En relación a RE: [CrashList] KLA Attacks Everyone; Media Attac,
el 3 Mar 01, a las 15:22, Mark Jones dijo:
> No-one who lived thru the downfall of the USSR could ever have been in any
> doubt about the fate of Yugoslavia, but actually, wasn;t that fate sealed a long
> time-- a very long time-- ago-- when Tito split with Stalin and created the
> so-called "Non-aligned movement"? Anyone remember what that was?
>
> That was one of the first wedges imperialism drove into socialism.
In the most complete disagreement.
In fact, the non aligned movement (which I do remember very well, and it is not
a matter of chance since I write from a semicolonial country) tried to fill the
gap that the Soviet leadership had left wide open after Yalta and the attempt
to bring some appeasement to the aggression from the West by way of leaving the
revolutionary movement in the contested periphery unsupported, or almost.
It was an attempt to keep the revolution in the periphery going on in spite of
the reluctancy of Soviet leadership. In fact, a good deal of the resources of
the imperialists were engaged in this struggle, resources that would have been
directed against the USSR and China if this had not been the case.
Mark, probably, means that in the Non alligned movement there were bourgeois
and non-bourgeois regimes sitting next to each other. How could it be
otherwise? It was a tragedy, a political tragedy (and thus _not_ an unescapable
one), that the leadership of the USSR did not realize this.
What would Tito have had to do? He did not want to accept the leadership of
Russia, he wanted Yugoslavia to follow its own step towards socialism. He did
not want to surrender his arms, as the Greek communists had been forced to do
under Soviet pressure, he did not want to have his own country become a piece
in the checkerboard of Europe drawn in Yalta. The Balkans were, as everyone
knows, "reserved" for Great Britain. Tito's reluctance to follow this ruling
took him to independence from Moscow. After that, he (together with Sukarno,
among others) tried to devise an independent road for the revolting peoples in
the periphery.
What was wrong with that? Where was imperialism there? Could it not be, on the
contrary, that these peoples attempted for the first time, to establish a
common front against imperialism? Why should global politics be reduced to
either the possibilities of the bourgeoisies in the central nations or the
struggles of the ruling elites in the post-capitalist countries? Don't peoples
outside have policies of their own? Can't _this_ be possible? Does Mark
actually believe that only the big boys can be independent in their takes?
I am afraid this is both an economicist deformation and -sorry, Mark, but can't
put it in a different way- "one of the first wedges imperialism drove into" his
usually spotless discourse.
Growling hugs,
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
