). Envisaged by the 1947 Peace Treaty, the latter was never established due to the direct confrontation between Italy, supported by its Western partners, and Yugoslavia, sided by Moscow. Even after the Tito-Stalin split in 1948, political relations between Rome and Belgrade remained tense. This bilateral tension was resolved due to the mediation of the Western powers, which encouraged the two countries to reach a de facto settlement – the Memorandum of Understanding signed in London in October 1954 – based on the division of the FFTinto two zones (Aand B) to be administered respectively by Rome and Belgrade. The Italian Parliament did not ratify the Memorandum, as Italy’s leading parties were not ready to of­ficially renounce to the Italian sovereignty over zone B2. However, the settlement reached in London allowed for the re-launching of bilateral relations: Italy and Yugoslavia had 
decided to separate the territorial question from economic and political considerations, as both leaderships realised the advantages stemming from enhanced cooperation (Ruzicic-
Kessler, 2014, 645–647; Bucarelli, 2013, 33–38). 
The Italian industrial boom, reverberating in rapid social modernisation, was a lead­ing factor in the reconciliation between the two countries. Changing patterns in the Italian “way of life” – primarily inspired by the American model (Scoppola, 1991, 291–295) 
– 
also affected the Yugoslav cultural scene, during a period when industrialisation and urbanisation in the Yugoslav federation were leading to the birth of a new consumer-ori­ented middle-class society (Calic, 2011). Italian popular culture – from music to fashion 

– 
became a reference model for Yugoslavia’s young generations (Rolandi, 2015). Eco­nomically, since the mid-1950s Yugoslavia had entered a phase of rapid industrialisation 


which needed Western financing and technology (Obadić, 2014). As a bordering country 
participating in the process of economic integration in Western Europe, Italy represented 
a privileged partner. Rome also intended to expand its economic influence in the Balkan region – a traditional Italian sphere of interest. Moreover, beyond economic interests, relations developed after the establishment of the first centre-left coalition in Italy, led by Aldo Moro (December 1963). This coalition government, based on collaboration be­tween DC and PSI, meant a veritable step forward in Italian attitudes towards Yugosla­via (Bucarelli, 2013, 35–38). Moro, as the representative of the progressive wing of the Italian Christian Democrats, aimed at expanding relations with Italy’s socialist partners (Monzali, 2012, 89–114). Yugoslavia soon became the target of the new coalition’s for­eign policy goals. The Socialist party, a traditional admirer of Yugoslavia’s “third way” in international relations, followed and encouraged Moro’s attitude. Antonio De Martino, 
Italian Vice-Prime Minister and Secretary of the PSI, visited Belgrade in 1964, praising 
the virtues of the country’s innovative economic system and its position between the European blocs.3 One year later, in November 1965, Moro paid the first visit of an Italian Prime Minister to Yugoslavia since the end of World War II. His mission coincided with the launch of a major process of economic reforms in Yugoslavia, which aimed at inte­grating the country in the international market and envisaged the introduction of market 
mechanisms in the internal economic system (Obadić, 2014). 
Throughout the 1960s, Belgrade also developed direct contacts with the EEC, having Rome as its prominent partner and advocate. The course of Yugoslavia’s relations with the Community accelerated after August 1968, as the Soviet intervention in Prague in that month raised Yugoslav – and Western – fears about Moscow’s alleged expansionistic plans in the Balkans and the Mediterranean (Bajc, 2016). In October 1968, commercial negotiations between Yugoslavia and the EEC opened, in order to create a contractual 
2 As recalled later, the border question was resolved by the Osimo Agreements (1975) which entered into 
force in 1977. 3 ASSR, UA 372, Viaggio della delegazione del Partito socialista italiano in Jugoslavia, giugno 1964. 
link between Belgrade and Brussels. Italy strongly advocated Yugoslavia’s trade requests, especially in the agricultural field, confirming its role as a porte-parole of Belgrade’s interests within the Community up to the conclusion of the first EEC-Yugoslav trade agreement in 1970 (Zaccaria, 2016, 13–46). Soon after the Prague events, the Italian For­eign Ministry also decided to start secret talks with its Yugoslav counterpart to overcome the border problem: the goal was to eliminate the last – and yet cumbersome – factor of controversy between Rome and Belgrade. The Italian political leadership agreed on the 
initiative coming from its diplomatic apparatus, but insisted that it should be kept secret: it was aware that the country’s public opinion still regarded the Trieste question as a sen­sitive topic. The centre-left coalition was also facing widespread students’and workers’ protests and – with them – an overall legitimacy crisis: in this framework, announcing the 
solution of the border question through the renunciation of zone B of the FTT could shift 
the political balance of the country. In the late 1960s, Yugoslavia’s image in Italy was therefore still affected by the border issue. Overall, this limited the room for manoeuvre of the Italian political leadership in relations with Belgrade, confining the latter to the economic domain (Zaccaria, 2018b, 36–41). 
REDISCOVERING THE EXTERNAL DIMENSION OF SELF-MANAGEMENT 
In the early 1970s, Yugoslavia was also affected by clear-cut internal problems, due to the rise of inflation, turmoil in underdeveloped regions – Kosovo in primis – and the rise of the nationalistic discourse, particularly in Croatia. The market-oriented reforms of the mid-1960s were increasingly blamed for being responsible of the economic deterioration of the country (Ramet, 2006, 234–240). 
It was in this delicate political juncture that the party leadership discussed the need for a public reappraisal of Yugoslavia’s internal system through the re-launching and strengthening of self-management (Deveti kongres SKJ, 143–144, 148–160). This strategy was also intended to foster Yugoslavia’s international status. In fact, the De­partment of Information and Political Propaganda of the Savez Komunista Jugoslavije (SKJ) was noting increasing Western scepticism towards the impact of liberal reforms on the self-management system. A departmental note dated April 1971, summarised Western concerns – based on analysis of specialised press and scholarly works on Yugoslavia – concerning the “degradation” of self-management as one effect of the privatisation and “bureaucratisation” of economic activities, and its limitation to the enterprise sector without effects on social relations. The consequence of this – from the Western perspective – was the loosening of ties between the League and the popular masses, and an overall crisis of Yugoslavia’s economic system and internal relations. The decline of self-management, traditionally considered in the West as “the pillar of Yugoslavia’s regime”, was also supposed to concern relations between the north­ern republics (Slovenia and Croatia) and the underdeveloped south.4 As in the early 
AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, Predsedništvo SKJ, Odeljenje za političko-propagandno delovanje i informacije, Pov. 
Br. 11/40, 26. 4. 1971, 98. 
1950s, when the Yugoslav leadership had demonstrated to its new Western partners 
its independent course through the launch of the labour-managed reforms, the crisis of self-management required to re-launch the public image of Yugoslavia’s economic 
system. This reappraisal of self-management was therefore linked to the importance, 
for Yugoslavia, to discard Western concerns about the federation’s stability and to con­firm its image as a sui generis socialist country among Western European political and intellectual circles. In particular, what the Yugoslav party leadership expected vis-a-vis Italy was to maintain a special partnership based on Yugoslavia’s status as a peculiar socialist regime which offered a stable alternative to Soviet bloc economies. In 1970, this was clearly expressed by Italian Prime Minister, Giovanni Leone, during a meeting with Toma Granfil, a member of the Yugoslav government in charge of relations with the EEC. Responding to Granfil’s appeals for enhanced cooperation and trade with Italy, Leone noted that it was in Italian interest to support Yugoslavia’s “laboratory”, that is, an “experiment [which is] followed in Italy with sympathy and interest: this means indeed the creation of a country with Socialist and Marxist roots, but free and independent”.5 
The reconsideration of self-management propaganda intersected with the rise of social discontent in Western Europe. Students’ and workers’ protests, from the French “May” of 1968 to Italy’s “Hot Autumn” of 1969 revived intellectual and political debates on the issue of industrial democracy as a way to solve social discontent. The search for a “third way” overcoming the dichotomy between the “state” and the “market” char-acterised such debates (Balfour, 1973). As shown by recent research, self-management was “re-discovered” by Western European social democratic and socialist parties as an alternative, theoretical model of economic, social and political organisation. In Western Europe the ground was therefore receptive for Yugoslavia’s efforts to re-launch the pub­lic discourse on self-management. In France, the public debate promoted by the coun­try’s leading trade unions on such issue contributed towards establishing the Soudreau Commission (1974) devoted to the enlargement of workers’rights in the workplace. At the same time, in West Germany the Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (SPD) reformed and expanded the Mitbestimmung system. Such debates were not immune from the broader diplomatic aspects of Yugoslavia’s international position and, in particular, from Bonn’s foreign policy towards Belgrade within the framework of the SPD-led Neue-Ostpolitik (Zaccaria, 2018a, 213–235). 
This foreign policy dimension is particularly well shown by analysis of the Italian 
case. Throughout the 1950s, interest in the Yugoslav model had been primarily nurtured 
by academic and cultural élites. This was the case, for example, of progressive and “lay” journals and periodicals such as Il Ponte – which published the first thorough analysis of the innovative characters of the Yugoslav “laboratory” in Italy6 – and federalist-oriented Democrazia integrale, which in the mid-1950s had paid particular attention to the Yu­
5 ASPR, Ufficio consigliere diplomatico, b. 130, Colloquio On. Leone – Ministro jugoslavo per il Coordina­mento del Commercio con l’Estero, 20. 9. 1968, 188. 
6 Il Ponte, XI, n. 8–9, August–September, 1955: Jugoslavia d’oggi. 
goslav experience as a model of economic and social organisation (Favaretto, 1965). However, it was only between the late 1960s and early 1970s that the “self-managed 
discourse” began to shift from the academic to the political arena. 
As for the DC, it was the party’s left, inclined to social principles, to be affected by the developmentof the debates on “industrial democracy” which had emerged within the Catholic world after the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) (Sergio, 2009; Taviani, 1972). The DC’s official newspaper, Il Popolo, did not ignore the Yugoslav model. The Christian democratic press emphasised the difference between the Yugoslav system and the Soviet model of state-led economic organisation, and the market mechanisms regulat­ing the self-managed enterprises.7 Such a narrative fitted the political-diplomatic efforts by the party’s leadership to improve Yugoslavia’s image in Italy. The publicity given by the DC leadership to the first (troubled) visit of Tito to Italy in 1971 (Bajc, 2014; Mišić, 2011) bears witness to the attention paid by the party to the public dimension of rela­tions with Belgrade.8 In these circumstances, public appreciation for Yugoslavia’s system, aimed at “humanising the social environment”, had also been publicly expressed by Pope Paul VI, contributing to the success of the visit (Barberini, 2007, 267–274). 
While the DC’s engagement with the Yugoslav question was primarily linked to the latter’s foreign policy dimension, it was the PSI – which participated in the governing coalitions from 1968 to 1969 (Rumor I) and from 1970 to 1972 (Rumor II and Colombo) 
– which showed a genuine interest in Yugoslavia and its model. In fact, the PSI’s attention 
to the issue of labour-managed economies had surfaced since the immediate post-World War II years, when the party had unsuccessfully campaigned for the creation of “manage­ment councils” (consigli di gestione) in enterprises (Pinto, 2008). The issue of workers’ participation had re-emerged on the PSI political agenda in the 1960s, due to the influ­ence of the debate on self-management raised in France by Socialist Gilles Martinet and 
philosopher Henri Lefebvre (Achilli & Dambrosio, 1976). In the late 1960s, faced with rising social and political unrest, the PSI had therefore set the improvement of workers’ 
conditions as its main political priority, and attention had focused on the drafting of the Workers’ Statute (Statuto dei Lavoratori) (Nenni, 1977, 97–123). 
It was not by chance that this Statute, originally conceived by the Minister of Work, the Socialist Giacomo Brodolini, examined the question of workers’ participation (La­naro, 1992, 360). An axis was created with the DC “left”, as witnessed by the engagement of Carlo Donat Cattin, Brodolini’s successor, to implement the Workers’ Statute in 1970. But, beyond ideological and domestic considerations, foreign policy goals added to the Italian socialists’attitude towards Yugoslavia and its internal system. In 1969, Pietro Nen­ni, a leading party member and then Minister for Foreign Affairs, had actively supported the solution of the border problem with Italy and Yugoslavia’s economic integration in the Western system (Zaccaria, 2018b, 48–50). This was reflected in public rhetoric. The Party’s newspaper, Avanti!, recurrently praised Yugoslavia’s labour-managed economy as 
7 Il Popolo, 27. 2. 1970: Democrazia e partecipazione – 1. L’Autogestione. 8 Il Popolo, 25. 3. 1971: Tito da oggi a Roma in visita ufficiale; Il Popolo, 28. 3. 1971: Il Presidente Tito visita 
gli stabilimenti della FIAT. 
a challenge to the USSR model.9 In direct contacts between representatives of the PSI and League of Communists of Yugoslavia, Italian socialists were eager to confirm the party’s open support towards Yugoslavia’s independence and territorial integrity, promising this 
at governmental level.10 
It was in this favourable context that the SKJ leadership started to rationalise its prop­aganda efforts. To achieve this goal, in July 1969 an ad hoc office was created – under the leadership of Dušan Petrović-Šane, a member of the League’s Executive Committee, 
to organise the Second Congress of Yugoslav Self-managers.11 This initiative, later held 
in Sarajevo in May 1971, had domestic and external goals. Internally, it was a regressive move aimed at overcoming the alleged flaws of the market-oriented reforms; challenging “bureaucratic and technocratic” forces hindering the social power of the working class and, lastly, re-launching a “modern and self-managed society”.12 Externally – which is of interest for the purposes of this article – the re-launch of self-management aimed at presenting the renewed image of a country able to reform itself and overcome its tense 
internal situation. In this regard, an internal note of the Group for Social and Political Questions of the Presidency of the Republic, dated 8 January 1971, noted that: 
The preparation of the congress coincides with a moment in which there is a sudden increase of interests in ideas and practice of self-management. It is therefore beyond any legitimate doubt that the Congress will contribute towards strengthening the rep­utation of our country in the international scene, and to further promoting the concept of self-management all over the world.13 
At party level, it was therefore decided to strengthen propaganda activities, involv­ing leading news agencies, radio and periodicals (including Tanjug, Radio Beograd and Međunarodna Politika) coordinated by the Federal Secretary for Information.14 Informa­tive booklets on Yugoslavia’s self-management were also published for foreign visitors 
and observers.15 
Meanwhile, the deterioration of the internal situation in Yugoslavia, determined by ever growing strains between the federal centre and Croatia’s independent course, strengthened the political dimension of the Sarajevo meeting. After April 1971, the Cabi­
9 Avanti!, 22. 12. 1970: Cooperazione per la pace fra Italia e Jugoslavia. See also press cuttings in: FSSFT, 
Fondo Mario Zagari, serie 5: Affari Esteri, “Yougoslavie,” 31–03–1973/09–10/1973. 
10 See: ASSR, UA 372. 11 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, Informacija o dosadašnjim pripremama za drugi kongres samoupravljača Jugoslavije, Beograd, 8. 1. 1971, 3. The first Congress took place in 1950 to celebrate the launch of the new economic 
system. 12 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, Informacija o Prvoj tribini klubova samoupravljača Jugoslavije, 8. 1. 1971, 7. 13 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, Informacija o dosadašnjim pripremama za drugi kongres samoupravljača Jugoslavije, 
Beograd, 8. 1. 1971. 14 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, Informacija o izvršenju programa informativne aktivnosti prema inostranstvu povodom održavanja Kongresa samoupravljača, Beograd, 12. 4. 1971. 15 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, Odelenje za međunarodne odnose i veze predsedništva SKJ, Pov. Br. 2405/192, Beo-grad, 5. 4. 1971. 
net of the Presidency of the Republic, headed by Marko Vrhunec, coordinated the public 
dimension of the event, keeping close contact with the Information Office of the SKJ ’s 
Presidency, the Federal Secretariat for Information, the Alliance of Yugoslav Trade Un­ions, the ad hoc Office for the Preparation of the Congress and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. As reported by Vrhunec, the major conclusion stemming from the internal debate among the above-mentioned bodies was that foreign observers would not be interested 
only in the self-management issue, but also in the country’s broader political situation.16 Accordingly, the congress was designed to be a veritable show of Yugoslavia’s sys­tem. Beyond the conspicuous presence of foreign journalists in Sarajevo (more than 110 
– most of whom came from West Germany (21) and Italy (14)) and the presence of 
TV teams from Great Britain, Italy, Austria and West Germany, the number of foreign 
observers from all over the world (almost 200) indicated the success of the Yugoslav initiative.17 Aspecial information office was established in Sarajevo, to review and ana­lyse the reception of the Congress abroad. Information reports from this office focused in particular on the Western European delegates. Particular attention was devoted to the Italian representatives. The Italian delegation was indeed one of the largest: it was made 
up of personalities coming from a broad spectrum of political and social organisations, including trade unions (CGIL– Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro, and CISL 
– Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori), progressive political parties (including the PSI and PCI) and Catholic associations (ACLI – Associazioni Cristiane Lavoratori Italiani) and, lastly, research centres (Istituto Gramsci and ISDEE – Istituto di Studi e Documentazione sull’Est Europeo in Trieste).18 As regards the Italian leftist parties at­tending the works in Sarajevo, reports showed their great interest and conviction that the meeting would represent 
a new page in the development of self-management. The Yugoslav experience is of fundamental importance for their work, and have therefore paid attention to the work of the [Congress’] Commissions, to listen to what workers think about problems and solutions in our country.19 
Such statements recurred frequently in the press analysis carried out by the propa­
ganda office. Its last report concluded that, in line with the original goals of its organisers, the Congress had contributed towards shifting international attention from the political 
and economic crisis experienced by the federation to the re-launch of self-management as Yugoslavia’s internal pillar.20 
16 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, Beleška, Brioni, 27. 4. 1971. 17 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, II. kongres samoupravljača, Grupa za međunarodne aspekte, Bilten br.1, Sarajevo, 5. 5. 1971. 18 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, Lista inostranih posmatrača na II. kongresu samoupravljača Jugoslavije, Sarajevo, 5.–8. 5. 1971. 19 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, II. kongres samoupravljača, Grupa za međunarodne aspekte, Bilten br. 7, Sarajevo, 7. 5. 1971. 20 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-1, II. kongres samoupravljača, Grupa za međunarodne aspekte, Bilten br. 7, Sarajevo, 7. 5. 1971. 
The Sarajevo Congress was indeed a stimulus for academic and intellectual debates on Yugoslavia’s self-management, particularly in Western Europe. The SKJ’s propaganda of­fice continued to follow the evolution of these debates. In a December 1972 report, it con­cluded that opinions on Yugoslavia’s experience oscillated between those who thought that self-management offered solutions to the problems of modern society, and those who be­lieved that this system was “a good idea” which, however, could not work in Yugoslavia, for economic and political reasons. Faced with this polarisation, the propaganda office con­cluded that it was in the interests of the League to foster its external actions – particularly in Western Europe – to confirm the expansion of self-management as the basis of Yugoslavia’s development and internal stability.21 In Italy, this propaganda assumed an increasing political/ diplomatic dimension, which was linked to the need to favour the development of bilateral relations between Rome and Belgrade. This is clearly shown by the attitude of the Italian am­bassador to Belgrade, Giuseppe Walter Maccotta. In February 1972, during his first meeting with Stane Dolanc, Secretary of the Executive Bureau of the Presidency of the SKJ, Maccotta emphasised that the Yugoslav propaganda in Italy was still weak (slaba) and this affected the knowledge of Yugoslavia’s peculiar road to socialism. Accordingly, Maccotta insisted on the need for the SKJ to strengthen its information activity in Italy.22 As shown by recent research, the Italian diplomacy was not alone in considering the advantages stemming from the public rhetoric on self-management: this was, for example, the case of the Quai d’Orsay, which was aware that relations between Paris and Belgrade would benefit from the political/academic debate on self-management in France. A further example of the diplomatic dimension of self-management also concerned the visit of the President of the European Commission, the Dutch social-democrat Sicco Mansholt, to Belgrade in December 1972. In this circumstance, self-management was used by the Yugoslav representatives to insist on the effectiveness of their economic system, and as an axis of political convergence with Western European social de­mocracy. What was at stake was the renewal of the 1970 trade agreement with the EEC, and the deepening of cooperation with the Community (Zaccaria, 2018a, 215–219). 
AN INSTRUMENTAL ATTITUDE 
The evolution of the self-management discourse in Italy until the mid-1970s bears witness to the convergence of Rome’s and Belgrade’s interests to improve the “image” of Yugoslavia in Italy. DC leaders insisted on the strategic importance of Yugoslavia’s independence em-phasising the “public” dimension of relations with Belgrade.23 In December 1972, the Centro per le relazioni italo-jugoslave was established in Rome on the initiative of the DC foreign minister, Giuseppe Medici, to foster cultural and artistic cooperation beyond the diplomatic field.24 At the same time, the PSI continued to stress self-management as Yugoslavia’s distinc­
21 AJ, KPR, II-5-e-2-16, Predsedništvo SKJ, Odeljenje za političko-propagandno delovanje i informacije, Br. 
13/1, 11. 1. 1972, 8. 22 AJ, 507/IX, Italija, K 12, Pov. br. 2405/59, Beograd, 10. 2. 1972, 17. 23 Il Popolo, 14. 2. 1973: Autogestione per il domani; MAESSD, Testi e documenti sulla politica estera dell’I­
talia, 1972, Discorso del ministro Moro a Trieste (22 aprile 1972), 265. 24 Il Popolo, 14. 2. 1973: Costituito il Centro per le relazioni italo-jugoslave (Roma, 12 dicembre 1972), 483. 
tive feature through Avanti!.25 At internal level, the socialists’stress on self-management was linked to competition with the PCI. As the latter condemned the socialists’participation in the centre-left coalition, arguing that the PSI was renouncing its genuine socialist goals for the sake of power-sharing with DC, Italian socialists needed an ideological reference point – in this case, self-management – to present themselves as genuine supporter of workers’requests to the leftist electorate (Salvadori, 2015; Vaccarini, 1981; Napolitano, 2008, 150–153). This domestic strategy was to linger until the end of the decade.26 
After 1972, Yugoslavia’s propaganda efforts were facilitated by the political rap­prochement between the SKJ and PCI. For the Italian Communists, fostering political relations with the League – which represented an “heresy” in the international communist movement – was part of an overall strategy aimed at distinguishing itself from Soviet or­thodoxy. This was one of the motives behind the “Eurocommunist” international strategy promoted by Enrico Berlinguer, Secretary-General of the party since 1972 (Pons, 2006). Also linked to Eurocommunism was the internal attitude of Berlinguer vis-a-vis coopera­tion with the DC and the search for a compromesso storico with the latter after 1973. This strategy required the development of “national solidarity” in foreign policy and, there­fore, the PCI alignment with the opening of the main parties of the governing coalitions towards Belgrade, in view of the settlement of the border problem. And yet, beyond such internal and foreign policy considerations, the question of workers’participation exerted a notable fascination on Italian Communists, which went back to Antonio Gramsci’s po­litical thought (Napolitano, 2008, 150–153). Within the party, the public discourse on self-management took into consideration the Yugoslav “laboratory”, as demonstrated by the publication in the party’s leading periodical, Rinascita, of two long articles on the peculiarity of the Yugoslav economic system by Veljko Vlahović, a member of the Presi­dency of the SKJ, in February (Cavera, 2006, 42). It was Rinascita itself which, in a letter sent by its Director, Gerardo Chiaromonte, to Tito, had manifested the “enormous inter­est” shown by its readers in the role of the party in self-managed society.27 In 1974, the of­ficial party publishing house, Editori Riuniti, issued a collection of articles and speeches delivered by Tito in the early 1970s – Autogestione e socialismo (Self-management and Socialism) – which followed the innovative course of Yugoslav socialism (Tito, 1974a). This book was the outcome of joint cooperation between the PCI and the Information and Propaganda office of the Presidency of the SKJ and showed Italian Communists’efforts at spreading knowledge of the Yugoslav system among their readers.28 In the same year, Editori Riuniti also published Tito’s opening speech at the Tenth Congress of the SKJ (May 1974), focused on Yugoslavia’s labour-managed experience (Tito, 1974b). 
As in the case of the DC and PSI, the Italian Communists’ “admiration” for the Yugo­
slav system was based more on instrumental interest than the actual intention to develop 
25 Avanti!, 26. 9. 1973: Belgrado conferma il non allineamento; Avanti!, 28. 5. 1974: Fermezza di Tito. 26 Avanti!, 20. 9. 1978: Autonomia e autogestione. Una proposta socialista alternativa allo Stato burocratico 
e accentratore. 27 AJ, 507/IX, Italija, K12, Rinascita, Roma, 27. 11. 1972, 96. 28 AJ, 507/IX, Italija, K 23, Pov. br. 1906/3376/1, Beograd, 10. 4. 1974. 
Italian legislation in the field of workers’participation further. The compromesso storico, required a moderate and non-radical posture vis-a-vis the issues of social and industrial 
organisation, which was not to affect dialogue with Italian moderates (Mainardi & Ozella, 2009, 121–123). Accordingly, the PCI did not welcome the appeals for radical changes in industrial organisation voiced by radical workers’ (operaisti) movements in previous years. No major public campaigns were carried out at national level to support workers’ enhanced participation in enterprises, let alone their right to self-management. Beyond the 
need for dialogue with the DC moderate forces and the business world – which voiced its opposition towards any scheme of workers’participation29 – the PCI was also aware of the peculiar position of Italian trade unions. The latter – in primis CGILand CISL– interpreted 
their role according to an antagonistic logic, aiming at “external” control of the enterprise 
management. This is why the most important reform concerning industrial relations in Italy 
– 
the Workers’Statute – sanctioned the actual detachment of workers from the management of enterprises and reinforced the role of trade unions in the field of contractual bargaining (Giugni, 1986, 45–46).30 

The attitude of the major Italian parties towards the Yugoslav system was therefore instrumental. Internally, it suited the domestic dialectic and was compatible with public debates on industrial democracy (which had developed since the late 1960s independently of the “Yugoslav question”), leaving discussions at an abstract level with no normative engagements. Internationally, it was in line with Italy’s foreign policy goals in the Balkans. Amplifying Yugoslav propaganda, Italian political parties made a fundamental contribution to overcoming of the antagonistic rhetoric which had characterised the public discourse on Yugoslavia since the end of World War II. This was to facilitate the development of bilateral diplomatic relations with Belgrade. As territorial negotiations – and their economic clauses 

– 
were developed in secret, the public discourse on Yugoslavia was facilitated by the posi­tive public outlook on the “self-management” laboratory. 


Assessing the actual impact of Yugoslav propaganda and Italian reception without quantitative data or opinion polls is an impossible task. However, study of the con­temporary press reveals that, when the Osimo agreements were signed in November 1975 – overcoming the border issue and providing for enhanced economic cooperation to link Yugoslavia to the Western European market – the public image of Yugoslavia in Italy was that of a reformist and innovative country. This view was conveyed by a broad spectrum of newspaper and periodicals from the moderate-conservative to the progressive political areas (Cavera, 2006, 40–44), with the notable exception of the parliamentary right and local opposition in the Trieste area (Monzali, 2015, 627–629). From an historical viewpoint, therefore, the instrumental convergence of Yugoslav and Italian interests in enhancing self-management propaganda had resulted in a mutual diplomatic advantage. 
29 Partecipazione e democrazia industriale, 1977. 30 ASCGIL, Fondo Atti e Corrispondenza della Segreteria, b. 160, fasc. 160, Texte préparé par la Conféde-
ration Italienne des Syndicats Ouvriers pour la Table Ronde Syndicale Internationale: «Les syndicats et la 
Participation des Travailleurs a la prise de decision», Sarajevo, 10.–11. 5. 1971. 
CONCLUSIONS 
In the early 1970s, faced with mounting internal problems, the Yugoslav leadership used 
self-management as a propaganda tool to convey the image of a reformist and modernising 
country. This was functional to the external projection of the country’s stability and reduction 
of international concerns about the future of the federation. Yugoslavia’s self-management propaganda devoted special attention to Western Europe, Italy in particular. For Belgrade, 
the enhancement of political and economic relations with its EEC partners represented a 
political imperative even after the crisis of the liberal reforms of the 1960s. The opening towards Western Europe, however, needed renewed internal and external political legitimi­sation. The latter was found in the re-launch of the self-management discourse. Externally, 
this policy encroached on the development of debates on “industrial democracy” in Western 
Europe, which helped Yugoslavia’s propaganda to find receptive grounds. Beyond analysis of the theoretical dimension and actual provisions of the self-management system – which was beyond the scope of this work – this article shows the instrumental nature of the self-management discourse. This was particularly the case of Italy, where the labour-managed 
system became a cheap political “card” to support Rome’s rapprochement to Belgrade. The 
image of Yugoslavia as a “laboratory” of industrial democracy was recurrent in the public 
discourse of Italy’s leading political parties, representing the core of the “public” dimen­sion of Italian-Yugoslav relations. Analysis of Yugoslavia’s self-management propaganda 
and its Italian reception has therefore shown that the discourse on “self-management” was artificially boosted for foreign policy goals. 
Metaphorically, one could conclude that Yugoslavia and Italy found convergent rea­
sons for “blowing up” the self-management bubble. This metaphor makes sense of the 
exponential rise of self-management as a fashionable political topic in the early and mid­1970s, and its consequent, gradual decline: the mounting crisis of the Yugoslav federation 
confined self-management to the theoretical sphere (a dimension which has traditionally characterised analysis on self-management in Yugoslavia).31 In Italy, as in France and oth­er Western European countries, the political discourse on the Yugoslav system underwent a rapid decline, which was observed by the same protagonists of the political-intellectual debates of the early 1970s (Georgi, 2003, 8). As a fragile, floating bubble, the public di­mension of Yugoslavia’s self-management was slowly yet inexorably swept away. 
31 In this regard see: Estrin & Uvalić, 2008. 
RAZBLINJENJE SAMOUPRAVNEGA MEHURČKA: RECEPCIJA JUGOSLOVANSKE PROPAGANDE V ITALIJI V ZAČETKU 
SEDEMDESETIH LET 
Benedetto ZACCARIA 
European University Institute, Department of History and Civilization, 
Via Bolognese 156, 50139 Firenze, Italija 
e-mail: benedetto.zaccaria@eui.eu 
POVZETEK 
Članek na podlagi primarnih virov iz Arhiva Jugoslavije in več italijanskih arhi­vov prikazuje, kako je jugoslovansko vodstvo, soočeno z resnimi notranjimi težavami, v začetku sedemdesetih let znova okrepilo propagando o samoupravljanju. S tem so jugoslovanski voditelji skušali Jugoslaviji povrniti podobo države, ki se reformira in modernizira, kar je služilo zunanji projekciji o stabilni državi in spodbujanju odnosov z zahodnoevropskimi partnerji, zlasti z Italijo. Članek je razdeljen na tri dele. V prvem delu ponovno ocenjuje zgodovinski razvoj italijansko-jugoslovanskih odnosov po drugi svetovni vojni s poudarkom na njihovih političnih omejitvah in povezanosti z jugoslo­vansko politiko do zahodne Evrope. Drugi del prikazuje, kako je notranja kriza, ki jo je jugoslovanska federacija doživljala v začetku sedemdesetih let, privedla do ponovnega odkritja propagande o samoupravljanju, pri čemer je posebna pozornost namenjena drugemu kongresu jugoslovanskih samoupravljavcev v Sarajevu maja 1971 in njego-vim očitnim zunanjepolitičnim razsežnostim. Tretji del članka obravnava instrumental-no dimenzijo samoupravnega diskurza v Italiji do sredine sedemdesetih let. 
Ključne besede: Jugoslavija, samoupravljanje, Italija, zahodna Evropa, Democrazia 
Cristiana, Partito Socialista Italiano, Partito Comunista Italiano 
SOURCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 
AJ, 507/IX – Arhiv Jugoslavije, Beograd [Archives of Yugoslavia] (AJ), Savez komu­nista Jugoslavije, Komisija za međunarodne odnose i veze [The League of Com­munists of Yugoslavia, Commission for International Relations and Ties] (507/IX). 
AJ, KPR – AJ, Kabinet Predsednika Republike [Cabinet of the President of the Re­public] (KPR). 
AS CGIL – Archivio Storico della CGIL, Roma [Historical Archives of CGIL] (AS CGIL). 
ASPR – Archivio Storico della Presidenza della Repubblica, Roma [Historical Ar­
chives of the Presidency of the Republic](ASPR). 
ASSR, UA 372 – Archivio Storico del Senato della Repubblica, Roma [Historical Archives of the Senate of the Republic] (ASSR), Fondo Antonio De Martino (UA 372). 
Avanti! – Roma, 1896–. 
Deveti kongres SKJ – Deveti kongres Saveza komunista Jugoslavije. Beograd, Ko­munist, 1969. 
FSSFT – Fondazione di Studi Storici Filippo Turati, Firenze [Filippo Turati Founda­tion for Historical Studies] (FSSFT). 
Il Ponte – Firenze, 1945–. 
Il Popolo – Roma, 1944–. 
MAESSD – Ministero degli Affari Esteri, Servizio Storia e documentazione, Roma [Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Historical and Documentation Office] (MAESSD). 
Partecipazione e democrazia industriale (1977): ricerca del Comitato centrale Gio­vani imprenditori dell’industria. Milano, ETAS Libri. 
Tito, J. Broz (1974a): Autogestione e socialismo. Roma, Editori Riuniti. 
Tito, J. Broz (1974b): L’autogestione e la Lega dei comunisti. Roma, Editori Riuniti. 
Achilli, M. & F. Dambrosio (1976): L’alternativa socialista. Autogestione e riforme di struttura. Milano, Mazzotta. 
Balfour, C. (ed.) (1973): Participation in Industry. London, Croom Helm. 
Bajc, G. (2014): Dietro le quinte della visita di Tito a Roma nel 1971: il contesto lo­cale e internazionale letto dalla diplomazia britannica. Annales, Series Historia et Sociologia, 24, 4, 713–732. 
Bajc, G. (2016): Great Britain and the Italian-Yugoslav Relations in the 1970s. In: Bucarelli, M., Micheletta, L., Monzali, L. & L. Riccardi (eds.): Italy and Tito’s Yugoslavia in the Age of International Détente. Bruxelles, Peter Lang, 75–98. 
Barberini, G. (2007): L’Ostpolitik della Santa Sede. Un dialogo lungo e faticoso. Bologna, il Mulino. 
Bogetić, D. (2006): Nova strategija spoljne politike Jugoslavije 1956–1961. ISI, Beo-grad. 
Bucarelli, M. (2013): La politica estera italiana e la soluzione della questione di Tri­este: gli accordi di Osimo del 1975. Qualestoria, 2, 29–54. 
Calic, M. (2011): The beginning of the End – The 1970s as a Historical Turning Point in Yugoslavia, In: Calic, M., Nautatz, D. & J. Obertreis (eds.): The Crisis of Socialist Modernity. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1970s. Gtingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 66–86. 
Cavera, G. (2006): Gli accordi di Osimo e la crisi politica italiana degli anni Settanta. Nuova Storia Contemporanea, 3, 15–44. 
Denitch, B. (1976): The Legitimation of a Revolution. The Yugoslav Case. New Ha­ven, London, Yale University Press. 
Estrin, S. & M. Uvalić (2008): From Illyria towards Capitalism: Did Labour-Man­agement Theory Teach Us Anything about Yugoslavia and Transition in its Succes­sor States? Comparative Economic Studies, 50, 663–696. 
Favaretto, T. (1965): Autonomia e potere nella Repubblica Federativa Jugoslava. 
Democrazia Integrale, 6, 4–24 and 7, 1965, 3–21. 
Georgi, F. (ed.) (2003): Autogestion, La derniere utopie. Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne. 
Georgi, F. (2018): L’Autogestion en chantier. Les gauches françaises et le ‘modele yougoslave’, 1948–1981. Nancy, Editions Arbre bleu. 
Giugni, G. (1986): Diritto sindacale. Bari, Cacucci editore. Heuser, B. (1989): Western ‘Containment’ Policies in the Cold War: The Yugoslav 
Case, 1948–1953. London, New York, Routledge. 
Lanaro, S. (1992): Storia dell’Italia Repubblicana. L’economia, la cultura, la societa dal dopoguerra agli anni ’90. Venezia, Marsilio. 
Laković, I. (2006): Zapadna vojna pomoć Jugoslaviji 1951–1958. Podgorica, Istori­jski institut Crne Gore. 
Laković, I. (2015): Il mare Adriatico nei piani dell’approvvigionamento di materiale 
bellico alla Jugoslavia agli inizi degli anni Cinquanta. Acta Histriae, 23, 4, 749–764. Lees, L. M. (1997): Keeping Tito Afloat: The United States, Yugoslavia and the Cold 
War. University Park, PA, Penn State University Press. Mainardi G. & C. Ozella (2009): Cooperative e Consorzi. Dai principi alle realiz­
zazioni. Torino, Effata Editrice. 
Mišic, S. (2011): Poseta Josipa Broza Tita Italiji 1971. godine. In: Manojlovic Pintar, O., Bjelajac, M. & R. Radic (eds.): Tito – viđenja i tumacenja. Beograd, Institut za noviju istoriju Srbije, Arhiv Jugoslavije, 505–521. 
Mišić, S. (2013): La Jugoslavia e il Trattato di Osimo del 1975. Qualestoria, 2, 55–81. 
Mišić, S. (2018): Pomirenje na Jadranu. Jugoslavija i Italija na putu ka Osimskim sporazumima iz 1975. Beograd, Univerzitet u Beogradu, Fakultet političkih nauka. 
Monzali, L. (2012): ‘I nostri vicini devono essere nostri amici’. Aldo Moro, l’Ostpolitik italiana e gli accordi di Osimo. In: Garzia, I., Monzali L. & M. Bucarelli (eds.): Aldo Moro, l’Italia repubblicana e i Balcani. Nardo, Besa, 89–114. 
Monzali, L. (2015): Gli italiani di Dalmazia e le relazioni italo-jugoslave nel Novecen-to. Venezia, Marsilio. 
Musić, G. (2016): The Self-managing Factory after Tito. The Crisis of Yugoslav So­cialism on the Shop Floor. Phd Thesis. Florence, European University Institute. 
Napolitano, G. (2008): Dal Pci al socialismo europeo. Un’autobiografia politica. Roma, Bari, Laterza. 
Nenni, P. (1977): Intervista sul socialismo italiano. Roma, Bari, Laterza. 
Obadić, I. (2014): A Troubled Relationship: Yugoslavia and the European Economic Community in Détente. European Review of History, 2, 329–348. 
Pinto, C. (2008): Il riformismo possibile. La grande stagione delle riforme: utopie, speranze, realta (1945–1964). Soveria Mannelli, Rubbettino. 
Pirjevec, J., Klabjan, B. & G. Bajc (eds.) (2006): Osimska meja. Jugoslovansko­italijanska pogajanja in razmejitev leta 1975. Koper, Založba Annales. 
Pons, S. (2006): Berlinguer e la fine del comunismo. Torino, Einaudi. 
Rajak, S. (2014): No Bargaining Chips, no Spheres of Interest. The Yugoslav Origins of Cold War Non-alignment. Journal of Cold War Studies, 16, 1, 146–179. 
Ramet, S. (2006): The Three Yugoslavias. State-Building and Legitimation, 1918– 2005. Washington D. C., Woodrow Wilson Center Press. 
Rolandi, F. (2015): Con ventiquattromila baci. L’influenza della cultura di massa itali­ana in Jugoslavia (1955–1965). Bononia University Press. 
Ruzicic-Kessler, K. (2014): Italy and Yugoslavia. From Distrust to Friendship in Cold 
War Europe. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 19, 5, 641–664. 
Salvadori, M. (2015): La Sinistra nella storia italiana. Roma, Bari, Laterza. 
Sergio, M. L. (2009): Il Centro perduto. Aldo Moro e i sindacalisti cristiani nella crisi del ’68. Ventunesimo Secolo, 8, 20, 143–166. 
Scoppola, P. (1991): La repubblica dei partiti. Profilo storico della democrazia in Ita­lia (1954–1990). Bologna, il Mulino.
Škorjanec, V. (2007): Osimska pogajanja. Koper, Založba Annales. 
Taviani, P. E. (1972): Appunti sulla questione sociale negli anni Settanta. Civitas, Rivista di Studi Politici, XXIII, 3–4, 39–42. 
Unkovski-Korica, V. (2016): The Economic Struggle for Power in Tito’s Yugoslavia. From World War II to Non-Alignment. New York, I.B. Tauris. 
Vaccarini, I. (1981): La matrice culturale del Craxismo. Aggiornamenti sociali, gi­
ugno, 417–434. Zaccaria, B. (2016): The EEC’s Yugoslav Policy in Cold War Europe, 1968–1980. 
London, Palgrave Macmillan. Zaccaria, B. (2018a): Learning from Yugoslavia? Western Europe and the Myth of 
Self-Management (1968–1975). In: Kott, S., Christian, M. & O. Matejka (eds.): Planning in Cold War Europe. Competition, Cooperation, Circulations (1950s– 1970s). Berlin, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 213–235. 
Zaccaria, B. (2018b): La strada per Osimo. Italia e Jugoslavia allo specchio (1965– 1975). Milano, FrancoAngeli.