[Marxism] Sorting out the differences

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Karadjis:
> Sorry, why was the description of the destruction of towns and cities in
> Croatia by the JNA and Chetniks in 1991 'profoundly repulsive' but the
> description of the destruction of the Krajina in 1995 not? What is your
> point? That they had to destroy Vukovar, Osijek, Kijevo, Dubrovnik etc  etc
> etc in 1991 to prevent what happened in 1995? Don't you think maybe the
> incredible destruction of inter-ethnic solidarity brought about by the 1991
> rampage might have something to do with what happened in 1995?

For comrades who are having difficulty sorting through all these names and
places and dates, I would strongly urge a political approach rather than
one that reminds you of preparing for a high school final.

Here are the salient points:

1. Croatian nationalism is deeply reactionary

In the dozen or so articles the GLW published in 1991, none called
attention to the character of the Tudjman regime. They were *all* like the
one I cited, yesterday and had the character of PR from the Croatian
nationalist movement. Just go to the "past issues" of GLW at
http://www.greenleft.org.au/ and do a search on "Croatia" and you'll see
for yourself. Tudjman is characterized as a "moderate" threatened by Serb
extremism in an article by Peter Annear at:
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1991/23/23p17.htm. This is profoundly at
odds with the reality in 1991. I wonder if the comrades had bothered to
read the bourgeois press rather than handouts from the Croatian government.

NY Times:
>>At a souvenir stand in Zagreb's central market, glaring down over key
rings, cigarette lighters and T-shirts, hang portraits of a firm-jawed man
in military uniform. He is Ante Pavelic, who headed the pro-Nazi Government
that ruled Croatia from 1941 to 1945.

When a photographer tried to take pictures of the souvenir stand one
morning recently, he was quickly surrounded by thugs from the criminal
syndicate that controls the market. Amid invective and threats, they forced
the photographer to open his camera and turn over his film.

The episode reflects the combination of pride and embarrassment that many
Croatian nationalists feel toward Pavelic's Government and the fascist
Ustashe movement that he headed.

President Franjo Tudjman reflects this uncertainty. Under his leadership,
Croatia has taken several steps that suggest he has sympathy for some of
what the Ustashe did. This attitude puzzles some people, since Mr. Tudjman
was an active anti-fascist during World War II, and his younger brother was
killed either by Nazi soldiers or their Ustashe allies.

At the same time, Mr. Tudjman's refusal to condemn the Ustashe legacy helps
solidify his support among some Croatian nationalists and among rightist
Croatian exiles who contribute to his political campaigns.

In one of his first acts, Mr. Tudjman decreed that Croatia should adopt a
red-and-white checkerboard coat of arms that closely resembles the symbol
of the Ustashe state. That coat of arms is now part of the Croatian flag.

Mr. Tudjman and his supporters dismiss criticism of this move, pointing out
that the checkerboard emblem was a symbol of Croatia for centuries before
the Ustashe adopted it. But to many Jews, Serbs and others, it is a symbol
almost as hateful as the swastika.

(clip)

Mr. Tudjman has also named at least two former Ustashe officials to
Government posts. As Ambassador to Argentina, he nominated Ivo Rojnica, who
was an Ustashe commander in Dubrovnik. A Croatian newspaper recently
reprinted a decree Mr. Rojnica signed in June 1941, ordering the
confiscation of all radios in Dubrovnik and adding, "All Jews and Serbs are
forbidden to walk in the streets or keep their shops open from 7 P.M. to 7
A.M."<<

2. The KLA is not a liberation movement

In 1999, Michael Karadjis wrote an article in GLW that defended the KLA
against a "frame-up" by leftists such as Michael Chossudovsky. From reading
Karadjis, you would get the impression that the KLA has much in common with
the IRA or other such national liberation movements. Just think about this.
If the IRA won in the North and threw off the yoke of British colonialism
and its local stooges, would their activists burn the homes of Protestants
in an "ethnic cleansing" bid to drive them out of Ireland? The behavior of
the KLA following the NATO victory has been nothing less than scandalous.
Despite all evidence that I presented yesterday that the KLA was
orchestrating the removal of Serbs from the province, and despite the
hollow claims of its leadership that it was opposed to such a policy,
Michael Karadjis has blandly accepted the words of Hashim Thaci as good coin:

>>The KLA leadership has played a highly responsible role. KLA leader
Hashim Thaci claimed, ``The phenomenon of Serbs leaving is upsetting to us
... We ask all the Serbs who left and haven't done any crimes to come here
and live in a democratic Kosova.'' <<

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/1999/366/366p13.htm

If he says so, I guess it must be true.

3. Yugoslavia was a socialist country

Despite all the distortions of "market socialism" and despite Milosevic's
early attraction to neoliberalism, Yugoslavia was perceived as hostile to
western capitalist intentions in the mid 1990s. Milosevic's wife in
particular was seen as a kind of communist fundamentalist. They are
repeatedly derided in the bourgeois press for not "getting" the way the
wind is blowing. Slovenia and Croatia, along with the rest of Eastern
Europe, are perceived as loyally following the George Soros and Jeffrey
Sachs model. I have repeatedly challenged Michael Karadjis to defend the
idea that Yugoslavia was "capitalist" in the mid-1990s but he has appeared
to decline to debate this out. I can't say that I blame him.


Louis Proyect, Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism