On ex yugoslavia and... morality

mauro.jr at iol.it mauro.jr at iol.it
Tue Sep 5 12:18:15 MDT 1995


Leo Casey on 4th of August wrote:
> I am afraid that once Isaw the denial of and apologies for genocide

>in Bosnia, my sense of morality and political integrity was so outraged

>that I could focus on little else....

>We are at a moment when either aggression and genocide will be stopped

>by sheer force, or we will live with the consequences.

His sense of morality seems to be really astonishing. Minding solely
a certain press and bewitched by the sirens of CNN, he knew only the
atrocities by the Serbs (would be better to say serbian militias),
but nothing of the same atrocities by the croat militias or the bosnian
ones (should I send the even more stupid newspapers of my country?)
Leo’s indignation is just for one of the fighting fronts not against
the reason of the fight (immediately, the nationalism, deeply the
barbarism of the modern capitalist-bougeois society which sees the
powerful countries fighting each other thru the smaller ones). Thus,
its really strange that he was against the gulf-war and .. he should
inform us what about the Malvinas war, or the Somalia Relief Operation.
But it concerns the individual contradictions. More important - from
the class point of view - is his attitude on “what has to be done”.
Leo asks for the UN troops use “sheer force” for... stopping the aggression

It would be useful to remind that for the marxists the important thing
is not to look for the aggressor in a bourgeois war (Even if you refuse
to classify the ex-Yugolsavia war as imperialist, you should anyway
agree on the bougeois nature of that war).
More, looking for the aggressor and his declared reasons, we should
judge the Second world war as the right, justified, sacred strggle
of democracy against nazi-fascism and glorify the US army which liberated
our european countries. But this also is the genuine content of any
text-book and the prevailing thought of the contemporary epoch...
Anyway, which troops should use the <sheer force>? The Workers Army
notoriously standing in face of the brutal attacks by capital and
fiercely fighting the final battle against the capitalist mode of
production?
Don’t joke. The US army, should intervene. Exactly the same (or something
changed in 4 years in the USA that is unknown in Europe?) which intervened
in Grenada, in the Gulf war, in Somalia....
Worse, he thinks and tries to convince the readers of the list that
the US army would intervene not for defending some material and strategical
interest of the USA (take for instance the need to stop the Dmark
area’s expansion, by one side, and to diplomatically and politically
weaken Russia by the other side). Oh no. For Leo, the US army would
intervene for the defense of the superior principles ...  of his morality
and political integrity.
And what about the Chris intervention which spured Leo to write his
own clarifications?

Chris wrote the same day:

> I confess I thought that US troops going into Somalia would at least
feed people.
Sure, Chris? And what about the oil of the see facing Somalia? And
what about the attack made by US army on the previously allied faction,
six our after the signature of an agreement amongst the factions?
Do you leave into the sky? But let go on.
 Chris wrote
>On the other hand it is a fact that they will at times go in,
>especially if there is some oil around, and really if you think how
>global civil society is going to emerge over the coming decades
>surely this process of intervention, criticism, intervention, criticism
>is part of it. It is a bit like the civilising of civil power in

>the days of the robber barons.

This “civil society” - which filled Leo with enthusiasm and which
would demand some clarifications - is rerally emerging over the coming
decades, “like the civilising of civil power in the days of the robber
barons” or rather the trend is exactly the reverse?
It seems that, as the working class is defeated (since the stalinist
counter-revolution in Russia, politically, and since the last technological
revolution materially), some so-called marxists are going around like
Diogene searching for the revolutionary subject. The neo-reformists
have found it in the “civil society”, which is made of workers and
bosses, shop-keepers and lawyers, shareholders and priests; but daoesn’t
matter, the class struggle is over. (some currents of the Autonomia
Operaia in Italy found it in the marginalised sectors of society).
Thus, the civil society intervene (chez Chris and Leo) on the “robber
barons” (but are they not part of the civil society?) for trying to
compel them to act, at least some times, in the sense of justice,
democracy, humanity or whatever else.
And they call themselves marxists!?
Rev. greetings



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list