I wonder what Zizek and like-minded dissident intellectuals were doing when arguments such as the following were in the air in Slovenia. Coming up with a Lacanian-Hegelian argument for decentralization and market reforms? According to Zizek's "NATO AS THE LEFT HAND OF GOD?" the present predicament of ex-Yugoslavs began with "the moment of Milosevic's constitutional reforms in 1987," so I suppose that in his mind what had been going on before and elsewhere -- especially economic difficulties, resulting in sentiments like below in Slovenia, for instance -- doesn't count as part of political analysis.
I don't think I'd ever convince you, Max, Zizek fans, or anyone as to the nature of the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. We have discussed it before. I don't think you are interested in having me repeat what I said on several different lists. But we might still discuss the pros and cons of autonomy, federalism, market socialism, etc., learning some lessons from the Yugoslav experience. For instance, is autonomy really compatible with diminishing the gap between richer and poorer regions? At least in Yugoslavia, did it not exacerbate problems -- both subjective and objective -- in _both_ rich Slovenia and poor Kosovo? Yoshie
***** The New York Times July 13, 1987, Monday, Late City Final Edition SECTION: Section D; Page 8, Column 1; Financial Desk HEADLINE: EVEN IN YUGOSLAVIA, A RICH-POOR SPLIT BYLINE: By Henry Kamm, Special to the New York Times DATELINE: LJUBLJANA, Yugoslavia
...[T]he political and economic crisis that has long confronted Yugoslavia has sharpened Slovenia's awareness that its two million people have the highest level of economic development among the republics and provinces that make up this federal country of 23 million....
...No Yugoslav city debates more intensely how to deal with differing levels of development in a federal structure, and no city asks more pointedly whether northern Yugoslavia is paying too dearly for the south.
''Slovenia's share of the population is 8 percent; its share of the gross national product is 18 percent,'' said the republic's Premier, Dusan Sinigoj.
''And our share in exports to the convertible-currency area is 25 percent,'' he added, citing what may be Slovenia's proudest statistic. With Yugoslavia's foreign debts at nearly $20 billion, dollar exports are the principal criterion of economic performance for the six republics and two autonomous provinces.
The southern republics, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro, as well as the province of Kosovo, are subsidized by the more prosperous areas through a federal fund and direct contributions....
...In Slovenia, it is generally assumed that much of the republic's assistance to the south has been badly misused. So the question being asked is how to restructure Yugoslavia politically and economically to assure the continuing development of all its parts.
Different Answers
To some Slovenian officials, the answer lies in freeing the Yugoslav market from Government interference and applying the laws of supply and demand. Others suggest reorganizing the relationships among the republics and with the federal Government.
All recognize that these ideas raise issues that involve central power in a one-party state - issues that no Communist country has yet faced so openly.
''We in Slovenia see a solution for emerging from the crisis in a more open market and economy,'' Mr. Zakelj said. ''In Kosovo, because of their much lower level, they find it easier to be content with distribution more programmed by the state.
'Fewer Bad Investments'
''We here believe firmly that to reach our objectives we have to work out a different form of socialism, effective from the economic point of view, respecting the market but socially just.''
Discussing the contention that northern money has been misused in the south, Mr. Kovac noted that Slovenia's factories are more efficient than those elsewhere in the country. ''Capacity in Slovenia is better utilized and managed than in the south,'' the editor said. ''There have been fewer bad investments.''
Because each republic and province firmly insists on its autonomy within Yugoslavia, those receiving aid have been free to invest it as they wish.
''Fantastic sums go to the south, and they don't know how to use them economically,'' said Milos Kobe, a board member of Iskra, Slovenia's leading industrial concern and an exporter of electronic and electrical products.
Premier Sinigoj and other officials said that under new rules the donors have acquired more control, particularly when Slovenian enterprises were allowed to invest directly in southern plants and share in their management. But such innovations are in the experimental stage.
Stanislav Valant, executive vice president of Ljubljanska Banka, Slovenia's leading bank, showed impatience with Government plans to deal with Yugoslavia's crisis. ''We need more initiative and less interference,'' he said. ''We need deregulation, not additional regulation.''
'Standing Still Could Be Fatal'
Some officials and critics believe that such arguments are delaying necessary decisions. They believe that in a period of rapid technological change the Slovenian economy falls behind its competitors every day that it turns over money to ineffective economies instead of using it to keep up with the state of the art.
''Standing still could be fatal,'' said Premier Sinigoj.
Mr. Kmecl, who spoke gloomily of a brain drain and intellectual disaffection, said: ''We cannot invest in renewal because our capital is going for the development of the underdeveloped. A small country like this cannot afford this. After 40 years of this policy, they are still not developed, and we can't maintain the pace. We are immobilized.'' He added: ''A technologically highly developed society like Slovenia needs always more for its own science and culture, while the underdeveloped need more for social protection than they produce. This is a turning point in every way.''
GRAPHIC: Photo of Ljubljana street (Agence France-Presse); Map of Yugoslavia *****