> Charles: Yes I did and am reading what you wrote. You are wrong when you
wrote and repeat above that "you (Charles) tried to locate economic motives
in the reductive sense of booty (i.e. territorial grabs for resources".
That is a false statement by you about my analysis of the imperialist war
on Yugoslavia. I specifically said they are trying to get at the surplus
value of the Yugoslavian workers. I specifically pointed to the fact that
the military force being put in place would be able to drive down the wages
of the Yugoslavian workers.<
Charles,
rubbish. your memory is getting dim. you are confusing what you wrote with what i wrote.
in post after post earlier this year, you insisted that the war against Yugoslavia was being waged in order to grab resources and for arms sales. which is why it took a number of posts from me (see one of those below) in order to get you even to gesture ever so superficially at the class struggle and things like surplus value, and then promptly return to the resources thing.
as for the rest of the conversation, when you can read your own posts and that of others, i'll be happy to recommence it. i can understand you might be confused by the difference between what you think you wrote or meant to imply, but all i have to go by is what you wrote. and here, there seems to be a vast discrepancy between what you think you said and what you did say.
Angela _________
----- Original Message ----- From: rc-am <rcollins at netlink.com.au> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Tuesday, 11 May 1999 1:41 Subject: Re: Russian disintegration index
thanks for the clarification, Chaz. I was a little taken aback, as must've been obvious.
but, let's clarify something else further a little:
I would certainly look around for such an explanation in access to resources, control of markets, etc., but the presence of these is, as far as my own reading has gone, somewhat negligible. the coal and oil in the area would explain the Belgrade govt.'s desire to control retain economic control of the region more than it would explain the actions of the NATO countries. I haven't found this explanation convincing.
there are however other ways to look at money and both how it expresses certain relations and seeks to reconstitute those relations. it's important to go back to 1980 when Yugoslavia joined the IMF, and in 1983 entered negotiations to reschedule its humungous debt. the IMF's conditions included a quarter % devaluation of the currency, massive closures of unprofitable enterprises, and slashing social expenditures. from then onwards, the Yugoslav workers fiercely resisted, forcing the govt to wind back the closures and refinance the remaining enterprises listed for closure. steep inflation served to heighten resistance rather than dampen it, as well as forcing a massive movement of people from the country to the cities and into emigration. as a mark of the extent to which resistance was outpacing the structures available for controlling workers: in 1986, the union agreed to the closures only to be faced with its swift collapse as the representative organisation. it is in this context that milosevich and his faction stepped in, calling for a 'return of what rightfully belongs to Serbia (kosovo and voivodina), calling for embargoes on Croatian and Slovenian products, and nurturing dissatisfaction only to the extent and direction of Serbian nationalism, as did other petty nationalists such as Tudjman.
here, the disintegration of Yugoslavia begins, and there is no end in sight to this conflict through the path of nationalism: it only displaces what began as a class struggle onto the terrain of a nationalist rivalry. whit this last assessment you might disagree, but we both know that austerity has been applied to the people's of the ex-yu; and whether it happens via a subordination to the IMF through the creation of UN protectorates and proxies or through the war and demands that workers now sacrifice for the nation, makes little difference in the end: the result will be the crushing of the resistance.
as for the reasons behind NATO's intervention, I think we have to look at both the necessity to give effect to IMF decrees and the credibility of NATO, and by implication (and paradoxically, even if NATO's actions are seen as a failure) the emergence of the EU as a global power. NATO is the site of contradictory agendas, that much should be obvious by now. but, whatever happens in the actual perceptions of who wins or loses, the EU will have its cheapened pool of labour at the margins, will have established itself as a moral (read: imperial, civilising) force on the global stage, there will be a process of establishing EU military independence from NATO, and the US will take the blame for any stuff ups and heavy-handedness. Albright will not take the fall, the US will.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au
I had written:
>and, a question about the knock-on >effects (specifically re the banks or
institutions which have laid out the >cash they are unlikely to see
returning) is a question for elaboration, not >even a question for either
an explanation or an analysis (though it >would inform one). stuff like
this is data -- as is the fact that US arms >companies are making money out
of the war, but it is not an explanation of >why the war is occurring, nor
is it an assessment of what the war means for >the left or for the working
class of various countries.<
Charles wrote:
>>Yes, it is good data to show the political economic motive of the
bourgeoisie in this war. Some have been claiming that such would be a
vulgar explanation, for example, when the mines and oil in the area are
mentioned as coveted by the imperialist bourgeoisie. Your comment is some
refutation of those who see no "vulgar" economic motive in the bourgeoisie
waging this war.<<