> . . . Trotsky argued that the right to national sovereignty in such cases had to be weighed against the broader needs of socialist revolution. Self-determination in this light might be revealed not as an end in itself, but as a tactic used to advance the class-struggle under given objective conditions. I will argue that this elementary truth has been forgotten by the Trotskyist movement, which has elevated "self-determination" into a kind of universal principle, like free elections or the right to organize trade unions. For Marxists, however, there is no universal principle except the need for communism. > This is a perfect encapsulization of L/T/S/M (Leninist/ Trotskyist/ Stalinist/ Maoist) opportunism on the national question. National rights (indeed, any rights) are purely a means to a completely different end. In the U.S., this sort of approach is a basic factor in the segregation of the U.S. left by race. All the crap about fighting racism, or about genocide vis-a-vis nationalities or indigenous peoples (with at least one contemporary exception), is a means to a different end. There's nothing wrong with carnage per se -- as long as you nail the right people. Now if this different end (socialism, a la L/T/S/M) was sufficiently glorious and compelling, in the practical as well as theoretical sense, such transgressions might be overlooked. But it isn't. I don't doubt that Trotsky was much different on this issue than Lenin, but who cares? The rest of this post rehashes Nazi exploitation of national grievances, some reactionary in origin, by assorted groups, in hopes of casting the U.S. and Nato as the new Axis and Milo as today's Soviet redoubt of socialism, as in: > . . . In reality, the issues are identical to what they were during the fight > with Shachtman, Burnham and Abern. The difference is that they take place > on a terrain where socialism has been thrown totally on the > defensive, even > much more so than when the Nazis invaded the USSR. The war against Serbia > is a proxy war against every vestige of anti-imperialist independence in > Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It is a signal to the > Communists in Russia and allied states that Nato will blow them to kingdom > come if they threaten the "stability" of the new world order. Poor Kosovo > has been dragged into this confrontation, but it is of secondary > consequence. Despite the retrograde character of the Serb leadership, its > defiance of Nato's war is as important as the defense of Stalingrad in > 1942. If Serbia loses, the forces of war and barbarism will simply drive > forward with their expansionary agenda. And Russia surely will be the next > target. Apparently it is not only generals who fight the previous war. Contrary to L/T/S/M'ism, I'd suggest that Kosova has a inherent right to exist (as does Serbia). The fact that the Yugo federation was several clicks to the left in terms of their domestic economy, and an independent Kosova could be the contrary, has no bearing on the merits of Kosovan self-determination. (In all my surfing, incidentally, not once have I found an official Serbian statement making any reference to the purported political-economic force underlying all this, though I have seen some anti-Serb/anti-Russian rationales for the bombing.) There is no comparison to Afghanistan, where the fundamentalist versus communist choice made opposition to U.S. intervention defensible. The Albanians are not fundamentalists and Milo is no socialist. The effort to root this in a grand geopolitical struggle -- Nato versus the nascent threat of a revived Soviet Union -- is specious. The implicit comparison of Nato to Nazism and Serbia to communism is ridiculous and points up the desperation of the further left to recreate a past where they would play a role of some meaning. I should acknowledge that most opposition to the bombing here has been of the pacifist/first-do-no-harm variety. Absent any NATO action at present, it should be clear that plenty of harm will continue to be done by the Serbian regime. A better criticism of NATO that is not merely retrospective would be a demand for rescue of Kosovans supported by self-defense, BAAMN (by almost any means necessary). The reasonable anti-Nato focus is outside-in, in relation to which the 'bottoms-up' affirmation of the right to self-determination compares favorably. Cheers, mbs
