Conspiracy theory makes good historical narrative but by itself it is not
enough. In Parenti's case what we get is little more than muckraking, an
honourable but bourgeois form of journalism. In Jared Israel's case it is not
even that: Israel reminds me of Arthur Koestler's famous description of a
typical Stalinist commissar in the USSR in the 1930s, as someone who is 'part
gangster, part gramophone'. But intellectual thuggery and hysterical
denunciation definitely is not enough, either politically or theoretically.
In Israel's case His Master's Voice-- Slobodan Milosevic-- has clearly shown
that he is the template. Milosevic, who combines self-pity with political
gangsterism in equal measure, now has a record of almost absolute political
failure. Given such an opponent, even the leaders of modern Germany
(revanchists with feet of clay) can get to look like Machiavellian evil
geniuses. However, the truth, as always, lies somewhere in between. If
Parenti's paranoia was supplemented by some serious historical materialist
analysis of the *internal* reasons for the moral and political decay of
"actually-existing socialism" we might be able to see more clearly that what
is really at stake here is not simply a tale of of predatory "Nato" v. Serbian
victimhood, but the real internal crisis of Yugoslav so-called "socialism"
which made the collapse of the FRY not only (possibly) desirable in Bonn,
Washington, Paris and London, but also something which was inevitable in its
own terms.
Nature abhors a vacuum and it was the collapse of Yugoslav economy and society
which opened the door to German revanchism and to "Nato" plundering. The same
thing happened throughout eastern Europe. Yes, the endless insidious pressure
of Cold War containment sapped the vitality out of "actually-existing"
socialism, but yes, it was George Bush Sr. who in one of his last speeches as
president, vehemently urged the USSR not to go down the Yeltsin road of
dissolution. Not much Machiaviellianism there, but Bush was a former CIA
director!
Yes, the Harvard Boys and "Nato" generally had a well-worked out plan for the
liquidation of Soviet economy and society, but they were nonetheless taken by
surprise by the speed of events because the unravelling of the Warsaw Pact
system and then of the USSR was ALSO and PRIMARILY the product of internal
decay. And a principal feature of that decay, almost its theme tune, was the
cancer of political gangsterism and the remorseless hypocrisy, greed and
self-interest of the nomenklatura. In other words, it was precisely the
nomenklatura-socialism of cadres like the Milosevic family, which more than
anything else helped precipitate Yugoslavia into disaster. The fact that these
people were also victims as well as agents, and were sometimes punished as
well as being beneficiaries of the process they unleased, does not absolve
them of their ultimate historical responsibility. It is precisely people like
Pavel Borodin, Boris Yeltsin and Slobodan Milosevic, who first privatised
their socialist societies. The fact that Milosevic did it under the banner of
Serbian nationalism changes little. It is no good pointing to what he actually
said in his famous speech, or to the multi-ethnic, tolerant nature of Serbian
society. Yugoslav socialism was founded on the unity of Serbian nationalism
with socialism; national independence with abstention from the capitalist
world market. But that rock began to be washed away a very long time ago, at
least as early as 1948; possibly it was always illusory. You cannot build
stable, permanent social orders on illusions and historical spin. It was
obvious by at least 1990 that there were only two choices before Yugoslavia
(and in particualr, before Serbain national feeling and values) and that was
either capitulation, or revolutionary absolutism. Managed capitulation to the
West would obviously, in retrospect, have been preferable to the catastrophe
which actually befell the FRY and the Serbs. But this catastrophe happened
because Serbian "socialism" was never anything more than a cynical spin on the
self-interest of the Serbian nomenklatura. They did not reccreate the Commune.
They forgot their own partisan roots.
Of course, they were also prisoners of the historical expectations of Serbian
nationalism and of the lived experiences, sacrifices and recollected
solidarity of the Partisans. But they wrapped themselves in the honourable
flags of the Partisan Nation ultimately for the most cynical and self-serving
of reasons, and only to support the private interests oif themselves and their
families. As we know conclusively now, the Milosevices were never more than
opera-colonels of revolution, and were never prepared to die at the
barricades.
Underlying that process of historical dissolution of "actually-existing
socialism" throughout eastern Europe was something else, and still more
fundamental: the emergent world-systemic crisis of late capitalism, of which
the "socialist world" (and ESPECIALLY highly dependent formations like the
FRY) had long been subordinate parts. Until you get a handle on that, the
attempt to lionise Milosevic's Yugoslavia, and to demonise Nato Machiavels, is
doomed to end up in absurdity and worse. You want to spend the next ten years
arguing about Milosevic's bank accounts, his involvement or not in Srebrenica
etc? Go for it. You will do yourselves and the cause of socialism no good, but
a great deal of damage. The perverse effect of Parenti's all-out criticism of
the western media will be to encourage people to make a choice, which they
have no real desire to make, between the "Nato" world view and the Parenti
world view and, no matter how seductive you think Parenti is, I wouldn't bet
on him winning out. Much more likely is his approach to have the opposite
effect, because, however much people may buy into conspiracy theory about the
mage-corporate western media and the seamlessness of the agencies of western
ideo-political hegemony, unless the alternative story stands up at least as
well on its own terms it will be discounted and finally, ignored. People don't
have the attention span necessary to perfomr a full-scale daily autocritique
of the externt to which they may or may not have unwittingly imbibed the
"wrong", corporate-capitalist, neoliberal version of events. So you have to
give them a simple and coherent alternative world view which begins with
fundamental, material realities which connect both with capitalist-crisis in
its roots, and with existential, lived everyday reality. This would be a truly
revolutionary synthesis of socialist theory and practice. But it is absurd to
suppose that such a synthesis can be based upon the story about Yugoslavia, it
cannot.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Richard Hugus
Sent: 04 April 2001 04:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [CrashList] "To Kill A Nation"
March 15, 2001
>>To Kill A Nation (The Attack On Yugoslavia)
by Michael Parenti
London: Verso, 2000
Review by Richard Hugus
The United States has committed an enormity against the people of Yugoslavia -
a crime which many have been unable to recognize because of its very size and
audacity. <<
_______________________________________________
CrashList website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
