Mohammad J Alam
alam.m at neu.edu
Tue Feb 5 00:51:22 MST 2002
"Perhaps you will like to tell us who on this list ever said that Serbia
a real model for world socialism".
Searching through the list and database I was unable to find out who said
this exactly, but I am positive that someone said Serbia is a model for
what we want united Europe to look like.
"The most we have said is that when Milosevic was president he, for
reasons, laid off the privatisations and became an obstacle to the IMF etc.
That was why they got rid of him."
That is the least you have all said. The most you have said includes me
being sworn at, threatened with list expulsion, accused of "bourgeois
lies", and taking an "imperialist stance". But never mind that; sticks and
stones may break by bones but cowardly words will never break my spirit.
So anyway, what about the major Serb factories and services being partially
sold out to foreign companies? What about the involvement of the regime in
reducing the "statification" of property into a mafia-type network of
individuals who most benefited as bureaucrats?
It must be realized here, that the historical record of all Stalinist
enterprises shows that the ruling clique turns capitalist. Why would Serbia
have been any different given the collapse of all their Bloc neighbors'
systems along the same lines? This kind of argument is like saying, "well
we defend foam material as barriers to floods because they are making a
stand". Well when shit hits the fan, the foam barriers are useless.
Similarly, the Stalinists have proved historically incapable of provided a
consistent defense of the working class and have a history of political
repression. As if this needs to be reiterated.
And workers are worse off than in Serbia. And you know what? There's no
reason you and others should be cowering in fear about this fact. Given the
Marxist analysis of what happens to workers under capitalism, at least now
we have the possibility of forming a genuine socialist programme to rid
capitalism once and for all. This deformed socialism business was a barrier
to this dialectical process. Similarly, no one here likes the effects of
colonialism. But colonialism was necessary for anti-colonialism, ie. the
independent movement of colonies to exert themselves and end up as
bourgeois countries with a national bourgeoisie and proletariat.
"the ISO in the USA - declared that his
departure was some great progressive revolution from below."
Let me speak frankly on my background in relation to this matter. During
the first round of slaughtering in Bosnia, I was in Pakistan. I read the
daily English, commonly reporting Serb atrocities. I was also strongly
opposed to the treatment of Kosovars years later. This is before I was a
Marxist. Then I spent some time with Ted Grant's organization, and believed
that, like in Afghanistan, neither side is really worth defending as a
long-term solution. (And I did some real research on the PDPA, available
here: http://people.ne.mediaone.net/redtiger/Afghanistan.html) Then I got
involved with the ISO, which has essentially zero in common with Ted
Grant's organization. I don't believe we have a progressive revolt from
below, but your statement is a canard. Just because the movement against
Milosevic wasn't carrying around banners of MarxEngelsLeninTrotsky, doesn't
mean they didn't have valid reasons to oppose Milosevic. That is like
condemning Hungary '56 and Prague '68. That is a Spartacist line.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism