Contesting ideas in socialist Yugoslavia: the Korčula Summer School, the Kumrovec Political School, and their legacy (1964–2003)

Abstract

Aim: This study examines two key educational institutions in socialist Yugoslavia: the Korčula Summer School (1963– 1974) and the Political School of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia in Kumrovec (1975–1990). The objective is to analyze how they embodied divergent approaches to Marxist education and ideological formation, and to assess their role in the evolution and decline of Yugoslav socialism.

Methods: The study employs a historical-comparative design, drawing on archival records, memoirs, and testimonies alongside existing historiography. A hermeneutic and critical-theoretical framework is used to reconstruct the ideological and institutional dimensions of both schools. Korčula is investigated mainly through secondary literature, while Kumrovec is analyzed through internal documents and participant accounts. A diachronic comparison situates both schools within the broader trajectory of Yugoslav socialism after the 1948 Cominform split.

Results: The Korčula Summer School became an international forum where Yugoslav and Western intellectuals debated Marxism beyond Soviet orthodoxy, fostering pluralism and reinterpretations. Yet, it was criticized for elitism, detachment, and limited impact, and it failed to embed itself in Yugoslav society. Its suppression in 1974 reflected both state intolerance of independent thought and its weak institutional base. By contrast, the Kumrovec Political School embodied centralized ideological training, designed to produce loyal cadres through doctrinal instruction. Archival evidence shows, however, that its mission was undermined by rote learning, heterogeneous students, and careerist motives, reducing Marxist education to rhetorical conformity. Together, the two institutions, one oriented toward intellectual production, the other toward ideological reproduction, exposed the contradictions of Yugoslav socialism, torn between aspirations for openness and demands for control. 

Conclusions: The analysis shows that Yugoslav leadership failed to reconcile Marxism as a living philosophy with its use as a political instrument. The closure of Korčula and the shortcomings of Kumrovec illustrate the regime’s preference for conformity over critical engagement, contributing to the erosion of socialist legitimacy. Together, the schools exemplify the paradox of Yugoslav socialism: the aspiration to chart a “third way” and the simultaneous reproduction of authoritarian practices.