Re: Re: Fwd: letter
Various list members make the needed point here every so often, but I think it needs constant reiteration. *The 1970s*, NOT the *1980s*. Just as the Truman Era is misnamed the McCarthy Era, the Carter Era has been consistently mislabeled the Reagan Era. Both the Cold War and the current War against the Working Class have been essentially projects of the Democratic Party. Progress for the Working Class (even in respect to more or less minimal reforms) requires the destruction of the Democratic Party. Carrol ain't above the truth... Post-WW2 liberal Dems achieved rapproachment with Dixiecrats for a time following Truman's 1948 civil rights proposal and they mended fences with organized labor (low 1946 voter turnout among workers frustrated with Truman was decisive factor in Reps winning both congressinal houses) after Truman's veto of Taft-Hartley, making labor leadership 'junior' partner in Cold War liberalism. But liberal Dems broke decisively with the left as Truman ordered Justice Dept. prosecutions under Smith Act (CP had failed to condemn 1941 use of said legislation against Trotskyists) and Internal Security Act. He also issued executive order 9835 requiring tens of thousands of federal employees to appear before loyalty boards. As for Carter (New Democrat before term was coined), his administration meant Paul Volcker monetarism, limited access for civil rights labor organizations, jettisoned full employment national health insurance policies, MX missle promotion, provocative retargeting of nuclear weapons... Michael Hoover
Re: Re: Fwd: letter
At 02:11 PM 4/30/00 -0500, you wrote: *The 1970s*, NOT the *1980s*. Just as the Truman Era is misnamed the McCarthy Era, the Carter Era has been consistently mislabeled the Reagan Era. Both the Cold War and the current War against the Working Class have been essentially projects of the Democratic Party. Progress for the Working Class (even in respect to more or less minimal reforms) requires the destruction of the Democratic Party. and the Republican Party, too. The two parties are mostly united on all of the issues above. [Today's LA TIMES had a letter: "Bush or Gore? is that our only choice? you've got to be kidding."] One of Brenner's good points is that he's clear about by bipartisan nature of these phenomena. But not all lefty economists are. I remember reading a manuscript by three well-known leftist economists who attributed Paul Volcker's monetary policies to the Reagan administration. To their credit they changed their article in light of this point before it was published. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
[PEN-L:6259] Re: Re: Re: (Fwd) Letter from Belgrade
Paul, Thanks. That about does it. I did not remember that Milosevic was president of Yugoslavia prior to this term, but maybe he was. I think that the current president of Serbia is MIlan Milutinovic (sp?), if I have that right, who switched positions with Milosevic a while ago. What about Djindic? He has been the "liberal opposition" throughout the current stuff. I know that he and Draskovic were allied in the demos against Milosevic back in 1996-97 and that Djindic was elected mayor of Beograd. But he and Draskovic fell out and Djindic was somehow removed from office. I gather his party has no reps in any of the assemblies, or do they have some in one of them but not the other? I have also read that he has a history of being very opportunistic and all over the map in terms of his postitions in the past. Likes to play to the western media. Strikes me as a candidate to be a puppet if NATO were to really do the "take Belgrade" and overthrow Milosevic" strategy, although I suppose Draskovic would also be a candidate for such a position. Honestly, if I were in Serbia, I don't know who the hell I would vote for. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, April 29, 1999 6:28 PM Subject: [PEN-L:6188] Re: Re: (Fwd) Letter from Belgrade Barkley, The President of Yugoslavia is elected as is the Yugoslav assembly which has approximately the same powers vis-a-vis the two constituent republics as the old Yugoslav govt had with respect to the 6 republics. (The difference is that the president is elected at large and is not a 'presidency' i.e rotating collective as it was under the old system.) The president can only serve I believe for one (or is it two) terms. In any case, Milosevic was the first president of Yugoslavia and could not run in the last election. His party ran a Milosevic associate (I forget his name) who was elected president while Milosevic ran for president of Serbia, which he won with the majority you mentioned (see below). When I was last in Beograd and discussing these issues and the inflation and monetary policy with economists in Serbia I was told that within the urban, middleclass, professional and intellectual class circles, Milosevic was quite unpopular (hence the opinion of the lady I forwarded from Sid's post). However, his political and electoral strength is among the rural peasant and working class people who still look up to a strong leader -- a new Tito. You will also note that in the other posting about Vuk Draskovic, he rose to influence on a right-wing nationalist appeal, only to be outflanked on the right-nationalist wing by Seselj. I have good Serbian friends who were 'ethnically cleansed' twice from Kosovo by the Albanians who, though moderately left-liberals here, are pro-Seselj in Yugoslavia precisely because they have been/feel they have been oppressed by the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia. But I am straying from your question. To the best of my knowledge, Kosovo and Vojvodina are represented in the Yugoslav parliament but not as autonomous provinces, only as regional constituency representatives (in the same sense as congresspersons from Vermont or any other state are representated in Congress.) Have I answered all your questions? Paul Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:6162] Re: (Fwd) Letter from Belgrade Date sent: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:22:54 -0400 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, Hmmm. This woman has a name that is very similar to that of His Excellency's wife. But, more seriously I would ask you if you could really clarify the nature of the current political system in Yugoslavia. This is triggered by this letter writer's lament that she (and her friends) did not elect this government. But there clearly are quite a few elections in Yugoslavia, even if His Excellency tried to resist the results of some local ones a few years ago. Clearly the repeated labeling by NATO of His Excellency as a "dictator" is seriously inaccurate. Some specific questions: 1) Is there a Yugoslavia-wide parliament? I know that Serbia and Montenegro have their own parliaments. I know that the Albanians in Kosmet have largely boycotted those elections. I know that the breakdown in the Serbian parliament is that 115 are either in His Excellency's party or his wife's party, that about 80 are in the right-wing chauvinist party of Seselj and about 40 or so are in Draskovic's party. I don't think Djindic's party (His Excellency's most severe "liberal" critic") has any. 2) How is the Yugoslav president selected? Is there a nationwide election or is he appoin
[PEN-L:6188] Re: Re: (Fwd) Letter from Belgrade
Barkley, The President of Yugoslavia is elected as is the Yugoslav assembly which has approximately the same powers vis-a-vis the two constituent republics as the old Yugoslav govt had with respect to the 6 republics. (The difference is that the president is elected at large and is not a 'presidency' i.e rotating collective as it was under the old system.) The president can only serve I believe for one (or is it two) terms. In any case, Milosevic was the first president of Yugoslavia and could not run in the last election. His party ran a Milosevic associate (I forget his name) who was elected president while Milosevic ran for president of Serbia, which he won with the majority you mentioned (see below). When I was last in Beograd and discussing these issues and the inflation and monetary policy with economists in Serbia I was told that within the urban, middleclass, professional and intellectual class circles, Milosevic was quite unpopular (hence the opinion of the lady I forwarded from Sid's post). However, his political and electoral strength is among the rural peasant and working class people who still look up to a strong leader -- a new Tito. You will also note that in the other posting about Vuk Draskovic, he rose to influence on a right-wing nationalist appeal, only to be outflanked on the right-nationalist wing by Seselj. I have good Serbian friends who were 'ethnically cleansed' twice from Kosovo by the Albanians who, though moderately left-liberals here, are pro-Seselj in Yugoslavia precisely because they have been/feel they have been oppressed by the Albanian minority in Yugoslavia. But I am straying from your question. To the best of my knowledge, Kosovo and Vojvodina are represented in the Yugoslav parliament but not as autonomous provinces, only as regional constituency representatives (in the same sense as congresspersons from Vermont or any other state are representated in Congress.) Have I answered all your questions? Paul Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba From: "J. Barkley Rosser, Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:6162] Re: (Fwd) Letter from Belgrade Date sent: Thu, 29 Apr 1999 13:22:54 -0400 Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, Hmmm. This woman has a name that is very similar to that of His Excellency's wife. But, more seriously I would ask you if you could really clarify the nature of the current political system in Yugoslavia. This is triggered by this letter writer's lament that she (and her friends) did not elect this government. But there clearly are quite a few elections in Yugoslavia, even if His Excellency tried to resist the results of some local ones a few years ago. Clearly the repeated labeling by NATO of His Excellency as a "dictator" is seriously inaccurate. Some specific questions: 1) Is there a Yugoslavia-wide parliament? I know that Serbia and Montenegro have their own parliaments. I know that the Albanians in Kosmet have largely boycotted those elections. I know that the breakdown in the Serbian parliament is that 115 are either in His Excellency's party or his wife's party, that about 80 are in the right-wing chauvinist party of Seselj and about 40 or so are in Draskovic's party. I don't think Djindic's party (His Excellency's most severe "liberal" critic") has any. 2) How is the Yugoslav president selected? Is there a nationwide election or is he appointed by some body? If the latter, who is that body? 3) If there is no nationwide parliament, what is the national level governing body. I am aware that there is both a Serbian bureaucracy and a parallel Yugoslav bureaucracy in Belgrade. 4) How are the republican presidents selected? By the republican parliaments? Hope that you or somebody can clear this up. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 5:09 PM Subject: [PEN-L:6125] (Fwd) Letter from Belgrade --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date sent: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 16:36:52 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Sid Shniad [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Letter from Belgrade Subject: Letter from Belgrade Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 From: Marija Marjanovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: My side of the story Hello everyone! I am student from Architectural Faculty, University of Belgrade, Yugoslavia. I spent great time in Porto Alegre by the end of the year 1997. Some terrible things are happening to me and my people (Serbs) and I wanted to tell you my side of the story. My people is in a very bad position: on one side, there is our government that absolutely does not care about anything except about how to save their own positions. We don't
