From: "Peter Jovanovic" <peterzoran-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: AUT: Our Stalinist on Serbia
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 18:14:15 +1100


hi all

before i get onto my response to this crap about Serbia i'll ask Macdonald 
why he's on this list. i'm not demanding you get thrown off it, i just 
wonder what you get out of a list so obviously dominated by 'petty-bourgeois 
anarchists' and 'ultra-left deviationists'?

>petty-bourgeois fascist militia that >went on a
> > rampage through Yugoslavia, but since the imperialists use
>that as a >pretext > > for their attacks I'll be accused of a running dog 
>of imperialism...

i'm not sure to what extent you could classify the various Serb nationalist 
militias as petty-bourgeois. Vojislav Seselj was an academic i believe 
before his turn to nationalist politics and the late unlamented Arkan an 
ex-secret policeman turned mafioso. the sad thing is that most of the rank 
and file were probably proletarians.

>If you mean the paramilitaries, I suggest you get real to the
>realities of >war. In every effect, the IRA is a "paramilitary". The State 
> >of Yugoslavia >is surrounded by hostile states that are all backed by the 
>most >vicious of >"fascists" and the NATO powers, particularly Germany and, 
>of >course the US.
>If you want to only have "honorable" troops in such a position,
>you will >quickly be destroyed, no matter what class state you are running.

fascism is a term much overused by leftists cos the cover of anti-fascism 
can be used to disguise/legitimise their complicity with certain factions of 
capital. the reason slobo had to use the various militias was because the 
Yugoslav army conscripts refused en masse to fight for their 'worker's 
state'.

>Utterly false. Given the tide of electoral "openings" in Europe,
>the >Yugoslav communists/socialists had a choice: They could go the
>way of >bourgeois "elections", or risk losing the popularity that the
>Yugo regime >had EARNED for the prior 40 years, through both economics and 
> >a very mild >state.

presumbly you mean popularity with brain-dead western stalinists? yugoslavia 
was certainly not popular with it's own proletarians who destroyed it. check 
out aufheben's article at: 
http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_2_yugo.html

>I am concerned >with how he >and his regime have dealt with a situation in 
>Which they had >a basically >socialist state to defend in a situation that 
>became worse than >pre-1917 >practically overnight.

the fundamental difference between us on Yugoslavia is that you think it was 
socialist and thus worth defending and i think it was (state) capitalist and 
thus not worth defending. Milosevic had a state within a state to defend 
from both his own proletariat and the separatist nationalism of the other 
yugo rulers (which was partly a response to slobo's serbian nationalism). he 
did a reasonably good job of what was obviously a very difficult task and 
that's why i hate him.

>The state of Yugoslavia should not be judged against >the ideal we
>all cherish, of workers councils.

given your support of various viciously anti-proletarian regimes you are 
joking about cherishing workers councils aren't you?

>Judge Yugoslavia against, >say, >Romania. Or any other state in East 
>Europe. Just go with the >basic >indicators. That'l tell the tale of the 
>tape. If you still want >to hate >Milosevic, that's your business, but I'll 
>keep watching.

i don't want to judge states that way. rich, poor, democratic, socialist, 
Communist, fascist... all states involve the dictatorship of capital over 
labour.

> >  There is also the mere fact that the Socialist Party is in
>coalition with > > fascists, the Serbian Radical Party led by Sesijl, 
>Serbia's >very own > > Monsieur Le Pen or Mr. Zhironivsky.
>
>Again, If there had been no way to run an electoral system, the
>whole system >might have gone down the tubes. What you have is a 
>parliamentary >system. >What is amazing is how well they have been kept at 
>bay.

the Radical Party was at least partly a creation of Slobo, in the 92 
election they got a third of the seats due to the backing of state TV. by 
the next election they had fallen out with Slobo and thus got no TV backing 
and their vote plummeted.

>What is *your* evidence? Sheer repetition? I personally believe
>that shit >happens in War, and that paramilitaries are mainly responsible.

they were only responsible cos the Yugoslav army conscripts refuse to do 
Slobo's dirty work. still the Yugoslav army committed it's share of 
atrocities such as the destruction of Vukovar in 1991. probably not 
coincidentally a town that pre-war had a very combative Serb and Croat 
proletariat.

> >So are we likely to condemn ourselves to irrelevancy by being
>`neutral' when > >they attack Stalinists? What say you...
> >
> >Macdonald
> >----
> >
> >AP. 16 December 2001. N. Korea Rejects Nuke Inspection.

the left condemns itself to irrelevancy with it's anti-imperialist rubbish 
that always amounts to support for vile regimes that are hated by their own 
proles, eg Iraq and Serbia. i'm not neutral in the face of war, i side with 
my fellow proletarians who are against all capitalist states.

peter


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---