Louis wrote: >This analysis [snip] is utterly lacking in an analysis of Albanian nationalism in the 1980s, which was racially and religiously exclusionist. This is certainly what the bourgeoisie is saying, but is it true? Was and is this true of the nationalist movement *as a whole*? I havn't seen any convincing accounts of this (your previous reply to me didn't do it). But I have seen descriptions of a popular mass movement organizing its own social services and education after autonomy was reversed and Belgrade clamped down on the region's administration and reduced regional equalization funds. This seems to me a healthy development, better than passively waiting for the 'Communists' to do it *for* you, an example of the popular organizing other working people in Eastern European countries may need to do as the wanna-be capitalists run the old system into the ground. I don't doubt that Kosova has it's own chauvinists who use nationalism the way Milosovic and the Milosovics of Croatia and the other republics do. But it seems to we also have been 'utterly lacking in an analysis' of, like, why do the Serbs, long the dominant nationality in the old Yuglosavia, get to 'trump' the national aspirations of the majority Albanian Kosovars, the traditional 'poor cousins'? I don't want anything to do with Kosovars calling for and urging NATO intervention, but this is different than taking the moral and poltiical high ground on the principle of self-determination of oppressed peoples. What would we say, for example, about a Kosovar insurgency against a possible future alliance of Milosovic or someone like him **WITH** NATO, or the US, or Germany, etc. individually? I don't think that kind of alliance is excluded at all. Bill Burgess
