Owen Jones wrote:
> >On this list, Milosevic has been compared to the Sandinistas. This is >how
> >absurd the apologia can get, and it really validates my ridicule about >Che
> >Milosevic. The Sandinistas led a revolution in Nicaragua. The >Milosevic
> >regime led a counterrevolution, restoring capitalism to Yugoslavia by
> >silencing the great Serbian working class with chauvinism. The >Milosevic
> >regime was allied with imperialism in the past - he was the man "we >can do
> >business with", remember, as well as imposing IMF austerity >programmes in
> >the interests of Western capital, and inviting in Greek and Italian >capital.
>
> >Yet Che Milosevic is a Sandinista, beret and all, whom we must bloc >with to
> >defend Yugoslavia against imperialism?
>
I don't know if Milo can be comparable to Sandanistas or not, but do you have
actual evidence for the "number of firms" that were privatized after the
imposition IMF austerity programs in Serbia. For instance, is privatization
massively taking place despite the IMF imposition? In the imperialized
countries, sometimes, national bourgeoisie resists to privatize for strategic
reasons. It either finds it untimely (which is what happened in Turkey in the
early 90s) or fear working class resistance. The bureaucratic personnel of state
enterprises may also oppose privatization on the grounds that they don't want to
lose their jobs. In the case of Turkey, local business and labor who had
historically benefited from government's corporate protection allied to oppose
privatization. Other factors slowed down the process such as lack of
technology, institutional context, small capital markets, limited investment
potential, etc..
The below report written from a bourgeois point of view complains about the
fact that 1)the Serbian government does not "show any determination" to carry
out privatization. 2) and that the economy is still "administrated by the
government". So the weakness of national bourgeoisie is a little bit overstated
in your view, me thinks. I am not saying this to apologize Milo's commitment to
privatization, but implying that we should not under estimate the role of
national bourgeoisie that much. IMF programs are being resisted all over the
world for screwing national economies. I don't exactly remember at the moment
but it must be either Malaysia or Indonesia who refused IMF bailout after Asian
crisis. They did much better than South Korea in terms of recovering their
economies.
http://www.g17.org.yu/english/press/glas7.htm
Milan Kovacevic, expert for foreign investment and a member of G 17, on
up-to-date privatization in Serbia
Even the ruling regime is not proud of its results
Suspicion that the regime is not in a hurry with the process of transformation
in order for capital to come into the right hands
According to official data, during the last two years Serbia got over 136000
stockholders. They are supposed to be owners of transformed Serbian companies
that have turned socially-owned capital into private capital. There are no facts
about how many former social and state-owned firms have fallen into private
hands, but the government that is carrying out this process is not itself proud
of the ”results”. It is well known that during the last two and a half years
since this law has been put into effect, out of a total of five during which the
whole job should be done, not even a tenth of Serbian firms have been put into
private hands. Out of those firms that have become stockholders, not one has
succeeded to get a greater amount of money for development. Milan Kovacevic,
expert for foreign investment and a member of G 17, talks of the importance of
136000 Serbian stockholders:
- In 1993 there were half a million stockholders in Serbia that lost their
right after the enforcement of law concerning revaluation. This means that the
previous number has not been reached to this day, even with the free
distribution of stocks. Besides this, in order to create genuine trust in
privatization, it is necessary to admit previous mistakes of confiscating
stocks. I am referring to the period from the year 1945 till
now, and all this without any compensation. It is known that "Politika" is the
only one that had returned stocks to the Ribnikar family, even though it is not
known which law was used in the process.
On the subject of returning the confiscated, should it be returned one day, or
are the people that say there is nothing of it, right?
- The restitution of confiscated stocks, or compensation that was not done
during confiscation, is very important for forming basic trust of private
property in general. This is why we must either resort to the recognition of
stocks in the process of privatization, or compensate for confiscated stocks.
This is also important for the security of those that are now acquiring stocks,
so as they will not have to renounce their stocks to former stockholders. It is
even more important for foreign stockholders. In our country a system that is
not hospitable to foreign investors has been maintained for a long time, hence,
it is even more important to give them the right message - that we have,
finally, opted for a society based on the private sector and will protect
private property.
How could we interpret the fact that the government does not show any
concern for the slow process of privatization?
- In essence, we still have an economy directly administered by the government.
Public firms are government property and socially-owned firms are easily
manipulated. The desire for a status quo is based on these facts, and even if
privatization must take place, it is being manipulated. In other words, it is
desirable that capital gets only to those that support or favor the government.
Is this the reason why the government is partially satisfied with its success
in the privatization of about 350 firms?
- They are only 5% of the total number that needs to be privatized. At this
rate, the process should be finished in 40 years time! Serious analyses
throughout the world show that quicker privatization is more profitable for a
country, because prices are lower. However, in our country the government is not
showing determination to carry out the action. Instead, the picture of the real
state of the process is "beautified", with a concealed desire to enable
privatization in an irregular way in the background. Hence many state and
socially-owned firms transfer part of their capital in different transactions
with private firms, and undergo swift privatization. There are doubts that the
real aim is to conduct a “covert” privatization of Serbian economy, as a
substitute for successful and fast privatization in favor of a greater number of
people. Vouchers and bureaucracy
If you had the opportunity, what would you change in the present Law on
Property Transformation?
- The existing law should be significantly changed. But now I will point out
two facts: vouchers should be distributed among citizens, because I do not
understand why the unemployed have been overlooked in the distribution of free
stocks. Second of all, the bureaucratic evaluation of capital belonging to firms
should be abandoned, instead of which privatization should be aimed at a quick
development of the capital market. The government admits that only 32 of 75
most important domestic firms are in a "pre-privatization phase", which means
they are not included in the process of privatization. Out of 539 public firms
in certain districts and towns, only one has decided in favor of a
transformation of property. How do these facts seem to you?
- These facts only show that there is no readiness for effective privatization.
On the subject of 75 large firms, they are actually holding companies and
similar organizations that encompass around 300 firms. With regard to public
firms there are no surprises either, although they "conceal" almost a half of
the domestic capital.
New government will have a lot of work
- The new regime that decides for a democratic society, starts developing
market economy and opening the country, will have to redirect the government
towards its true functions, a thorough application of rights and overall
improvement of the business environment. All this will require a high-quality
and stable tax system that will evenly distribute state expenses to all its
taxpayers. This will mean an end of the system that has meddled state and
economic policy, and fails to effectivelly accomplish important tasks for the
functioning of the state.
>
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD Student
Department of Political Science
SUNY at Albany
Nelson A. Rockefeller College
135 Western Ave.; Milne 102
Albany, NY 12222
_______________________________________________
Why pay for something you could get for free?
NetZero provides FREE Internet Access and Email
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
