Reflections from the Yugoslav left

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

(From globalreflexion.org)

Interview with Mihajlo Markovic, former vice president of the Socialist
Party of Serbia

'A counter-revolution, and not all that velvety'

Tanja Djurovic, Belgrad (October 11, 2000-for junge Welt - www.jungewelt.de )

Mihajlo Markovic, member of the Serbian Academy of Science and until 1995
the vice president of the Socialist Party of Serbia, was one of the
ideological leaders of that party. Before 1989 he had a reputation as a
'reformer' and opponent of Tito within the Yugoslav left. Because of his
position in the movement in Yugoslavia, we thought this interview with him
would be of interest to anyone following the current developments-IAC

Q: Professor Markovic, following the all-level elections on September 24 in
Yugoslavia, a certain "coup d'etat" took place on the streets of Belgrade
on October 5, organized by the Democratic opposition of Serbia (DOS). Some
are already calling this "a velvet revolution." How would you describe what
happened?

A: October 5 started out as one of the "rebellions" we've already had an
opportunity to see. On March 9, 1991 to begin with and from then on there
were several attempts on the street to scare the regime, to make it back
off, to perhaps enter state institutions and take them over by force - as
was the case elsewhere in the countries of Eastern Europe.

Of course this October 5 protest was not simply a "peaceful" expression of
civil disobedience and was not even planned to be peaceful, no matter what
its organizers say. There was a lot of violence in it. A couple of people
were killed and around 100 injured, material damage was considerable.
...All this shows clearly that this was a counter-revolution, and not at
all that "velvety," as some are calling it now.

By my definition, a revolution is a social coup, a social transformation,
which leads to some higher, more progressive form of society. When this is
not the case, then we're speaking of counter-revolution.

Slobodan Milosevic should have admitted the defeat on presidential
elections immediately. Then the damage would be smaller. But, he made
another in a sequence of mistakes, and decided not to accept presidential
election-results from September 24. Finally, when a big wave of protests
was initiated, when on October 5 the DOS rallied the people to the Yugoslav
capital for mass demonstrations, the number of people gathered wasn't even
important anymore, because Milosevic in the meanwhile already decided to
capitulate. The army didn't react. The police gave more-less symbolic
resistance, and power was simply given up.

Q: What were the factors to bring this situation about, and put an end to
the Serbian 10-year-long resistance under Slobodan Milosevic? Why didn't it
happen before?

A: Here, in Serbia, the "transition" scenario didn't work out for a long
time, for several reasons.

One of those reasons is that in Serbia already certain necessary reforms
had been carried out. In year 1989 we had reforms of both the political and
economic system. Therefore, what was later changed in East European
countries, in Yugoslavia had been reformed and changed already, but of
course the government was firmly in the hands of socialist forces.

Besides, the Serbian nation is very resilient when it comes to attempt to
impose on it solutions from the outside. It resisted firmly and for a long
time the attempts coming from reactionary circles from the West - to impose
"transition" here, as it is called, transit to liberal [unregulated]
capitalism, with "shock-therapy" and all the other catastrophical
consequences for people and for society. So some kind of consciousness
about all this existed, and therefore the resistance.

Nevertheless, the combination of certain factors in last 10 years brought
about the gradual change in this attitude. First and very crucial, an
enormous pressure from the USA and the West, which directly interfered in
our internal matters, gave directives to opposition leaders and spent from
70 to 100 million of dollars on these last Yugoslav elections alone.

On the other hand, an inner weakening in the government itself occurred,
and certain demoralization of Socialist party of Serbia (SPS) cadres
[leading organizers]. And what's worst of all, the people, who found itself
in a very difficult material situation, almost direct misery, couldn't take
it anymore.

And then this motto "Change" at any cost, even if it was said that those
changes can be for the worse (as they will be), prevailed. This is how the
electoral defeat of the leftists occurred. Not total defeat naturally, in
the Federal Parliament the coalition of left forces still has the majority
- but on local level it was total indeed, and defeat on the presidential
level, of course.

Q: You mentioned "inner weaknesses" and "demoralization" in SPS... Apart
from the foreign factor, which is more than obvious, how much did the
Yugoslav leftist government itself contribute to its downfall in these
elections?

A: In the Socialist Party -- which carried the defense of basic socialist
values -- at the beginning there was certain amount of inner democracy, and
morale was also at a certain high level. Even now naturally you have a
great number of socialist executives who remained honest and non-corrupt,
who didn 't abandon their leftist orientation.

But the situation was gradually changed by the fact that inner erosion took
place. First of all, Slobodan Milosevic himself was very insensitive
towards corruption. Even if he himself remained honest through and through
until the end, even in his own family he wasn't principled enough to punish
the behavior of his son and his wife Mirjana Markovic. All that had a
really bad influence on society, on followers, on members and executives of
the Socialist Party itself.

This played a big role in inner erosion. And creation of Yugoslav Left
(JUL) played a devastating role.

The JUL figures as a left party, but according to the informal admission of
Milosevic himself, this "left" party was created under sanctions, under the
blockade. To break through this blockade the Yugoslav government had to
tolerate some forms of gray economy. A certain number of private owners had
to pay bribe-money to functionaries of European Community and NATO. This is
how we managed to come by oil, gasoline and all the rest.

But those private owners, through gray economy, gathered a certain amount
of wealth. Milosevic, when he thought about how those people, who actually
became capitalists now, as a matter of fact will be the adversaries of
socialists, decided it would be good finding some way to make them allies.

Eventually, this is how JUL was created, and Milosevic's wife took its
leadership. But, in essence, this was after all a bad idea and no matter
how attractive this seemed at first glance, in the long run the
consequences were bad as we can see.

People in this so-called left party were there just to enrich themselves
further, and to gain perhaps some political position on the top of
everything by which to protect their capital. Of course it had a very
demoralizing effect on Socialist party itself.

And then, Milosevic even made socialists promote the JUL everywhere, be in
coalition with it, and on elections give a great number of seats to
representatives of the JUL. For years this has been causing increasing
unrest among functionaries of the Socialist Party.

- You are one of the ideologists of SPS...Some say even so called Serbian
nationalism and its establishing in program of Socialist party contributed
also to the downfall of the leftists...?  -  "Serbian nationalism",
nationalism as such and even patriotism, are often confounded with
chauvinism...This is a simply a big defect in thinking, so let me explain
this.

Nationalism? I have critical attitude towards nationalism, in a sense that
nationalism always means one-sided approach to a problem, seeing only
national dimension of it. So all is seen in the light of national
relations, national interests. I am critical towards it. But even there,
you have two kinds of nationalism. You have "benign nationalism" which is,
as I said, just one-sidenesness. But chauvinism, which I would call "malign
nationalism," is an entirely different thing.

Chauvinism is hatred of other nations, non-acceptance of other nations, and
is something absolutely negative. So people who do not or cannot make a
difference between those two kinds of nationalism, or can't even make a
difference between nationalism and patriotism, are simply not educated
enough. They just don't see the problematic of our times in all its
nuances, but take things superficially. They see only black and white,
where there are shades of gray.

Therefore, this is not the question of "Serbian nationalism," not even
benign one, but of Serbian patriotism. Patriotism is love for its own
people and its own country, and is completely justified. You can't be an
internationalist without being a patriot, and when injustice and aggression
is done, you have to defend your country in a way you would defend any
other country as well. Patriotism is something entirely positive.
Nationalism could be present in some right parties, Seselj's or Draskovic's
parties for instance, but in Socialist Party case we can speak only about
patriotism, accepting other nations but at the same time readiness to
defend interests of own, Serbian nation.

It is entirely unjustified to say SPS was infected with any form of
nationalism, and Milosevic himself can't be called a nationalist. His
famous Gazi Mestan speech in 1989, was a completely anti-nationalist
speech. Some people are calling it nationalistic, even without reading it.

Or before this, Memorandum of Serbian Academy of Science - in the whole
world it was considered a base of Milosevic politics, and called a
nationalistic document which lead to breaking of old Yugoslavia. Anybody
who had a mind to do that, could read this document and see that in it is
spoken uniquely and only about equality of all nations.

Q: You spoke of transition scenario. We all know the consequences of
"transition" in East European countries, as well as its outcome. If we say
that these elections were a choice between "freedom and slavery," is it
possible that Serbian people voted consciously and willingly for its own
slavery?

A: Of course it didn't! It just couldn't cope with the pressure anymore,
and here's the reason why. As I said, Serbian people had put up a 10 year
long and very persistent resistance, and I said why. And according to me it
would have kept on resisting - if each and everyone suffered the
consequences equally...But ordinary people couldn't take the misery and
suffering anymore, watching a certain number of others growing richer and
richer, and enjoying the luxury. The discrepancy between left parties'
program and practice was too big. This is why we were defeated in the end,
by DOS.

And this is not the matter of "Serbian nationalism" or DOS "being better".

But people who engaged themselves in "the change," and voted for it under
the supposition "it can't be worse than it is already" will soon see that
it certainly can. And when Serbian people make sure it can be worse and
will be, when they see the layoffs and selling out of people's wealth, when
they feel the pressure of debts and when they finally see how we become a
half-colony of foreign capital and the New World Order, of the USA first of
all, then here again the conditions will be created for socialists and for
left forces.

Q: At this moment, situation in the country is far away from being clear
yet. On one side we have leftist forces, with all their past weaknesses and
advantages. On the other side we have DOS, executing counter-revolution,
even if it's mostly done behind the stage. When the dust is settled, how
will this situation unravel?

A: Let's take a look first at DOS, this coalition which presently won "on
the streets"...On one hand we have here our new President Vojislav
Kostunica, and on the other, one very colorful grouping of politicians who
do not agree on anything else except in their goal to topple Milosevic.
This goal achieved, the fight among them is imminent, about everything. We
all know and saw DOS leaders already, they unified somehow under U.S.
pressure, and managed to find one single man, the only man among them all
for whom it can be said that he's honest and non-compromised.

One thing should be clear: there's a big difference between Kostunica and
the rest of his allies. Kostunica is a man who was always what he is -
anti-Communist, patriot, critical towards American foreign policies. He was
vehemently against bombing of Yugoslavia last year, and he publicly said he
won't cooperate with Hague Tribunal for war crimes in ex-Yugoslavia,
because he considers it not a legal, but a political institution. He
publicly said he won't give Slobodan Milosevic to the Hague.

These are all the reasons why America is already criticizing Kostunica, but
says it'll accept him as someone who believes in legal state and democratic
procedures. But out of these statements clearly follows that USA will
accept him only for a while and he won't stay in his position for long.
Unless Kostunica manages to defend himself and his position, considering he
has a wide support of his citizens. And Kostunica is not a new [Czech
President Vaclav] Havel, no matter what USA might think.

Kostunica is also a legalist, trying to use existing legal forms.

The problem is, the rest of DOS, people around him, are not. They're
already forming some "crisis groups" which are illegal institutions, and
which are for example already pressuring certain politicians, certain
directors of enterprises to submit their resignations, so some other people
chosen arbitrarily by the DOS can take their places. This is completely
anti-constitutional of course.

According to the constitution, the first thing to be done is to constitute
the Federal parliament. This process is not finished yet, because the DOS
is arguing 19 mandates of socialists from Kosovo and Metohija. But when
this is settled, and all mandates verified, by my opinion the situation
will be clear that left is in majority there.

At this point we will see how much president Kostunica is indeed a
legalist, because government should be formed by parliament majority.

Kostunica already accepted giving the place of prime minister to someone
from the Montenegro Socialist party, constitutional again. But we already
have Zoran Djindjic, saying something which is not true - he's in favor of
a "government of experts." This is hardly for Djindjic to decide, and
parliament will chose what kind of government it wants.

Now, speaking about Serbian republic government, the situation is still
unraveling and we have to wait for the outcome.

Altogether, considering present "double rule" in the country, it is certain
that, as in any counter-revolution, the DOS will use their present
advantage, triumph on the streets and support of masses, to win crucial
power. By illegal means if must be. But even so, the DOS leaders will have
to live with great resistance because of those methods precisely.

Q: The chances of Yugoslavia and its people for resistance to the dictates
of USA, its centers of might and globalization are far from being spent
yet...and leftist forces will certainly play a role in this fight in years
to come. What role will that be, and how significant? What is the immediate
task of socialist now?

A: As for the leftist forces themselves, it is obvious that now they must
partly start anew, and a new period must begin for them. A period in which
socialists will have to organize without Milosevic's leading role. Hope
that socialists of Serbia will regroup after recent defeat, renew and be a
strong political force, lies first of all in a fact that inner erosion in
SPS will be stopped. New people will come, avoiding the mistakes done in
the past and now. And again by East European model, socialists will come to
power once again. Real and true ideas never die.

As for the globalization process, this is not a real and true idea. This is
precisely why it won't last forever. The power-and-money hungry American
empire will crumble down as a tower of cards, as every empire does in the
end, cause its foundations are rotten to the core.

The resistance block is already building up - and dreadful experience with
Yugoslav bombing last year contributed to this significantly. American
politics, until the aggression on Yugoslavia, seemed to have much success
with its "stick and carrot" policy, and to be able to manage fulfilling its
goals just fine without wars.

But NATO bombing of Yugoslavia scared the world, showing that NWO in a lot
of things has the same characteristics as fascism.

Russia, China, India, South American and African countries - they're all
sobered up now, wiser, awakened.

Q: How much did those countries, and the whole anti-imperialist world lose
now, with change of power in Yugoslavia?

A: They lost a lot, this is true. For U.S. and NATO it was imperative to
gain full control over Balkans, so that they would have unhindered
territorial approach to Middle Asia, to Caspian basin, to territories rich
with oil and other precious natural resources. Yugoslavia and Serbia were
undoubtedly a bastion of resistance there, and on their way. NATO lost 10
years with Serbia. Now, Slobodan Milosevic is out of their way. Vojislav
Kostunica would wish to continue this kind of resistance, but unfortunately
will not have the support of his collaborators. This is of course an
immense loss, first of all for Russia.

Nevertheless, forces of resistance to globalization are getting stronger in
front of our eyes, from minute to minute, and will keep on getting
stronger. And maybe Yugoslavia will still have its place among them in the
future.

In view of this, the forces of the New World Order have no chance for final
success.

---
Tanja Djurovic is a Junge Welt correspondent from Belgrade.

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