Mike Friedman mikedf at
Sun Feb 3 16:53:07 MST 2002

hey lou, i don't have time for a lengthy response, but add me to the ranks
of those who see milosevic as indefensible. from everything i've read, he
was merely heading up a process of capital accumulation a la his russian
counterparts. but for me, what's even more important, is that i lived until
recently in ridgewood, where there is a rather large population of
croatians, serbs and albanians from the former yugoslavia. these are not
yuppies, but working class people, and virtually everyone i spoke to
condemned milosevic, many on the basis of personal loss of family members.
were they all tools of u.s. foreign policy? these were not merely
expressions of nationalism, but even if they were, what happened to
supporting national aspirations of oppressed peoples, even where they are
being manipulated by u.s. imperialism? pedro albizu campos flirted with
hitler, enemy of his immediate oppressor. should german revolutionists of
the epoch have repudiated his struggle for puerto rican independence? a
comparison with nicaragua is not in order, since nicaragua is an oppressed
nation and was in revolution at the time, while the former yugoslavia (and
russia, as well) is an industrialized european nation, if an impoverished
one, headed by a counterrevolutionary government. BUT, recall that the
sandinistas realized that they had fucked up with regard to the miskitu and
other oppressed indigenous peoples and TOTALLY (so there is no confusion)
threw out their previous policy of resettlement and forcing institutions on
them. that's the difference between milosevic and the fsln, and it should
indicate a distinction we should make. if we demand nato out, it is as
revolutionary defeatism, not defense of an oppressed nation.

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list