At 23:26 13/10/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Burford:
> >Further web searches show that the reasoning of the 2-day trial is not
> >exactly clear because it was largely secret, but the main summary seems to
> >be that Filipovic published a series of articles in Agence France Presse
> >and in the publication of the Institute of War and Peace Reporting. No
> >doubt for Proyect these are also a "filthy lying warmongering rag" and
> >backed by the forces of capitalism, like the Wall Street Journal he was
> >quoting yesterday.
>
>Institute of War and Peace Reporting? "Filthy lying warmongering?" That's
>putting it mildly.
>
>===
> >From IWPR website (http://www.iwpr.net)
>
>Institute for War and Peace Reporting gratefully acknowledges the many
>private and governmental foundations and agencies supporting its regional
>reporting and media development activities, including:
>
>Carnegie Corporation of New York
>Ford Foundation
>National Endowment for Democracy
>Open Society Institute
>===
>
>It doesn't get much more filthy, lying and warmongering than this.
Proyect's argument is of course circular, and I anticipated a response like
this. I too had seen the capitalist and governmental connections. I
recalled his characterisation of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights
with which Filipovic has connections as the "Helstinky" Committee for Human
Rights.
Proyect seems unable to address the question that state centralised
socialism with repression of individual rights has been collapsing all over
eastern Europe. The record shows that these state socialist societies had
important positive features, but the communists who have regrouped to carry
forward what was positive of that tradition, where they have been
successful, have accepted a plural society, the rule of law, and individual
human rights.
Proyect wisely enough avoids repeating his comment that "of course"
Filipovic belongs in prison (ie now) and avoids commenting on whether the
other names a gave also deserved and still deserve their prison terms.
He avoids dealing with the issue that had Danas, Filipovic's paper, felt
they could publish his reports without fear, he would surely have preferred
to publish them there, just as British papers published reports of the
atrocities by British soldiers in the Malvinas. Would Proyect still prefer
a situation which prevailed until just over a week ago, that Serb
television feared to publish reports of atrocities. Presumably on grounds
of anti-imperialist patriotism, Proyect would consider that this censorship
should remain.
It is part of the circular problem that Proyect analyses the whole question
of Yugoslavia from a reductionist and mechanical viewpoint which orientates
itself exclusively for or against imperialism, and does not analyse the
contradictions and the problems of socialism within that state.
Hence the crudity of Proyect's application of the principle of the
dictatorship of the proletariat and his reductionist use of the marxist
method.
I am sure Michael does not seriously expect contributors with major
differences over the interpretation of marxism and the current way forward
for progressive struggle, to "play nicely". It is normal and appropriate
that a degree of formality and chilliness may actually help to clarify the
issues and lines of demarcation.
A healthy list grapples with serious and interesting problems. I repeat my
hope that Michael will consider the effects on the quality of argument if
one person, working virtually full time, tries to dominate a list with up
to 10 contributions a day. A degree of selection might be in Proyect's own
interest as well.
Chris Burford
London
