Re: Again on working class and the war in Yugoslavia

["Bryan A. Alexander" <bnalexan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for continuing this debate, M.



Bryan Alexander
Department of English
University of Michigan
**********************

On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Mauro junior wrote:

...
> >On Mon, 27 Nov 1995, Mauro junior wrote:
> >
> >
> > And perhaps he knows also that his "nation" is a
> >> ideological crime made by Tito, and it would have hardly gained the support
> >> of the "international concert".
> >
> >     Which crime are you referring to?  I'm not sure I follow.
>
> The crime is what I wrote few linea below:
> >
> >> The muslims are the Slaves of the South who embraced the religion of the
> >> Turcs when they ruled Bosnia, Montenegro and Macedonia. Have the occupant
> >> Turcs mantained in 4 centuries their ethnical presence in Bosnia? Don't
> >> joke. The very few Turcs, with pure Turc ancestry are some hundreds 
> >> families
> >> in the most out-of-the way villages on the mountains; the other muslims are
> >> South Slaves with one of the three religions poisoning that people. Nothing
> >> more and nothing less.

        So is the crime the Ottoman occupation of the Balkans (ca.
1400-1912), or the "forced conversion" of West Slavs (in English, drop
the "e" after "Slav")?  The latter has been pretty much debunked,
although it's a popular myth among Bosniaks.

>  Bryan:
> >     Bosnian Muslims have had a clearly defined cultural idenity for
> >centuries, with elements in architecture, painting, literature, dress,
> >food, etc.   Again, I'm not sure I understand your point, so I'm trying
> >my best.
>
>  Mauro jr: is all that sufficient for to identify a nation? On this lines
> you probably have no idea of how many "nations" exist in Italy (a part
> literature): the grave risk we run in today world is to go back by centuries
> with the split amongts such nationalities. It a course of the capitalism
> today: the state (in its pure sense) is going to centralize regions beyond
> the traditional borders (EEC for instance) in obedience with the
> centralizing move of the strongest capitals, and letting aside the poorer
> regions.

        Hey, don't insult my knowledge of Italy before I say anything!
:*  I didn't say "nation," I said "culture" - I don't care about
nations.  And I love the cultural multiplicity of nations like my own,
like Russia, and yes, like Italy (Sicily and the Po Valley - my favorite
easy example).  I support the death of all nationalism - in favor of a
return to local cultures.

> Germany supported initially the break of the Yugo federation and now the
> DMark is the only money which works in countries like Slovenja and Croatia
> (BTW, I was there - Lubjana - some days ago).

        Tell me about Ljubjana.  What's new?  What's the word?  The DM,
by the way, was the only effective currency in Mostar and Sarajevo and
all the villages I passed through this summer.

 The Slovenian and the Croats
> hoped to get inside the EEC, or at least to receive their investements. They
> broke saying they were fed up of paying for the sheepers in Montenegro,
> Macedonia, Kossovo.

        Yeah - which is funny, given the support Croat and Slovene
workers initially showed for Kosovar workers!

Is the same attitude of the Nort Italian Lega, which the
> leader of, Bossi, asks for "federalism" in order to stop paying Rome which
> helps the poor, under-inmdustrialised south, and threatens the "declaration
> of independence". Same political attitute, I say, but without the hopes to
> do the same as in Yugoslavia. The eventual politics of the north italian
> strong bourgeoisie will be far more "political", even because Italy is not
> the Balkans.

        Yeah, this is also a problem in the US: rich states like
California are reallye xcited about a "new federalism." This is a
trademark stance of the bourgeoisie in power: need for separation
(usually fiscal with trade advantages) - but with a fundamental tie to a
nearby region that serves as a market and downhill area for exploitation.

> Mauro jr:
> >> The orrible task of Tito was hard but just on the ideological, political
> >> ground of the solid (at those moments) Federation. (BTW, what have some
> >> subscribers to say about such progressive, market-socialist,
> >> democratic-socialist move by Tito?)

Folks have said zip on pre-1970 Yugoslavia, Mauro.  Annoying!  I'm with
Dennis, as I said (below):

> Carlos:
> >     Folks have said little.  Why don't you go ahead?  Dennis Rusinow
> >told me he thought worker ownership in Yugoslavia had a chance at
> >long-term success, but for the debilitating presence of the
> >nomenklatura.  He's no Marxist, mind, but it is an opinion worth discussing.
>
> The horrible task of Tito which I was referring to is exactly to invent and
> create a muslim-nation. The point on what have the subscribers to say was
> polemical on this; a progressive, socialist Tito invented a new nation from
> nothing.
> For going ahead about the nature of the Federation I post to Carlos the file
> of our first document on Yugoslavya (1992), Anybody else wants it, ask me.
> Rev. greetings
> >
>


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------