Fwd: General disclaimer on Yugoslavia

[David Walters <dwalters@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Nestor,
 I'm sorry the guy left also, it could of been an interesting
discussion...you came on a little strong, you may of "emoted" too much,
thus scaring him off,  but that's par of the course on this list.

Let me take up a few things that I would disagree with you on, in terms
of specifics. In your previous post you mentioned how the Serb
socialist party fought the IMF/ "Europe" privatization schemes and was
thus punished for it, also for it's stand in trying to maintain
"Yugoslavia" as a serious entity.

Let me state where I agree. There was a generalized European effort,
lead by Germany, to re-Balkanize Yugoslavia. Incidentally, the initial
US reaction was opposed to this. They only changed their view after
Slovenia successfully won it's independence (and the Germans slapped
Bush around to make him wake up to the NWO).

My disagreement stems from your vantage point of the start of the first
Balkan war, the 3 way Bosnia/Croatia/Serbia fight. You start much too
late. In my view, going back to the 80s, the Serb Socialist Party, and
as it's forerunner in the League of Communists,are *as* responsible for
the breakup of Yugoslavia as any other component of the FRY.

The economic crisis that confronted the Tito regime before he died was
profound. Tito's answer was further fiscalization of the then mostly
capitalist economy meaning cutbacks in further state investment, and
social-services. When there was still an All-Yugoslav working class
they reacted, and reacted strongly, to what was going on. This peaked
in 1988 with an All-Yugoslav General Strike *against the gov't*.
Milosovich, for what's it worth, was part of this gov't and thus he was
on the *wrong side of the class line*. He did not support the strikes.
That same year, Tjudman, Milosovich, several Bosnian ex-LofC Central
Committee members met in Europe. I remember reading the article in
either the Financial Times or in the English Le Monde supplement.
Essentially they came out *agreeing* to break up the Yugoslav working
class, albeit not in those words, but that's what happened. All the
former Titoists were instrumental in heightening nationalist sentiment,
not just the Croatians or Slovenes.

I met with socialist members of the Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian trade
unions (the later a Serb, BTW) about 11 years ago. All of them had been
LoC members in the 80s and they had been working frantically to keep
together the all-Yugoslav working class unions and organization during
this period...they had to fight against the leaderships of their own
unions in part and the ruling parties of *each* republic, including the
Serbian Socialists.

They viewed their leaders as *all* responsible for the break up of
Yugoslavia. The analysis of Milosovich (this was well before the Kosovo
war)at that time was that he was a nationalist as Tjudman and the whole
fight was over who could grab as much land and resources in Bosnia and
each other's republics...that war had *nothing* they emphasized over
and over again, with *holding* Yugoslavia together...no one advocated
it.

On the "Chetnik" issue. In the US, in Chicago (center for Serbian
communities in the US) and to a certain but notable presence, many
exile Serb groups, not all, not even a majority necessarily, identified
quite strongly with Chetnik history and cause (albeit no one was
raising a 'royalist' schtick at the point). This was also  true for
Serb groups IN Bosnia many of whom had, like the Croatians who
identified with their Chetnik counter-parts, the Ustashi, took up the
symbolism and rhetoric of the Chetniki/Serb nationalism by that point.
This doesn't change an iota of  our defense of Serbia against US
imperialism later, and against US/NATO intervention then, but I
wouldn't put the Serbian Socialists on a pedastal as you do, they don't
deserve it.

Anyway, that's my 3 cents on it. Good luck on Bolivia...going up there?

David


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.