NATO's left wing (was Re: Yugoslav Paradox)

Gorojovsky Gorojovsky at SPAMarnet.com.ar
Thu Mar 29 03:41:56 MST 2001


Dear friends and comrades, if you are interested in discovering the way some
self-appointed "Leftists" put themselves to the service of imperialist
bourgeoisies, please follow this rather lengthy work in surgery.

En relación a Yugoslav Paradox,
el 28 Mar 01, a las 21:46, C. Samary, citada por Richard Fidler, dijo:

>  For the emergence of a true left in Serbia, the end of the Slobodan
> Milosevic/Mira Markovic reign is a good thing, a necessary starting point. But
> behind the relative "ease" of the fall of this regime, we have to beware of an
> optical illusion caused by earlier mistakes.

That is, it is in the interest of a "true left" (what is the litmus test for truth,
here, by the way?) in Serbia that the NATO  destroys the Socialist Party
of Serbia and, particularly, removes from the scene the main "traitor to the class",
this "criminal reformist" Milosevic. All the impotence of these verbalizing
"leftists" who hide behind the imperialist armies is revealed here. Instead of
proposing a political struggle within Yugoslavia in a common fight against
foreign intervention, Samary agrees with the interventionists in that they may
be doing the work for a "true left" when they attack Milosevic. Good for
starters, isn't it? The only mistake of Hitler and Guderian seems to have not
thought of this kind of Leftists when they launched their attack on Yugoslavia.
>
>  This government was neither that of a Hitler practicing "genocide" in Kosova,
> nor a progressive regime.

Listen, listen! "Neither that of a Hitler practicing genocide" means they
_practiced genocide_ (which has not been proven, nor will be proven ever), but
"weren't able to do it as perfectly as a Hitler would". Of course, Yugoslavia
is a second rank (extra-European save for geodetical location) country. What
can one expect from them? They aren't even good genocides. But, ah, and this is
the point, genocides they are. And then, the final blow, which is prepared by
the first one: "nor a progressive regime". Not fully genocidal, yes, but
clearly not progressive. What was it, then, Ms. Samary? Spite it out, dear
Samary: a reactionary regime you want to say, a reactionary regime that is, in
addition, stupid, for it can't even commit genocide properly. I guess that it
is in order to teach them how to do the latter that NATO overlooked the former
and is still trying to destroy Milosevic.

> That is why it had neither the repressive and
> totalitarian forces behind it of the former, nor the means to counter attacks
> from the right that the latter would have had.

Ah, stupidity replacing class analysis! What one always misses here is the
concrete description of the paralelogram of forces in actual Yugoslavian
society. Maybe because Ms. Samary, from her privileged vintage point, does not
need to study the actual realities she writes about, having such reliable
sources as the Western newspapers to draw from... And, at the same time, she
shares all their tricks in mass deception. Please look at the following superb
example. On Milosevic, Samary says that he

>
> was a man who was ready to look for his support and legitimacy in the
> ballot boxes, while he would also try to pull any strings he could to hold on to
> power.

But she introduces this, which we must reasonably accept to be a general
description of a normal democratic politician, with the following phrase, which
I intentionally snipped away:

"If we leave aside the myths that demonize or sanctify Milosevic, it is clear
that..."

That is, what Samary is trying to do is NOT to describe Milosevic, loyally, as
a normal politician, but to give credit to the "myths" that she pretends to be
"leaving aside". The sentence above has nothing to do with the second part of
her assessment. Why to write it down, then? Because Samary wants to smear
Milosevic, to side with the mainstream current of slander against him, to stick
into her readers' mind the idea that Milosevic IS a Satan (the reference to
myths on his being a "hero" is there just to show an equanimity of soul that
the relation of forces on the world media scenario belies, and also to dismiss
by a derogatory mechanism any kind of serious defense of Milosevic).

Then, the "evidence" that supports the above follow. This "evidence", in fact,
has nothing to do with the idea that Milosevic is a normal politician, but with
the introductory phrase, with the vial of poison that goes with the general
truth that is served to us. Only in this context can one understand that Samary
criticizes Milosevic's attempt

>
>  ...to deny his defeat "legally" via the Electoral Commission and
> the Constitutional Court,

since it is true that, from the formally legal point of view, he had a good
case against the "winners" in the election. By the way, Samary immediately
says, without proving it at all, that the Court was a kangaroo Court (this is
somehow contradicted, I guess, by a good dozens of foreign observers of the
whole process --but, of course, Samary would write them off as Milosevic's
running dogs):

> [a Court] that was to function to his orders; but apparently he
> also was also counting on the army's support.

That is, Samary is now calling upon the reader's mind that ultimate
demonstration of the reactionary character of a leader in a second rank
country, that this leader may count on the army's support under conditions of
foreign harassment and encirclement. What would normally be considered a good
thing in, say, France (that the Army had supported a government bent on
fighting the German invasion, against a Fifth Column paid by Germany) is, in
the case of Milosevic, a demonstration of his evil intentions.

>
>  Milosevic underestimated the fact that during the summer of the year 2000,
> eighteen opposition formations, including the leader of the Democratic Party,
> Zoran Djindjic, could come together to support Vojislav Kostunica (the only one
> of them with a chance to beat Milosevic legally) despite their internal
> disagreements.

What Samary does not give is an answer to the following, basic, question:
"Where did the glue that pasted that circus of strange animals together come
from?". She does not give this answer because what she wants to do is to
portray the Yugoslavian political process as a "normal" political process in a
country that is not subject to foreign intervention.

>
>  He did not see how his regime's "arguments" against that candidate were
> weakening in the face of his government's clear criminal practices,

Again, practices that are stated as a matter of fact, without ever showing a
single thread of evidence. See how the machine works? Samary will drop her
venom here and there, in the midst of what looks like reasonable discourse.
Could one be as rude as to ask this beautifully writing Leftist any serious
evidence of those crimes? I mean, evidence other than the evidence "produced"
by OTAN's Cecil B. de Milles, that is, the OTPOR crew.

> and he
> underestimated the pressures on various key members of his government to at
> least stay neutral, if not actually go over to Kostunica.

Pressures by who, again, Ms. Samary? Pressures by who? Did Milosevic really
underestimate the pressures put by imperialism? Or did he realize that the
criminal gangs that had been prepared by imperialists _in case he clearly won_
were ready to be unleashed, create chaos, and justify some new military attack?
Couldn't it be that he simply considered it advisable not to risk a bloodshed,
to accept the (in his opinion, and most probably in the opinion of any decent
observer) illegal position of the pro-imperialist "democrats", and to prepare
for future political struggle? His first move after he left Presidency was,
precisely, NOT TO MOVE, not to move away from Yugoslavia, that is, to remain
there, a political fighter at his post. Doesn't this tell anything to Ms.
Samary?

>
>  He faced pressure from a Russian diplomat who came to urge him-and convince the
> Electoral Commission-to recognize the election results on October 5. And he
> underestimated the Kostunica vote in the army and the army's refusal to
> intervene against a majority popular vote.

Not the Army. The Police, part of which seems to have been directly bribed by
the opponents of Milosevic and their sponsors in the West. The Army of
Yugoslavia is, for the time being, a stronghold of patriotic and thus
revolutionary ideas.

>
>  It's easy to see why Western governments present Slobodan Milosevic's defeat as
> "their" victory. It would be more honest to say that Serbian popular opinion
> expressed in polls and then in ballot boxes forced the West to "choose" to
> support Kostunica,

See how, by a magic pass, a foreign intervention is transformed into a popular
mass decission! The "Serbian popular opinion" Samary speaks about was the
direct result of the effects of

>  ... bombings, ... war crime
> trials, ... repeated appeals (given voice by Djindjic) for a general insurrection
> against Milosevic.

Why, then, Ms. Samary, would you be so unfair with the West? They obtained what
they wanted, they WON. At last, they obtained a partial victory. One should be
honest and recognize that the results of other people's toils are precisely
that.

But Ms. Samary wants to show that Milosevic was a dictator, and that he was
hated by his people. She wants to explain that the current government is, in
fact, the result of a free decission of the Yugoslav people, and thus she
sanctifies the intervention from the West. Ah, Leftists!

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
gorojovsky at arnet.com.ar





More information about the Marxism mailing list