Re: Reflections from the Yugoslav left

[michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

He came to Chico, maybe 15 years ago, as a guest of Ivan Svitak.  I was
not alone in being disappointed by his arrogance, which did not seem to be
appropriate for a so-called reformer.  Lou, you would have been furious
with the way he demanded people to acquiesce in his authority.

>
> (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
>
>


--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx