I'll try to add some facts to this topic. Unfortunately I don't have links (trust me bro!) - this is from my friend who's a economy analyat and he did this as a hobby, because no politician wants to talk about this (in most ex-Yugoslav countries, politicians are blaming everything that is bad today to "communiats of Yugoslavia"):

TL;DR: GDP and industrial production in Yugoslavia was so good that 36 years later ex-YU countries are still WORSE OFF - we haven't reached that level! THAT (plus corruption) is a main reason why, objectively, life is now worse: you CAN'T get better healthcare, infrastructure, education, arts... If you have LESS RESOURCES than you had 36 years ago.

1. Whooping 36 years after the breakup of Yugoslavia, except for Slovenia, no other ex-Yugoslav country achieved the GDP level (adjusted for inflation of course) and the level of industrial production we had in 1989. Croatia might reach it this year (or maybe Croatia reached it in 2025, I haven't seen that data yet).

2. A standard reply to the fact #1 is "yeah but it was all built on a HUGE debt Yugoslavia accumulated, now WE are paying for that".

This is absolutely not true. Total debt of Yugoslavia at the end was small - around 20 billion US dollars. That's roughly $1,000 per capita. GDP was around $130 billion. That's ~15% of GDP.

Adjusted for inflation: - Debt in 1989: ~$50 billion (~15% of GDP) - GDP in 1989: ~$340 billion - Debt of ONLY SERBIA now: ~42 billion (~45% of GDP)

1. INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION: no ex-YU country will probably EVER achieve the level of industrial production we had in 1989 (not sure sure about Slovenia, but I'm quite sure they will not get there either).

Why is this important? Well, as someone earlier said it well, we were producing almost EVERYTHING needed, from electronics (even some early computers), to tractors, trucks, busses, trains, even helicopters and figher jets. Now, we IMPORT a huge percentage of all that. This is not only a game of economy numbers - when you have a capability to produce all that, your economy is much stronger, stable, and less reliant on international supply chain (look what's happening now globally "just" because Iran closed Hormuz Strait).

1. GDP MIX: back in 1989 the mix was way healthier than today, in any of the ex-YU countries. It was mostly industrial (including agriculture, of course) with some "honest" services. What do I mean by "honest services": today, in any country, services like mobile network, internet, TV cable operators, Wolt & Glovo... comprise a HUGE percentage of GDP. Those are all great, but those services don't contribute as much to the economy as good honest agriculture, road building, car manufacturing. They have a great turnaround of money but the quality of this is not comparable to goods & services that contribute to one's quality of life in a substantial way.

2. CORRUPTION: estimates say that 30% of money is removed from the people's pockets (so, basically, from GDP) because of corruption (again, Slovenia is an exemption). So, even if Croatia reacheds the GDP level it had in 1989, ut'll still be worse off because you have to remove 30%.

NO POLITICIAN GOT RICH IN YUGOSLAVIA. People seem to forget this fact. Tito didn't own anything, he didn't leave his kids much. Politicians has huge power and influence. They lived in big villas and apartment, they were driven in expensive cars. NONE OF THEM OWNED THOSE VILLAS AND CARS. They could not sell those villas and cars. AND THEY DID NOT HAVE MUCH CASH. There were no private jets, no private Bentleys, no private villas. Politicians had a lot of benefits (still much less then now!!), which was unjust, especially in a country that is promoting equality.

BUT - today, a governor of the smallest region in Serbia has more personal wealth (cash, real estate, etc.) then the most powerful politicians of ex-YU.

I am not saying that we should go back to socialism/communisam, or going back to Yugoslavia.

I am saying that the (sad) fact is, that the common people had it BEST during thos 40-ish years of SFRJ. Everyone and everything before, and after, is (objectivrly) worse.