Re: Re: Re: Re: Milosevic and privatization

[phillp2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Louis, I think both you and Chris are somewhat off base on this.
The Slovenes (I can't speak so confidently of the Croats but I was
teaching and living for extended periods at the time in Slovenia and
in constant touch directly or indirectly with Slovene government
officials) did not resent the subsidies to Kosovo, Bosnia and
Montenegro per se, but rather (and in particular in the case of
Kosovo) because they were being wasted in conspicuous ethnic-
nationalist consumption or in corrupt boondoggles -- that is, they
were not producing any economic benefit or reducing the income
disparities.  There was a certain amount of ethnic stereotyping
("our southern bretheren" spoken with not a little contempt) though
this was much stronger in my experience in Croatia and was
directed at Serbs generally as well as the other groups excluding
the Slovenes.  It was also prevalent among Macedonians in their
attitudes towards the Albanian muslims both in Kosovo and
Macedonia.

I would also use this opportunity to respond to some of Chris'
comments about Serb policy in the late 1980s re the privatization
of the 'socialist' property system.  First, the pressure for the end of
the 'social property' system came from western-trained
economists, many of them Serbs.  I had the dubious pleasure of
debating with a couple of the most virulent critics of the Yugo
socialist system at a couple of conferences where I was a speaker
and they were mere mouthpieces for neoclassical dogma, Kornai
and Petrojvic et. al.  By the way, this is still true today.  The neo-
liberal impulse in Slovenia comes almost entirely from the central
bank and the economics faculty of the University.  It was also true
in Serbia.  Thus, under pressure from the IMF/WB the 'reforms'
began with the 'nationalization' of socially owner (i.e. socialistically
owned means of production) producing state ownership *in order to
privatize*.  As I understand it (I haven't been back in Beograd since
1992) Milosevic stopped the next stage, the privatization of 'state
ownership' leaving the enterprises as public, but not socially
owned, enterprises.  My own experience was a few days spent
with the manager of a formerly socially owned enterprise (an
injection moulding foundry) -- who incidently was a prominent
member of the Beograd Jewish community -- who explained that
despite the change from social ownership to 'public ownership'
there had been no change in the management structure and that
the workers council still met and made technically non-binding
recomendations but which in effect were still effective management
decisions.  I also met with union representatives in other
enterprises, including the biggest manufacturer of machinery and
military equipment, who though complaining that management
thought they "owned the plant" still argued that they retained the
management rights they had before 'nationalization'.

I left Beograd just days before the imposition of sanctions, but even
at that had to go by bus through Hungary which took the better part
of a full 24 hour day which proved a particular trial since I had
managed to contract a bug that induced diarrhea (sp?) -- but that is
another story. Inflation was already rampant (I had to get a
suitcase to carry the notes to pay my hotel bill, etc.)
Nevertheless, there was no sense of Milosevic as a 'dictator' or of
any form of political/economic repression, though much criticism of
his economic policies at the economic institute where I was
situated  -- the same sort of criticism that I would expect from the
Conference Board - American Enterprise Institute - any
neoclassical economics department - IMF - in Canada/US.

My own impression is that Milosevic was a wily political animal,
but not very bright, at least in respect to economic matters.
Everthing I have heard is that he was personally honest (i.e. non-
corrupt) though he did not extend his personal standards to those
around him, including his immediate family.  I believe he tried to
remain true to his concept of socialism, including public ownership
of the means of production, but that he was overwhelmed
intellectually and politically by the international institutions, his
domestic economic advisors, and his rent-seeking managers.  His
demonizing, not only by the media and western politicians (and
indeed, even on this list by those who seek to preserve and extend
socialism) I don't think is warrented and serves only to advance the
cause of neoliberalism and American imperialism.  But then, what
do I know.  I have only spent the last 15 years of my life visiting
Yugoslavia and trying to understand its economics and politics.
Obviously, those who have never visited or studied there but who
have a firm foundation in marxist or neoclassical theory have a
much better perspective on the real situation.  I will defer to them.

Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba.

>
> "The Slovenes, who make up just 8 percent of Yugoslavia's population while
> producing 20 percent of its wealth, resent what they see as forced
> subsidies, in the form of federal taxes, for poorer parts of the country.
> The 2 million people of this republic, which is by far the richest and most
> Westernized in the federation, pay nearly 4 1/2 times more in federal taxes
> than they receive in federal programs." (LA Times, Apr. 14, 1990)
>
>
>
> Louis Proyect
> Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
>