Serbia v Kosovo

[save catford]

So what you're saying here is that it is only Serbia who engages in national myth-making?

blimey you actually managed to engage with one of the points on the thread. just a shame it's a question that could have been answered by actually reading what i've said in previous posts, i.e.

i said the construction of the myths around them (especially 1389) to suite the distinctly modern political projects of the serb elites is very much a process started (like all other nationalisms) in the the 19th century, lots of clambering around looking for any old shreds of culturtal artefacts to mould the past in order to suit the requirement of (their) present

and yes nationalism (just like religion) tricks peole into subordinating their own objective interests in favour of some mythical notion of the nation, we are all taken in by it to some degree or another

i'd be interested though in what gave you the idea that i hold the position that serbia is the only nation that relies on myth making to give the state popular legitmacy? even if i hadn't have made the two explicit posts above, which quite clearly make the point that this is an activity i attribute to all nationalisms, there is nothing in anything i've said elsewhere to allow you to make such a groundless extrapolation, and you moan about me telling you what's in your head

 

[save catford]

gorski, cheers for your reply, i'll get back to you on it later this afternoon (reason: i wouldn't want you to think, like nino savette, that i've stayed up all day waiting for you to post so that i could then immediately answer it, that would be too much like a discussion)

 

[gorski]

No probs!

 

[Poi E]

And while we're at it, Hungarians to have Vojvodina! And Bosniaks the Sandjak! And Istra for the Italian Croats! etc.

Re: the secession of the RS. The BiH Constitutional Court has affirmed the sovereignty of all peoples of Bosnia over all parts of BiH. Given that non-Serb Bosnians have returned in fair numbers to the RS, supporting the right of secession of the RS is a direct path to bloodshed.

Why are speaking of such absolutist notions such as secession? There are other more sustainable models available. Federal systems (remember the Izetbegovic/Gligorov plan?), autonomy within unitary states etc.

 

[save catford]

gorski,

forgive me for not quoting out and responding to all the individual points, but i've tried to address your points in the garbled mess which is below:-

i can see where you are coming from on all this, but imo i don't think the solution is to take away the right of a body of people to make decisions about the way that they want to live (ok i admit this is quite idealist and not really what happens in the real world, but as i said previously that's the principle i believe in, so that has to be the starting point of any analysis), i'd say the more pressing issue is not to take away that right from people in case they slide back into 19th century nationalism (or make some other 'wrong' choice) , but to expose widely & openly the myths around those movements who seek to use myths, imagery & groundless rhetoric to garner support for their own elitist political projects. and to do so in the hope of exposing the beast for what it is and to de-nationalise the powers that nationalism currently holds over people and take away that power from those who seek to use it for their own self serving purposes (money, power, status, etc..)

i don't for a minute underestimate the task involved in achieving that task however, as like religion, nationalism is a potent force that can drive millions of people kill and be killed in it's name and can attract a mass following of devotion so strong that the likes of communism could only ever dream of emulating. however, i don't believe in constantly reducing the ability & capacity for people to do be able to do things just in case they make the wrong decision, not however because i hold any truck in any kind of freedom at all costs 'maaaannn' type thing, but because usually those who are keen to do such things have motives of their own, or at the very least there are always those who are quick to take advantage such situations, so disabiliting people in case they make an incorrect choice is not, imo, a proper solution. if you want to defeat nationalism (and religion) you to have to confront it head on and disabilitate it itself, not try to do it in round about ways by seeking to take away the capacity of a group of people to make democratic choices about they way they think they should live

although one area where i probably worded poorly the point i was making was when i said i support the the right of serbs in kosovo to seceede and the serbs in republika srpska to break away, it may be seen as not much of a distinction but what i should have said was that i support the right of the people who live in those areas to break away if they democratically choose to do so and (also also if they ensure adequate arrangements will be in place to ensure the safety & continued wellbeing of anyone who disagrees with the majority decision), so in the same way as i support the people of scotland and wales to move through devolvement towards some sort of indepdence i do the same for people in other parts of europe. as i said it might not seem like much of a distinction, but to me it's an important one as the principle is grounded in the people as a whole, and not in some concept of a section of that people as a nation.

i think your faith and optimism in the EU is one that i do not share, i am pro european on a social level, but so far all i see in the EU is a loose club for the enforcing of the things already being played out by the major states at the state level (albeit with some elements of concentration of power), i don't really think that a time will come when any kind of european state will emerge (or indeed a global one like some proponents of anti-globalisation seem to ground their analysis, and activities, in), more than ever the political form of global capitalism is not a global state or global sovereignty, but it's a global system of multiple states structured in a complex relation of domination and subordination.

now one might say if you hold that view why are you in favour of the creation of more new states which will just have to take their place within this structure and in effect be powerless to map out any independent course of strategy. it's a fair question, and one that i kind of struggle over myself, but i guess in the end it just keeps coming back to my belief that the most effective and socially just governance systems are ones that are as close to the people that the decisions coming from them effect. also in as much as i don't have much admiration for the modern state (in terms of the main reasons for it's existence and who it exists to act as a prop/crutch for), i don't believe that creating new states necassirly means creating new, or bolstering existing, nationalisms - sure the sole political objective of all nationalisms is to acquire or safeguard a state in which to wrap their nation up in, it doesn't mean however that all states are the creation of nationalism itself (although admittedly most are and do rely on nationalism of some degree in a scramble for anything that helps them to maintain some form of perceived valid legitmacy)

so i guess in summary there's a lot about the world i don't like, and if people are ever going to get anywhere near to being able to do anything about it or begin to fight back against the overwhelming forces that are stacked up against them, and to do so in a manner that actually gives them a credible say in things and one that doesn't just end up in more and more tyranny or endless commodification of our lives and mediation of all social relations by market forces, then imo, that process has to start at the very bottom, at the most local level and work upwards from there, you can't build anything concrete and sustainable without foundations, so those principals keep leading me back to the belief that people should have more control over the way they live and on the daily conditions that effect their lives, that in itself has a large degree of utopian pipe dream in it however as the capacity for people to have much control over the conditions that effect their lives these days is infanitlley minute, however things need to start somewhere

i do agree however with poi e about taking such absolutist positions such as secession and do have a lot of time for federal type structures (although not really for any of the ones that exist at the moment, but in principle they are the way forward i'd say, and ones that groups of people can freely decide to federate or de-federate with would appear to be the way forward)

anyway, have kind of strayed from the point a bit here, apologies for the somewhat garbled response, i'm not quite with it today and i think i could have expressed a lot of the above in a much more rational and cogent manner, perhaps tomorrow i can revisit some of it and add some more substance to some of the points

incidentally, and more on topic, sadly two deaths have now occurred in relation to this topic, one a kosovo serb who was burned to death as a result of a fire started in the US embassy in belgrade, and another an off duty serb policeman shot dead in central serbia by a kosovo serb who had been displaced from pec. once again, ordinary people, are the ones paying with their lives.

 

[gorski]

A few pointers and questions to our budding policy maker and thinker...

1) Sovereignty. The principle you forgot, which is at least equal to the principle you favour and its notional/conceptual pair in the context/framework we're discussing.

2) Who decides who votes on - watch out! - not the whole territory of a state but just one part of it; under which conditions etc. etc.? There was no consent from Serbia. That's rape!

3) Nationalism is being dismantled non-violently via the principles espoused and being put to good use[!!!] by the EU. No two ways about it. The first non-violent and negotiated giving up and pooling of sovereignty by independent states. Not my faith, no optimism necessary. Just acknowledge it, see it for its achievements, staring you in the face. How did they do it? A cool head and some courage. Not to mention strategic thinking! That's "reality", whether you see it or not.

I'm afraid your posts are completely neglecting the fact we have a viable option - to counteract your XIX ct. idea [sorry but!]! If you don't want XIX ct. nationalism - then think and act strategically. Forward, not backward! What you are advocating is precisely that!

4) Idealism? No, you just neglected the current power relationships. Completely. To put forward your "vision". And you don't think about what would it cost the [rest of the] world. Milosevic [and Tudjman] did exactly that. He had a "vision". Legislated. Put together some policies. Went for action... Can you see the results now?

5) Put your "idea" to the test: see/envisage just one part of the world we're discussing now, in turmoil and upheaval, if that principle is to be allowed to drive roughshod over everything else... Try it for a while - draw the consequences.

A pointer:

We already had a few wars on those grounds! Recently. Remember?

When is it enough, actually?!?

 

[gorski]

Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding:

your policy would cost countless lives.

Indeed, Bush did it to us all now.

We have to deal with it.

Imagine the Oval office secret mike catching the following:

X: "Fancy a confrontation, man?"

Bush: "Sure, how much in it is for me?"

X: "More power, more money, more of everything..."

Bush: "Cool, I'm in!"

X: "Me likes you! Let's rock!!!"

[bbbbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr very cold, suddenly... the chill is in my bones... scary... as if someone walked over my grave...]

 

[save catford]

1) Sovereignty. The principle you forgot, which is at least equal to the principle you favour and its notional/conceptual pair in the context/framework we're discussing.

2) Who decides who votes on - watch out! - not the whole territory of a state but just one part of it; under which conditions etc. etc.? There was no consent from Serbia. That's rape!

3) Nationalism is being dismantled non-violently via the principles espoused and being put to good use[!!!] by the EU. No two ways about it. The first non-violent and negotiated giving up and pooling of sovereignty by independent states. Not my faith, no optimism necessary. Just acknowledge it, see it for its achievements, staring you in the face. How did they do it? A cool head and some courage. Not to mention strategic thinking! That's "reality", whether you see it or not.

I'm afraid your posts are completely neglecting the fact we have a viable option - to counteract your XIX ct. idea [sorry but!]! If you don't want XIX ct. nationalism - then think and act strategically. Forward, not backward! What you are advocating is precisely that!

4) Idealism? No, you just neglected the current power relationships. Completely. To put forward your "vision". And you don't think about what would it cost the [rest of the] world. Milosevic [and Tudjman] did exactly that. He had a "vision". Legislated. Put together some policies. Went for action... Can you see the results now?

5) Put your "idea" to the test: see/envisage just one part of the world we're discussing now, in turmoil and upheaval, if that principle is to be allowed to drive roughshod over everything else... Try it for a while - draw the consequences.

A pointer:

We already had a few wars on those grounds! Recently. Remember?

When is it enough, actually?!?

apologies but i'm finding part of that difficult to follow

i think one thing you pointed out earlier was that i was neglecting wider things, i think that's something you are guilty of here, you put faith in the idea that it is the existence of the EU that has killed off nationalism, i don't agree with that, the EU is just one of many instruments/tools available in the box of global capitalism. the real reason that nationalism was killed off in western europe because it had served it's purpose (as the midwife for capitalism in the 19th century), now in a different age nationalism presented obstacles to the gradual creeping across the world of global capital, so from post wwii onwards (although mainly from the 1970's onwards) a new strategy was required, and now we have a system of EU, IMF, world bank, WTO etc.. acting as the instrumnets (but no the source) of global capital. you cheer on the fact that nationalism is gone but you're blind to what it has been replaced by and in doing so you see or hear no evil in such things. i've no great desire to encourage the jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire (and given the relentless drive of global capital over the last 4 decades and the effects it's had on the world itself and it's inhabitants, it's going to be a bloody huge fire)

so i think that's our point of departure

 

[save catford]

Just to make sure there's no misunderstanding:

your policy would cost countless lives.

Indeed, Bush did it to us all now.

We have to deal with it.

Imagine the Oval office secret mike catching the following:

X: "Fancy a confrontation, man?"

Bush: "Sure, how much in it is for me?"

X: "More power, more money, more of everything..."

Bush: "Cool, I'm in!"

X: "Me likes you! Let's rock!!!"

[bbbbbbbbbbbbrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr very cold, suddenly... the chill is in my bones... scary... as if someone walked over my grave...]

those forces are at work anyway (some might say they have a life of their own) and will continue to find outlets to bring about accumulation by disposession regardless, that's the nature of the 'empire of capital' - again the root of the problem needs to be aknowledged, analysed and somehow attempted to confront (although personally i don't think it's possible these days), and attempts to confront that by taking away decison making capabilities from those most affected by those decisions is not, imo, a credible way forward

 

[gorski]

i think one thing you pointed out earlier was that i was neglecting wider things, i think that's something you are guilty of here, you put faith in the idea that it is the existence of the EU that has killed off nationalism, i don't agree with that,

Who said that? "...has killed off nationalism"? I certainly didn't. That'd be ridiculous. See Kosovo/Serbia? Georgia? Etc. etc. etc.

the EU is just one of many instruments/tools available in the box of global capitalism. the real reason that nationalism was killed off in western europe because it had served it's purpose (as the midwife for capitalism in the 19th century),

Now, you are saying it - I didn't. See the difficulty?

EU certainly is NOT just one of the instruments of global capitalism. Only if you forget a helluvalot of developments within the EU. Besides, there's no such thing as a [single form/model of] "global capitalism"

now in a different age nationalism presented obstacles to the gradual creeping across the world of global capital, so from post wwii onwards (although mainly from the 1970's onwards) a new strategy was required, and now we have a system of EU, IMF, world bank, WTO etc.. acting as the instrumnets (but no the source) of global capital.

Slow down: EU and IMF/WB do not go in the same bag, for the same reasons. US goes with those, together with WTO etc. Washington Consensus being the connecting point.

Indeed, you are confused...

you cheer on the fact that nationalism is gone but you're blind to what it has been replaced by and in doing so you see or hear no evil in such things.

No good, to put words in my mouth. Words you actually do say. Not good, not at all. 'Be better if you'd quote... and then try to analyse... Carefully and step by step... Then we could avoid misunderstandings and these.... artistic impressions of what was said by whom...

i've no great desire to encourage the jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire (and given the relentless drive of global capital over the last 4 decades and the effects it's had on the world itself and it's inhabitants, it's going to be a bloody huge fire)

so i think that's our point of departure

Depends on how you interpret the developments and possible alternatives, I guess.

I have to say: you keep avoiding the issues I put before you... Strenuoulsy.

 

[zoltan]

These discussion on Balkan history may well be awash factual gems, but we all know that history isnt black and white usually - if you dig deep enough, you can find an angle to argue from - thats not to dis the posts on this or their posters that made them

Its about pragmatism - cant change the past, but we/ they can make headway with what happens in the future, painful as it is and insulting to long held beliefs

for this simple reason, I cant favor the Kosovo situation as it now stands - it goes no way towards tacking the underlying problems and the historical precedents that have been set - as been mentioned before, this doesnt just affect ther Belgrade leaders and their Kosovan de facto counterparts, but could have ramifications for the whole area, indeed wider Europe itself

 

[gorski]

1) those forces are at work anyway (...)

2) the root of the problem needs to be aknowledged, analysed and somehow attempted to confront (although personally i don't think it's possible these days), and

3) attempts to confront that by taking away decison making capabilities from those most affected by those decisions is not, imo, a credible way forward

1) Which forces do you have in mind? Just to avoid misunderstandings.

2) Which is? And why is it not possible to confront it? Is God at work here?

3) And who exactly do you think made all those decisions I asked you about and you're avoiding answering?!?

 

[save catford]

Who said that? "...has killed off nationalism"? I certainly didn't. That'd be ridiculous. See Kosovo/Serbia? Georgia? Etc. etc. etc.

it's killed of nationalism as a force that can shape the world, on the world stage, it's killed off the 'golden' age of nationalism that we saw in the late 19th century and early 20th century, so on that basis i stand by what i said, yes nationalism still exists in pockets around the world, but it is certainly not the force it once was, i.e. a force capable of creating the two world war's we have seen in the 20th century (and for the record i'm glad it's dead, however that doesn't mean to say i'm happy with what we have now either though, and given nationalism was pretty much a modern political project invented primarily to suit the needs of the emergent national based capitalisms, and that the current global framework which we now live in, post-nationalism, is also one that has been shaped and crafted on the needs of capitalism, it doesn't exactly fill me with joy and willingness to embrace it, same root, same destructions will appear from it, just in different forms)

EU certainly is NOT just one of the instruments of global capitalism. Only if you forget a helluvalot of developments within the EU. Besides, there's no such thing as a [single form/model of] "global capitalism"

i never said that was the only thing the EU was, but primarily it plays a very key role in smoothing the ground and ensuring the conditions for global capital to play on (i.e. ensuring that nationalism doesn't get in the way of capital's progress), doesn't matter whether you thinkn there is no such thing as a single form/model of global capitalism or not (i believe there is however), that doesn't negate the point i'm making

Slow down: EU and IMF/WB do not go in the same bag, for the same reasons. US goes with those, together with WTO etc. Washington Consensus being the connecting point.

i never said they were identical, however they do all play the role of ensuring global capital can move around unfettered, and for that reason i'm happy to look at them as one while talknig about instruments of global capital (at least while they are playing that role anyway, i.e. IMF/world bank before 1970's was a completely different beast)

No good, to put words in my mouth. Words you actually do say. Not good, not at all. 'Be better if you'd quote... and then try to analyse... Carefully and step by step... Then we could avoid misunderstandings and these.... artistic impressions of what was said by whom...

fair enough

Depends on how you interpret the developments and possible alternatives, I guess.

I have to say: you keep avoiding the issues I put before you... Strenuoulsy.

yep, as i said, our point of departure is one that will ensure that we will not find agreement on this issue

if i've avoided the issues you've put forward then i apologise, but as i said in my post above i've tried to address your points in general in a post setting out where i'm coming from in terms of my starting analysis (i.e. a class based one), i am quite lazy in meticiously quoting points line by line and then responding in detail to each and everyone of them, i tend to just churn out a load of crap in relation to the general slant of the point being made, perhaps i should be more detailed & focussed in my replies, but to be honest i'm not sure it will get us anywhere really, however if there are any specifics that you feel strongly about that i have 'avoided', if you can be bothered, please post them up and i'll try and explain my position on them (in so far as i actually have a position worked out on them)

 

[save catford]

1) Which forces do you have in mind? Just to avoid misunderstandings.

the inherent tendency of capital to drive to accumulation for accumulation's sake, the necessity for it to expand in order to survive, the necessity to strive to accumulate by disposession whereever and whenever

2) Which is? And why is it not possible to confront it? Is God at work here?

as i've said previously, the problem of the complete enveloping of life by the market system, the endless & relentless drive to commodify all aspects of our life, and not just the basics, the commodification of nature, history, culture, the mediation of all social relations by the market, the move from having a system where the economy was embedded within, and subordinate to, a wider set of social relations to the position we have now where social relations are embedde within, and subordinate to the economy

i think it's near on impossible at present to make any kind of credible attack on it, it's off the rails, however as i've also said previously, things need to be built on foundations and those foundations can only come from a back to basics approach in dealing with day to day issues that people are confronted with in their daily lives, something may eventually come out of that on a wider scale and if so good on it, if not at least its capable of achieving something tangible, however small, in the lived experiences of every day life

3) And who exactly do you think made all those decisions I asked you about and you're avoiding answering?!?

made what decisions? my point is that decisions that are taken about the way people live their lives should be made in a framework that's as close to the people that it will affect as possible, and not by some far away distant body, furthermore those whose lives are impacted by those decisions should be at the heart of that deciosn making process (which is why i don't agree with your fairly outlandish claim that the people of serbia were raped by kosovo declaring independence, it's a nonsense analogy (not to mention the belittling of actual bodily rape))

 

[Poi E]

my point is that decisions that are taken about the way people live their lives should be made in a framework that's as close to the people that it will affect as possible,

But how? Simple referenda within unstable polities still shattered by war and economic destitution?

I'm very curious about your stance on independence for the RS. How, without decisions being made by institutions far away from the people involved (e.g. EU economic support), could such a polity survive? And would you say that a mere 51% of the vote is sufficient to remove the RS from the guarantees with the BiH state (right of return, aforementioned sovereignty of the peoples of Bosnia over the entire territory)? And what of the effect of the independence of the RS on Serbia? Should they be expected to shoulder the burden of a festering nationalist sore and product of ethnic cleansing?

 

[save catford]

the thing that you quoted is a general principle which applies not just to decisions about secession or irredentism, it's a starting point of analysis, which i believe as far as possible should be adhered to or moved towards, it's much wider than the specifics of this discussion around a specific territory in a specific location at a specific point in time with specific circumstances,

i do however support in principle the right for a people to break away from their existing governance system, and think this is entirely compatible with having a massive amount of contempt for nationalism, as i said previously taking away people's capacity for choice in case they make the wrong decision is not, politically, a very credible position to take (may be for some, but not for me), and as i also said previously i'd rather focus on, and attempt to confront, the real underlying problems that feed into the capacity of people to make that 'wrong choice' in the first place, and not take the easy option of removing the capacity for choice to be made in the first place

that is different from me thinking RS secession will actually happen, or would be able to survive as an indepedent entity (just as kosovo wouldn't) - i don't think for a minute the RS will have a referendum on it, it's just sabre rattling and using nationalism to legitmise their positions

so you start of with your principle and then add to that the practacalities & pragmatism that needs to be considered when looking to move that support from support in principle to support in practice, given that the initial discussion was around the principles involved, i'm quite happy to stick to maintaining that support in principle (and as far as reasonably possible in practice), as i'm not prepared to talk, like the the US/EU does about how on one hand kosovo has the right to choose for itself it's destiny (which is bullshit as we all know who controls its destinty) while on the other denying those same moral arguments to other areas

as for your point about how could such an entity survive without EU support then of course at present it couldn't, but as you may have picked up from some of my posts above, my view (and despair) of the international economic order is that hardly any grouo of peoples/state (existing or new) has the capacity to make decisions that go against the smooth running of global capital for the fear of receiving a visitation of destruction upon them from the international toolbox of global capital, i've already admitted the impotence of any indepedent route that could be attempted by any state from this 'global consensus'

as for specifics no i don't think a majority of 51% is anything like enough for a people to decide to break away (but as i said in a previous post that i would only support the right of a people to decide to break away if adequate arrangements were guaranteed to ensure the continued wellbeing of anyone not in favour of such a move and to ensure the rights of return (or compensation) for any people's displaced from that area, where you draw the line however in terms of going back in history and looking at displacement is something i've no idea about)

 

[Poi E]

OK, so you are speaking from the position of an idealist. Correct?

 

[gorski]

it's killed of nationalism as a force that can shape the world, on the world stage, it's killed off the 'golden' age of nationalism that we saw in the late 19th century and early 20th century, so on that basis i stand by what i said, yes nationalism still exists in pockets around the world, but it is certainly not the force it once was, i.e. a force capable of creating the two world war's we have seen in the 20th century (and for the record i'm glad it's dead, however that doesn't mean to say i'm happy with what we have now either though, and given nationalism was pretty much a modern political project invented primarily to suit the needs of the emergent national based capitalisms, and that the current global framework which we now live in, post-nationalism, is also one that has been shaped and crafted on the needs of capitalism, it doesn't exactly fill me with joy and willingness to embrace it, same root, same destructions will appear from it, just in different forms)

So, it's a degree of "killdness" and depending on how bloody minded a nuclear power might be, since they can't be attacked by the "international community" - it may well trigger a nasty series of wars.

Or is it that you think that because it can't trigger a World War - it's OK, as "only" a few "local" affairs/states might occur/suffer... Like, say, Chechya genocide...

i never said that was the only thing the EU was, but primarily it plays a very key role in smoothing the ground and ensuring the conditions for global capital to play on (i.e. ensuring that nationalism doesn't get in the way of capital's progress), doesn't matter whether you thinkn there is no such thing as a single form/model of global capitalism or not (i believe there is however), that doesn't negate the point i'm making

Oh, but it does!

And no, that kind of a "Realist" analysis [Brzezinski and the most Conservative co.] of EU does not bode well with Marxism, as Marxism does know a few things about specific differences and circumstances, so a single principle can't be applied in every situation...

i never said they were identical, however they do all play the role of ensuring global capital can move around unfettered, and for that reason i'm happy to look at them as one while talknig about instruments of global capital (at least while they are playing that role anyway, i.e. IMF/world bank before 1970's was a completely different beast)

Social Darwinism versus Social Democracy. You should try it sometimes. Also, the Far Eastern model is available, too. The 3 major ones. Not at all the same!

I should recommend Habermas on the topics. Also, an interesting little booklet by Callinicos "Against the Third Way".

yep, as i said, our point of departure is one that will ensure that we will not find agreement on this issue

It's not about us finding agreement on the issue but how will the principles you espouse, which are now put to practice by the US unilateral nonsense, shape the world in the near future and beyond. And I bet it ain't gonna be pretty. If you like ugly then embrace it. If you don't - don't support it.

if i've avoided the issues you've put forward then i apologise, but as i said in my post above i've tried to address your points in general in a post setting out where i'm coming from in terms of my starting analysis (i.e. a class based one), i am quite lazy in meticiously quoting points line by line and then responding in detail to each and everyone of them, i tend to just churn out a load of crap in relation to the general slant of the point being made, perhaps i should be more detailed & focussed in my replies, but to be honest i'm not sure it will get us anywhere really, however if there are any specifics that you feel strongly about that i have 'avoided', if you can be bothered, please post them up and i'll try and explain my position on them (in so far as i actually have a position worked out on them)

You can simply get back and as they are numbered - knock yourself out...

Like the "other principle" you neglected...

Your sense of strategy failing you badly, as you wanna throw nationalism out by embracing, recognising and enhancing it...

And so on...

Not easy to defend, from your very own "point of departure" and proclaimed "goals".

I see a great connundrum there, that will cause you no end of headaches...

Good luck!

 

[save catford]

OK, so you are speaking from the position of an idealist. Correct?

of course there are stong elements of idealism in it, there is in anybodies politics - principles/idealism same thing, they are all required as a starting point for any analysis of your approach to a situation (especially when pontificating about stuff on the internet)

i do find it odd however at the almost horror that i've been met with when i put forward the fairly self-evident position that the people who are primarily affected by a decision should be those with the most responsibility for making that decision, for those who have challenged this can i presume that they believe that people's interests are better served by having no participation in the decision making process, instead decisions about people's lives should be made by unrepresentative elites, professionals, judicial decisions and all manner of other 'experts' who somehow magically know what's best for everyone (even though the bulk of the time they are detached, socially & economically, from the conditions of those they are making decisions on behalf of), fair enough if you don't class yourself as any kind of progressive or even a democrat then i suppose that is the default position

 

[save catford]

So, it's a degree of "killdness" and depending on how bloody minded a nuclear power might be, since they can't be attacked by the "international community" - it may well trigger a nasty series of wars.

Or is it that you think that because it can't trigger a World War - it's OK, as "only" a few "local" affairs/states might occur/suffer... Like, say, Chechya genocide...

like it or not, nationalism is dead in terms of it's ability to transform the world, and for that i'm grateful, i repeat of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in pockets all over the place, and what on earth gives you the impression that i think the existence of those remaining nationalisms are 'ok', if you look at anything i've posted on this thread you'll see that i've put forward no such position and instead have strenoulsy agrued against those who still seem to harbour some kind of illusions in nationalism, i've constantly pointed out who it is that suffers by the existence of nationalism, so i'd be grateful if you didn't conflate two issues and come out with that kind of projected crap onto me please

Oh, but it does!

And no, that kind of a "Realist" analysis [Brzezinski and the most Conservative co.] of EU does not bode well with Marxism, as Marxism does know a few things about specific differences and circumstances, so a single principle can't be applied in every situation..

sorry, but no idea what you're trying to say here

Social Darwinism versus Social Democracy. You should try it sometimes. Also, the Far Eastern model is available, too. The 3 major ones. Not at all the same!

I should recommend Habermas on the topics. Also, an interesting little booklet by Callinicos "Against the Third Way".

again, not sure what the relevance of your reply is to the point i made

It's not about us finding agreement on the issue but how will the principles you espouse, which are now put to practice by the US unilateral nonsense, shape the world in the near future and beyond. And I bet it ain't gonna be pretty. If you like ugly then embrace it. If you don't - don't support it.

sorry but i've no idea how you can equate my principle of a people's right to make decisions concerning the way their live their lives with US unilateralism, you couldn't get two things which are further apart, so US unilaterist economic imperliaism in guatamela, chile, bolivia, mexico, indonesia, eastern europe, etc.. were all based on my principles of a people's right to make decisions about the way they live where they? funny old set of decisions they were allowed to have then

You can simply get back and as they are numbered - knock yourself out...

Like the "other principle" you neglected...

Your sense of strategy failing you badly, as you wanna throw nationalism out by embracing, recognising and enhancing it...

And so on...

Not easy to defend, from your very own "point of departure" and proclaimed "goals".

I see a great connundrum there, that will cause you no end of headaches...

Good luck

now your just rambling to be honest, be specific and we can have a discussion if you want

from what i can entangle from your overall direction however is that you seem to equate nationalism with democracy, and in your desire to denounce/get rid of the former (which i share with you) you appear to be willing to sacrifice the latter (which i don't share with you), although it's not really a sacrafice as you see them as the same thing anyway, very enlightened position i can hear kant turning over as we speak

 

[gorski]

the inherent tendency of capital to drive to accumulation for accumulation's sake, the necessity for it to expand in order to survive, the necessity to strive to accumulate by disposession whereever and whenever

So, it would be in the interest of "capital" to have one system, non? Why put obstacles in its path by strengthening nationalism and erecting borders etc.? Something doesn't add up in your thinking, it seems to me...

as i've said previously, the problem of the complete enveloping of life by the market system, the endless & relentless drive to commodify all aspects of our life, and not just the basics, the commodification of nature, history, culture, the mediation of all social relations by the market, the move from having a system where the economy was embedded within, and subordinate to, a wider set of social relations to the position we have now where social relations are embedde within, and subordinate to the economy

There are no absolutes in all things Human!!!! See Adorno!!!

It is not possible [what you are saying] as Humans are NOT reducible to the current Mode of Production!!! Else we wouldn't have developed new modes of production!!!

You forget that we have not only the capacity to choose from the currently available options, the ones that are already on the table, but that we have the potential to create new options!!! Freedom, my boy, freedom is forgotten in your musing on the subject!!! Our imagination, creativity, potential to learn and grow, capacity to fight for our rights and widen them etc. etc. etc.

Amongst other things we have learned that non-nationalist way is much better - and possible!!! Ergo, your way into the future is a way to the past!

i think it's near on impossible at present to make any kind of credible attack on it, it's off the rails, however as i've also said previously, things need to be built on foundations and those foundations can only come from a back to basics approach in dealing with day to day issues that people are confronted with in their daily lives, something may eventually come out of that on a wider scale and if so good on it, if not at least its capable of achieving something tangible, however small, in the lived experiences of every day life

Back to basics? Sorry, but it sounds like young Major/Blair conservatives... can you explain, please?

Last time I checked we still differ in terms of ideas, ideologies, worldviews, political leanings, interests............ and then we organise in a variety of manners - along those lines... Then we affect everything we made. It's our world!!! That's the "reality", as you mention it...

I cringe when I see this "fatum" nonsense, sorry...

made what decisions? my point is that decisions that are taken about the way people live their lives should be made in a framework that's as close to the people that it will affect as possible, and not by some far away distant body, furthermore those whose lives are impacted by those decisions should be at the heart of that deciosn making process (which is why i don't agree with your fairly outlandish claim that the people of serbia were raped by kosovo declaring independence, it's a nonsense analogy (not to mention the belittling of actual bodily rape))

Serbia did not give its consent. It's rape! By the powerful! The US and UK etc. A gang rape! Full stop! And Russia can see that it better spoil for a fight not to have to suffer the same destiny. Already warning of the use of force even in Serbia's case! [Dangerous game you play... "Reality" you mention I can't recognise, I'm afraid... All of that is somehow forgotten...]

Besides, you have just made one such decision [together with Bush, in his wisdom] and you're refusing to acknowledge it. A decision that would trigger many a war and affect the very lives of the very people whose intertsts you are allegeldy thinking of and defending. The complete backing of Bush in his unilateral nonsense, plus forgetting the sovereignty principle. The right to defend oneself. Any body has that right. Not removable from anyone. So, if Russia sees itself as a target - watch out.

And then, when the "wars of liberation" start, what will you say - "nothing to do with me, Gov" and what you defended, rousing the hopes of Chechens, Dagestanis and whomever and pushing them towards yet more conflict...???

Instead of co-operation and all the other peaceful, non-nationalistic options we have... Hmmm... Nationalism should die off by giving it more ammunition and credence...

Guess what [re. the decisions only at the lowest possible level]: someone has to organise the traffic etc. etc. etc. So, one must start from the premise that we have to get out of our houses and then... it goes on, up and up... until one even needs to have a world body to sort out the disputes etc. etc.

The Q is: based on which principles, structures, procedures, processes?!?

Aler... Many problems you raise in the same paragraph...

 

[save catford]

So, it would be in the interest of "capital" to have one system, non? Why put obstacles in its path by strengthening nationalism and erecting borders etc.? Something doesn't add up in your thinking, it seems to me...

of course, and you might have noticed in the last 40 years or so we've been increasingly moving towards that situation, one where capital can roam freely around the world through a series of joined up networks, the structure & foundation of which have been put in place by a network of global states, subjecting all to the forces of the market for almost everything they do in life. i can only assume from your point above that you think that i think that this is a good thing (complete domination by capital) and you are confused as to why in my apparent support of nationalism(!) i would want to put obstacles in it's path which would stop that process. i don't think there's anything left for you to get wrong about, that is completely hatstand!

let me try and explain

i don't think the rampant rise of capital over the last 4 decades (or indeed in any period) under neo-liberalism is a good thing

i don't think that nationalism is a good thing, due to it's tendency to make people subordinate their obejctive social & economic interests to some myth of the nation where everyone in it (i.e both classes) have the same hopes, dreams, desires and social & economic circumstances

i do think real democracy is a good thing

nationalism as a system that can shape the world is dead, it's has served it's purpose as the midwide for capitalism but now it is an obstacle to capital's continued expansion, therefore it has been dispensed with, and political/military confrontation between states have been replaced with economic competition, my objection to nationalism is completely consistent with my obejction to capitalism, i can't see why you can't make this connection

There are no absolutes in all things Human!!!! See Adorno!!!

It is not possible [what you are saying] as Humans are NOT reducible to the current Mode of Production!!! Else we wouldn't have developed new modes of production!!!

You forget that we have not only the capacity to choose from the currently available options, the ones that are already on the table, but that we have the potential to create new options!!! Freedom, my boy, freedom is forgotten in your musing on the subject!!! Our imagination, creativity, potential to learn and grow, capacity to fight for our rights and widen them etc. etc. etc.

Amongst other things we have learned that non-nationalist way is much better - and possible!!! Ergo, your way into the future is a way to the past!

sorry but i'm becoming increasingly concerned at the distance opening up between the point being made in my posts and the tangent that you take in response to them, i'm happy to continue to discuss things with you, but as i said in one of the posts above, if your just going to ramble about fairly unconnected points then it's not really going to get anywhere (although i completely agree with you about human potential)

Back to basics? Sorry, but it sounds like young Major/Blair conservatives... can you explain, please?

Last time I checked we still differ in terms of ideas, ideologies, worldviews, political leanings, interests............ and then we organise in a variety of manners - along those lines... Then we affect everything we made. It's our world!!! That's the "reality", as you mention it...

I cringe when I see this "fatum" nonsense, sorry...

your doing it again

Serbia did not give its consent. It's rape! By the powerful! The US and UK etc. A gang rape! Full stop! And Russia can see that it better spoil for a fight not to have to suffer the same destiny. Already warning of the use of force even in Serbia's case! [Dangerous game you play... "Reality" you mention I can't recognise, I'm afraid... All of that is somehow forgotten...]

Besides, you have just made one such decision [together with Bush, in his wisdom] and you're refusing to acknowledge it. A decision that would trigger many a war and affect the very lives of the very people whose intertsts you are allegeldy thinking of and defending. The complete backing of Bush in his unilateral nonsense, plus forgetting the sovereignty principle. The right to defend oneself. Any body has that right. Not removable from anyone. So, if Russia sees itself as a target - watch out.

And then, when the "wars of liberation" start, what will you say - "nothing to do with me, Gov" and what you defended, rousing the hopes of Chechens, Dagestanis and whomever and pushing them towards yet more conflict...???

Instead of co-operation and all the other peaceful, non-nationalistic options we have... Hmmm... Nationalism should die off by giving it more ammunition and credence...

Guess what [re. the decisions only at the lowest possible level]: someone has to organise the traffic etc. etc. etc. So, one must start from the premise that we have to get out of our houses and then... it goes on, up and up... until one even needs to have a world body to sort out the disputes etc. etc.

The Q is: based on which principles, structures, procedures, processes?!?

Aler... Many problems you raise in the same paragraph...

completely hatstand

i think i'm going to withdraw from this discussion as you seem to have lost the ability to actually express yourself coherently in relation to the topic under discussion (ironic as you were finger wagging me earlier for going off on one and not addressing your points)

 

[Poi E]

i do find it odd however at the almost horror that i've been met with when i put forward the fairly self-evident position that the people who are primarily affected by a decision should be those with the most responsibility for making that decision, for those who have challenged this can i presume that they believe that people's interests are better served by having no participation in the decision making process, instead decisions about people's lives should be made by unrepresentative elites, professionals, judicial decisions and all manner of other 'experts' who somehow magically know what's best for everyone (even though the bulk of the time they are detached, socially & economically, from the conditions of those they are making decisions on behalf of), fair enough if you don't class yourself as any kind of progressive or even a democrat then i suppose that is the default position

You see a false dichotomy, and seem to assume that an expression of "the will of the people" is possible without dramatically affecting the position of other peoples in the relevant areas. This is at the heart of the issues in former Yugoslavia and you seem to miss it, merely responding with some vague notion of control by local people. Which local people? Over what area? With what regard to the position of other people?

 

[gorski]

like it or not, nationalism is dead in rms of it's ability to transform the world,

Nonsense!

Erect the nationalist borders and call that not transforming the world? You are then legislating and creating policies and indeed, transforming the world. Backwards, I might add...

I'm beginning to think you're having a set of very specific ideological blinkers and you're trying desperately to justify the unjustifiable, regardless of any reality that might be very painful for way too many people, if such principles are enacted... Very galant, you are... playing with people's lives like that... slight of hand... grand schemes and designs... carry on regardless, kinda thang...

what on earth gives you the impression that i think the existence of those remaining nationalisms are 'ok', if you look at anything i've posted on this thread

Oh, I don't know... Like the right to secede on nationalist lines... Maybe?!? [Jeez...]

you'll see that i've put forward no such position

Oh, but you have - that's your main thesis and there's no running away from it. The principle and policies are along the lines of an alleged nationalist lines. No two ways about it! To you that's "natural". You have quickly forgotten that it's "constructed"...

and instead have strenoulsy agrued against those who still seem to harbour some kind of illusions in nationalism,

Except ANYBODY wishing a little state - on nationalistic principles...

i've constantly pointed out who it is that suffers by the existence of nationalism, so i'd be grateful if you didn't conflate two issues and come out with that kind of projected crap onto me please

Sorry but you'll have to sort it out with yourself.

I stand firmly against nationalism and my strategy is clear. Yours is utterly muddled and confused, at odds with its alleged proclaimed goals - it says that you go to the future by going back to the past. Which is "constructed".

So why are we going back and not constructing a new one?

'Cause you don't like EU and "don't believe in it". But you believe in the right to self-determination, you wanna remove the principle of Sovereignty and you call that - what? Not legislating? Not interfering? Not transforming?

A lot of thinking you must do, a lot of thinking, it seems to me...

sorry, but no idea what you're trying to say here

Read the arch conservative Brzezinski and you'll see. You'll like it. He thinks like you in those terms. EU as a mere vassal of the US and global capitalism etc.

again, not sure what the relevance of your reply is to the point i made

Only one capitalist model - rings a bell?

sorry but i've no idea how you can equate my principle of a people's right to make decisions concerning the way their live their lives with US unilateralism, you couldn't get two things which are further apart, so US unilaterist economic imperliaism in guatamela, chile, bolivia, mexico, indonesia, eastern europe, etc.. were all based on my principles of a people's right to make decisions about the way they live where they? funny old set of decisions they were allowed to have then

Simple. Serbs have had no say. Unilateralism. Somebody excluded Serbs from having a vote on their own territory. Brill! Last time I checked the US did not allow that in the US, regarding similar attempts by the US "Injuns" etc.

now your just rambling to be honest, be specific and we can have a discussion if you want

It is clear what is said: go back and deal with the points I made. They are numbered. Honestly... you are sensing you're in a series of mind-boggling conflicts with yourself here and so you're avoiding the Qs and playing dumb...

from what i can entangle from your overall direction however is that you seem to equate nationalism with democracy,

I don't but you seem to be heading in that direction. Once again you are claiming I claim something that you actually claim expressis verbis... As I already pointed out above with the "has killed" thing.

and in your desire to denounce/get rid of the former (which i share with you) you appear to be willing to sacrifice the latter (which i don't share with you),

It's because you don't understand it. The radical democracy is in a collision with nationalism.

although it's not really a sacrafice as you see them as the same thing anyway, very enlightened position i can hear kant turning over as we speak

Now I'm perplexed and don't see your point. Otherwise I hear you and see clearly your inner conflicts but on this one - sorry... Explain, please...

 

[gorski]

Sorry, SC, Poi has seen it, too. You have lost the plot completely here.

A very naive argument and an argument you have lost.

Hence, you're "withdrawing" to save yourself from having to concede a simple point raised not only by me, a simple point you do not want and can't recognise.

And I think I know why.

Stay well.

Bye.

 

[save catford]

You see a false dichotomy, and seem to assume that an expression of "the will of the people" is possible without dramatically affecting the position of other peoples in the relevant areas. This is at the heart of the issues in former Yugoslavia and you seem to miss it, merely responding with some vague notion of control by local people. Which local people? Over what area? With what regard to the position of other people?

where did i mention local people? and where do i disregard the position of 'other people' let me repeat (again) what i said when referring to a general principle that i hold

the people who are primarily affected by a decision should be those with the most responsibility for making that decision

i'm not sure how you read locality/area/geographical specifics into this as i do no such thing in saying it, i say the 'people who are affected'. and yes we can have all kinds of questions coming back now asking about how that is defined, what weight is given to different things etc..., but as i said it's a starting point for any democrat. (i see you managed to dodge what the question about what the alternative is for people who don't hold that position)

 

[save catford]

Sorry, SC, Poi has seen it, too. You have lost the plot completely here.

A very naive argument and an argument you have lost.

Hence, you're "withdrawing" to save yourself from having to concede a simple point raised not only by me, a simple point you do not want and can't recognise.

And I think I know why.

Stay well.

Bye.

you may or may not have a point to make

you may or may not have even already made it, but to be honest i'm increasingly at a loss both as to what that point is and more generally what you are talking about most of the time, that may be a failing on my part or one on yours or more likely a mixture of the two, but regardless it doesn't exactly make for an entertaining & interesting discussion

and to talk about me playing with people's lives in response to a discussion on an internet message board is, once again, completely hatstand

 

[frogwoman]

You see a false dichotomy, and seem to assume that an expression of "the will of the people" is possible without dramatically affecting the position of other peoples in the relevant areas. This is at the heart of the issues in former Yugoslavia and you seem to miss it, merely responding with some vague notion of control by local people. Which local people? Over what area? With what regard to the position of other people?

yep

 

[gorski]

It looks like either a:

1) wind-up

or an

2) incoherent rambling, with a view to explore [not necessarily bad in itself but I wouldn't do it on a forum like this...]

The points raised by me are very clear - you are going down to the level of national entities, presumed to be largely coinciding with the nationalistic idea of presumed common genetic make-up, heritage etc.

At the same time you are critically evaluating nationalism quite well. As if you learned some stuff by heart - but sadly, haven't really understood the consequences of it... So, your policies and principles are quite muddled and one-dimensional, leading in a specific direction...

Anybody wondering why [like I do...]?

Back to the drawing board...

 

[save catford]

It looks like either a:

1) wind-up

or an

2) incoherent rambling, with a view to explore [not necessarily bad in itself but I wouldn't do it on a forum like this...]

i.e. if someone doesn't agree with my position there can only be two explanations: they are on a wind up or their nuts

discussion boards are the place to explore ideas, through debate, discussion, coliision with the truth, enforcing positions not just to be held through blind dogma but rigorous analysis, so on that basis i find it astonishing that you urge all those things not to happen on a medium which is designed to do exactly just that. why you wish to restrain such things i've no idea, whether you think it should be kept in the hallowed dusty pedestals of elite academia where only people with the 'proper' background and qualifications earn a right to be able to discuss such things, or whether like your approach to democracy, you believe it's just a thing that people shouldn't be trusted to have, instead leaving it all to be done, on their behalf, by experts, professionals etc....

The points raised by me are very clear - you are going down to the level of national entities, presumed to be largely coinciding with the nationalistic idea of presumed common genetic make-up, heritage etc.

you see i start off by expressing a commitment to real democracy and you turn it into a desire to bolster nationalism. you could have equally have said that anyone who supports real democracy are also supporters of paedophilia, ethnic cleansing, killing of all ginger haired people or any other ludicrious assertion, purely on the basis that that might be what people would opt to choose for in a real democracy. it's pointelss assertions and doesn't move the discussion on one bit. why you take this position i don't know, but it's clear to me from your musing on the topic so far that you are no fan of any meaningful demcratic participation in the decision making process , whether that's because you don't trust people full stop to make choices, or whether you think that the backdrop is so warped at the moment that given the chance to make choices they will make the 'wrong' ones, i don't know. i hope it's the latter because at least there's some ground there to then examine the realy underlying socio-economic issues that can lead to those 'wrong' choices being made, which can then turn the discussion to the negation of those conditions, but who knows

i also find it interesting that you accuse me of bolstering nationalism, while doing the exact same thing yourself with the defence of the terrotorial integrity of the serbian nation state (i think for the purposes of this discussion we can talk about the serb nation and state as one and the same, as that's certainly the position held by serb nationalists on it), you even repeat the cries of rape that a nation (more accurately of course the memories of a nation) is being dismembered, and that the prevention of that should prevail over the democratic rights of citizens that are affected. the serb state is legitmised and held together by the bolstering of the nation and the nationalism that engenders that nation in the first place, you are siding with that very same state backed nationalism by putting forward the position that somehow that nation (and the state that is wrapped around it) is some kind of biological, natural organism which has inherent essential parts and any interference with that is the equivalent of rape or some other bodily intervention. that is out and out nationalist rhetoric, yet i'm the one whose supposedly bolstering nationalism, nurse!

At the same time you are critically evaluating nationalism quite well. As if you learned some stuff by heart - but sadly, haven't really understood the consequences of it... So, your policies and principles are quite muddled and one-dimensional, leading in a specific direction...

Anybody wondering why [like I do...]?

Back to the drawing board...

this being said by the person who equates nations (and the state that is wrapped around it) as a bodily biological natural organism, i'd be the first to admit that some of my positions may appear (or actually be) muddled, but that's because i'm indulging in discussion to work through some of them, an activity that you obviously appear to have some distaste against, and instead seem to prefer if such discussions were left to to professional full time academics who magically know what's right, well we all know the dangers of the combination of intellectuals & politics, god knows we saw enough of it in serbia itself, but you keep on trucking