Kosovo's "Independence"

[YugoslavSocialist]

Do left wingers support Kosovo's "Independence" or not.
I was shocked to read an article from Workers Liberty about how they support Kosovo's so called independence.
http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/09/serbias-colony-demands-independence

[Sir Comradical]

I personally don't. It's a NATO protectorate and nothing more.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't give a shit either way. Classic case of bourgeois vs bourgeois, not worth our while supporting it.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Kosovo belongs to the people who live there, be they ethnically Serbs or Albanians.

The people of Kosovo will never live in peace until they learn to live together. Independence? Sure, if that's what it takes for peace, but it can never be "independent" so long as there are NATO bases on its soil. Nor will independence be a working class victory in any sense.

Like The Boss said, it is a case of bourgeois vs. bourgeois. With no strong leftist current there at the moment we don't really have a dog in the fight.

[Sasha]

As a leftist I support the destruction of all borders and nations, so I support neither Kosovo independence nor serbia's claim to it.

[X5N]

What Dachshund said: Kosovo belongs to the people who live there.

I definitely don't care for the nationalists who scream "Kosovo is Serbia."

[China studen]

Yugoslavia has become a capitalist society.But still important to maintain the sovereignty of nations.The leftists can not allow the imperialist countries arbitrarily divided the Third World countries.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Yugoslavia has become a capitalist society.But still important to maintain the sovereignty of nations.The leftists can not allow the imperialist countries arbitrarily divided the Third World countries.
Why is it important?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yugoslavia has become a capitalist society.But still important to maintain the sovereignty of nations.The leftists can not allow the imperialist countries arbitrarily divided the Third World countries.

Whats the difference between one bourgeois republic and two bourgeois republics to a socialist internationalist?

Also cultural and linguistic homogeneity is one of the arguments for a sovereign nation so that line of argument is self defeating considering Albanians are a different "nation" from the Serbs.

[Q]

Lots of ultraleftism abound in this thread.

Of course all communists support the aim of the end of all nations and a global community of humanity.

However, within our current context we live with self-identified communities ("nations") that have seen oppression for the longest time and therefore wish to be free of that oppression. If that means being a "NATO protectorate" for these people, because that ensures them being free from oppression, then that is their choice.

Communists, acknowledging that unity can only exist voluntarily, therefore fight for the democratic right of self-determination up to and including independence. This is not to say that we favor independence - be it in the case of Kosovo, Scotland, Basque Country or elsewhere - as we also, crucially, recognize that a divided working class stands no chance against the capitalist state system ("imperialism").

We thus proactively argue the case for unity, be it under democratic circumstances. We create the space for the latter by posing the need (or, from a bourgeois point of view, threat) of working class power.

Why is this hocus pocus to so many?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why is this hocus pocus to so many?

Because the reality of the situation makes it very, very unlikely that your working class democracy will come to pass, so you're essentially arguing for bourgeois unity.

[Agathor]

I take it none of you care about the independence of Palestine or Turkish Kurdistan, because both camps in that conflict are pure bourgeois?

You people only use these arguments when it's obvious that the preferable bourgeoisie is on the side of the west. So you enthusiastically support the Putin-Khamenei-Assad camp in Syria, but tell us that bourgeois is bourgeois when it comes to Mali and Kosovo. This is clearly just a way of protecting your infantile football-match politics from reality.

[Sam_b]

I take it none of you care about the independence of Palestine or Turkish Kurdistan, because both camps in that conflict are pure bourgeois?

Sweeping generalisation alert! Rather than leaving this one-liner be, please qualify the statement.

Also, what is a 'pure' bourgeoisie?

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Well if I were a separatist I would like to see my nation independant, so I see no reason as to not support their independance. You cannot restrict yourself to paying attention only to struggles that involve communism.

[sixdollarchampagne]

Speaking strictly for myself and not for any group: No, I am not an enthusiast for the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, which is what Kosovar independence means. I leave supporting Kosovo, or as imperialist chieftain Clinton used to say, "Kosóva," to the US State Department and the "leftist" groups that are in sync with the US government in backing Kosovo.

I never understood why Yugoslavia had to be torn apart; what benefit did imperialism gain from that? Indeed, what is the reason there has to be a Greater Albania, as an imperialist project?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Lots of ultraleftism abound in this thread.

Of course all communists support the aim of the end of all nations and a global community of humanity.

However, within our current context we live with self-identified communities ("nations") that have seen oppression for the longest time and therefore wish to be free of that oppression. If that means being a "NATO protectorate" for these people, because that ensures them being free from oppression, then that is their choice.

Communists, acknowledging that unity can only exist voluntarily, therefore fight for the democratic right of self-determination up to and including independence. This is not to say that we favor independence - be it in the case of Kosovo, Scotland, Basque Country or elsewhere - as we also, crucially, recognize that a divided working class stands no chance against the capitalist state system ("imperialism").

We thus proactively argue the case for unity, be it under democratic circumstances. We create the space for the latter by posing the need (or, from a bourgeois point of view, threat) of working class power.

Why is this hocus pocus to so many?

This is true - however it seems to overlook the fact that national sovereignty will always end up overriding the interests and homogeneity of some national grouping somewhere. Attaching Kosovo to Serbia disregards the majority Albanian population in Kosovo, but giving it independence seems to disregard the interests of the Serb minority in north Kosovo. No matter what, somebody is losing out. When the struggle for rights, living standards and political autonomy of a group is taken in national terms, we risk reinforcing the kinds of divisions which empower the state.

While the idea that the government is the sovereign expression of its people can be respected, it doesn't seem fair to argue that the critique of national secession is "ultraleft". This isn't an argument against Kosovo's secession so much as an argument that we must recognize the shortcomings of nationalism.



I never understood why Yugoslavia had to be torn apart; what benefit did imperialism gain from that? Indeed, what is the reason there has to be a Greater Albania, as an imperialist project?

"Greater Albania" seems no more senseless of an idea than "Greater Serbia". They are both national projects that distract from the actual struggle of people on the economic and political margins worldwide to improve their conditions.

[Thirsty Crow]

Well if I were a separatist I would like to see my nation independant, so I see no reason as to not support their independance. You cannot restrict yourself to paying attention only to struggles that involve communism.
And why does "paying attention" necessarily involve giving support?


Why is this hocus pocus to so many? Because it mystifies the role (potentially) played by communist organizations. And I wouldn't say that ambiguities which leave the project of binding a particular working class to their exploiters through nationalism intact actually form a part of that role.

[Ostrinski]

I can't be bothered - refused to be bothered - to take a stance on national liberation movements, because I think that supporting them equals yielding to the interests of the domestic bourgeoisie of the given region. That is not to say that I disregard anyone who holds a pro-national liberation stance as an anti-communist, I think that is pointless posturing.

I think there needs to be a demand for historical evidence of when and where national liberation movements have done anything for the international working class movement toward socialism or where the Balkinsation of a region has done anything positive for the working class. That's a discussion we could have.

[Agathor]

Sweeping generalisation alert! Rather than leaving this one-liner be, please qualify the statement.

Also, what is a 'pure' bourgeoisie?

There's nobody influential in Palestinian politics who won't uphold the bourgeois state if he gets elected.

[sixdollarchampagne]

I wrote:

Originally Posted by sixdollarchampagne: I never understood why Yugoslavia had to be torn apart; what benefit did imperialism gain from that? Indeed, what is the reason there has to be a Greater Albania, as an imperialist project?

And then there was this response:


"Greater Albania" seems no more senseless of an idea than "Greater Serbia". They are both national projects that distract from the actual struggle of people on the economic and political margins worldwide to improve their conditions.

* * *

And my response is that the imperialists were/are all for "Greater Albania," whereas those same imperialists sent bombers to decimate Serbian villagers. So the difference between Albania and Serbia is, as far as I can tell, the difference between imperialist support and death from the air, courtesy of NATO. So, for me, that's not a difficult choice; defend the Serbian villagers who were subject to NATO bombardment.

[YugoslavSocialist]

I never understood why Yugoslavia had to be torn apart; what benefit did imperialism gain from that? Indeed, what is the reason there has to be a Greater Albania, as an imperialist project?

I recommend you take a look at this thread.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/destroyed-yugoslavia-t177786/index.html?t=177786

[Ismail]

The problem of Kosovo was exploited by US imperialism.

In 1913 the Great Powers gave the region to Serbia as a way of appeasing it (and, by extension, Tsarist Russia); the original goal the Serbian rulers was to annex all of northern Albania in order to reach the Adriatic. More than half of the Albanian nation was thus severed from Albania itself. A national liberation movement started in the annexed region led by figures such as Bajram Curri, Isa Boletini, Shote Galica, etc. The Comintern supported this struggle.

Item 6 of the resolution adopted at the Fourth Congress of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia in November 1928:

"The Party proclaims the solidarity of the revolutionary workers and peasants of the other nations of Yugoslavia, above all Serbia, with the Albanian national-revolutionary movement personified by the Kosovo Committee and calls upon the working class to extend comprehensive assistance to the struggle of the dismembered and suppressed Albanian people for an independent and unified Albania."
(Desanka Pešić, "The Communist Party of Yugoslavia and the National Question of Albanians between the Two World Wars," in Gordana Filipović (ed). Kosovo: Past and Present. Belgrade: Review of International Affairs. 1989. p. 95.)

This stand of the CPY was reiterated in 1940. During the war, however, Tito threw away this call in order to appease Serbian chauvinism. Albanian reaction, led by the Balli Kombëtar, had praised the "Greater Albania" which Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany created in an attempt show themselves as "liberators" of the Albanians rather than their occupiers. The Communist Party of Albania opposed all talk of a "Greater Albania" and instead called for the resolution of the problem of Kosovo to be solved after the war between an independent Albania, independent Yugoslavia, and the inhabitants of Kosovo itself.

After the war the Yugoslav state began suppressing any Albanian national sentiment. It wasn't until the fall of Ranković in 1966 that Tito (who used him as a scapegoat) began making some concessions to Albanian national sentiment through the establishment of a University, etc. The Albanians continued to struggle for genuine autonomy and equality; they called for Kosovo to be made a Republic of Yugoslavia just like Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and so on. In 1981 protests by Albanian workers and students were suppressed by Yugoslav tanks. As the 80's progressed many in the Serbian intelligentsia began fanning chauvinist sentiments against the Albanians.

In response to the events of 1981, Hoxha said at the 8th Congress of the PLA held in November that year that:

"If the present Yugoslav leadership proceeds on the course it has chosen and is pursuing, the opposition of the Albanians will continue, will grow and become even more acute. Only a solution of the national question which is well considered by the two sides without passion, a solution which is accepted and approved by the people of Kosova, can eliminate this very complicated situation which has been created not by the people of Kosova, but by Great-Serb chauvinism. The people of Kosova proposed the fairest and most suitable solution in this situation, which is difficult for Yugoslavia and for themselves. The demand to raise Kosova to the status of a Republic within the Federation is a just demand. It does not threaten the existence of the Federation....

Albania has never made territorial claims against Yugoslavia, and no demand for border re-adjustments can be found in its documents."
(Enver Hoxha. Selected Works Vol. VI. Tirana: 8 Nëntori Publishing House. 1987. pp. 413-414.)

Hoxha also explicitly opposed any attempts to "internationalize" the issue of Kosovo by presenting it to the UN or other bodies for imperialism to take advantage of.

Then Milošević came to power and proceeded to carry out ethnic campaigns against the Albanians. During the 1960's-80's Marxist-Leninist groups led the way in the struggle against Serbian chauvinism. After 1991, however, right-wing émigrés in Europe and the USA began playing an active role, backed by an ardently pro-US Albanian government. The KLA was founded and served as a tool of US imperialism, which had initially supported Milošević for his pro-market policies and later turned against him.

Kosovo was proclaimed independent in 2008, but in economics and politics it is clearly a neo-colony of US imperialism. Genuine independence, like democratic rights, is achieved by the working-class, it is not granted by imperialist powers. As always, the question of Kosovo can be solved only by its inhabitants on the basis of the right to self-deterimination.

[l'Enfermé]

This is true - however it seems to overlook the fact that national sovereignty will always end up overriding the interests and homogeneity of some national grouping somewhere. Attaching Kosovo to Serbia disregards the majority Albanian population in Kosovo, but giving it independence seems to disregard the interests of the Serb minority in north Kosovo. No matter what, somebody is losing out. When the struggle for rights, living standards and political autonomy of a group is taken in national terms, we risk reinforcing the kinds of divisions which empower the state.

While the idea that the government is the sovereign expression of its people can be respected, it doesn't seem fair to argue that the critique of national secession is "ultraleft". This isn't an argument against Kosovo's secession so much as an argument that we must recognize the shortcomings of nationalism.



"Greater Albania" seems no more senseless of an idea than "Greater Serbia". They are both national projects that distract from the actual struggle of people on the economic and political margins worldwide to improve their conditions.
The only rational solution, then, is for Serbian Northern Kosovo to join Serbia and Albanian-majority Kosovo join Albania, no?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And my response is that the imperialists were/are all for "Greater Albania," whereas those same imperialists sent bombers to decimate Serbian villagers. So the difference between Albania and Serbia is, as far as I can tell, the difference between imperialist support and death from the air, courtesy of NATO. So, for me, that's not a difficult choice; defend the Serbian villagers who were subject to NATO bombardment.

Slavophilic Imperialists in Russia and other places supported "Greater Serbia". It's a mistake to think that the only Imperialists in the world are NATO


The only rational solution, then, is for Serbian Northern Kosovo to join Serbia and Albanian-majority Kosovo join Albania, no?

Perhaps, but this can keep being divided and divided indefinitely. There is an Albanian minority in North Kosovo too, how are their rights to be protected? Should we go city block by city block to divide the populations appropriately? That is the problem currently facing the West Bank and Israel - there are Arab Muslim communities surrounded by Israeli Jews and Israeli Jewish communities surrounded by Arab Muslims.

On some level until an internationalist movement is really achieved, national sovereignty is a good way of protecting local communities, but it's not a position which is not itself deeply unproblematic.

[Ismail]

As an interesting aside, when Hoxha died and Alia (who came from northern Albania and served for a time in Kosovo during the National Liberation War) succeeded him, he took a far more active interest in Kosovo, including organizing resistance amongst Albanian Marxist-Leninist exiles in Switzerland.

"As fellow Enverist Marxists, they had a shared political language and were able to explore the developing perspectives for the Kosovars and in particular what practical help could be offered when the next phase of the struggle in the streets started. Alia claims that he foresaw the possibility of a new revolutionary situation in Kosova, and he should certainly take some of the credit for allowing the first military training of Kosovars in the Tirana Defence Academy in three years' time. It is also definitely clear that Alia saw the Irish Republican Army (IRA) as a possible model for a Kosovar insurgent army, and he obtained publications from Belfast and studied the Provisional IRA's organisation in some detail. He was also able to meet British and Irish Marxist-Leninist visitors to Albania in that period, and discuss the military options with them."
(Pettifer, James. The Kosova Liberation Army: Underground War to Balkan Insurgency, 1948-2001. New York: Columbia University Press. 2012. pp. 54-55.)

In 1990 he was still into the whole "let's copy the Irish" stuff, "When his interest became known to Western governments via their spies in Tirana, they feared a 'Greater Albania' might soon emerge if the old barriers between Tirana and Prishtina collapsed. Alia saw the secular, class-based 'Official' IRA as a much better model for the KLA than the Provisional IRA with its Catholic nationalist ideology." (Ibid. p. 58.) Alia also echoed Hoxha's "don't involve other countries in Kosovo" stance, saying in that same year that, "Kosova's freedoms and rights can only come through the struggle of the people of Kosova. They cannot be achieved except by them, and should not be expected as a gift from anyone else" and that Kosovar Albanians "want to live in a Yugoslav federation or confederation, if the other nations also favour those forms of government." (Quoted in Kola, Paulin. The Search for Greater Albania. London: C. Hurst & Co. 2003. pp. 191-192.)

After the Democratic Party came to power in Albania in 1992, all that changed, and any left-wing tendencies in the KLA (which had just barely existed in 1990) were extinguished with the "fall of Communism" and the sponsorship of the super-pro-US Berisha government in Albania.

[Binh]

When the war happened in '99 I joined the U.S. ISO and supported their line opposing NATO and the KLA while formally supporting Kosovo's "right to self-determination." After the war I learned a lot more about the history of Kosovo, Yugoslavia, and watched as the KLA-dominated government waged a campaign of ethnic cleansing against the Serbs, Roma, and other minorities while NATO looked the other way.

I believe supporting self-determination for Kosovo was mistaken on my part for the following reasons:

1) Kosovo was/is not an oppressed nation.

2) Kosovo was/is a multi-ethnic territory populated by Serbs, Albanians, and other national-religious groups.

3) Serb nationalism and Albanian nationalism served as mutually reinforcing reactionary tendencies politically in Kosovo. The more Milosevic cracked down on the Albanians, the greater support for the KLA which was and is a racist, supremacist group with strong ties to the criminal underworld (Kosovo's first prime minister trafficked human organs!).

4) Support for Kosovo's self-determination in practice, in the concrete, meant support for creating an ethnically "pure" Albanian-dominated state run by the KLA at the expense of Serbs and Roma.

Support for self-determination in this case would be akin to supporting Israel's right to "self-determine" that Palestinians have no right to live in Palestine. We do not defend the right of white lynch mobs to peaceably assemble so they can find black victims unmolested, nor should we have supported Kosovo's "democratic" right to trample Serbian and Roman minorities even if those actions had the support of the Albanian majority (I'm not sure that it did; the KLA often killed Albanians for the "crime" of being friendly to Serbs).

5) A principled internationalist, pro-democratic solution (like a Balkan Federal Republic with equal and inviolable rights for all religious/ethnic groups) was impossible given the balance of forces in Kosovo/Serbia at the time. Both sides of the '99 war were reactionary politically, before and after NATO got involved. Neither side deserved support, although the KLA and NATO occupiers deserved to be combatted as Serb forces pulled out.

6) All of this is water under the bridge.

Kosovo today is a crime-ridden, poverty-stricken ethnically cleansed NATO protectorate with a besieged Serb minority in the north. They deserve our support as an oppressed minority, and if they want reintegration with Serbia proper I cannot blame them.

What to do with Kosovo itself, I am not sure about. They got their "independence," and so it seems class antagonisms rather than national questions would be the logical focus of socialists (unless you seriously want to agitate for reintegration into Serbia or national unification with Albania, two nonstarters in my opinion).

I don't know if that answers the thread starter's question in a satisfactory way, but that is my view.

[Ismail]

1) Kosovo was/is not an oppressed nation.Albanians in Kosovo did suffer national oppression. They suffered it under the Yugoslav kingdom (as the Titoite government admitted), they suffered it during the days of "Socialist" Yugoslavia, and they suffered it under Milošević. In all three periods Albanians faced outside campaigns of colonization, forced emigrations, and all-around national discrimination. The only concessions to national autonomy given to the Kosovar Albanians were achieved through the struggle of workers and students in the late 1960's.

To quote one 1990 source, "Kosovë was characterized by ethnic imbalances. The Serbian and Montenegrin minority (who made up 15 percent of the population as a whole) continued to wield disproportionate political and economic power.... The national structure of the unemployed people also indicated that Albanians were worst off: They accounted for 79.8 percent of the registered unemployed, with Serbs and Montenegrins making up 14.5 percent." (Elez Biberaj, Albania: A Socialist Maverick, p. 111.) I can happily quote examples of how the position of the Albanian worker became significantly less endearing when Milošević consolidated control.


2) Kosovo was/is a multi-ethnic territory populated by Serbs, Albanians, and other national-religious groups.And historically has been associated with Albania and its national movement, and has (more or less) always had an Albanian majority inhabiting it.


3) Serb nationalism and Albanian nationalism served as mutually reinforcing reactionary tendencies politically in Kosovo. The more Milosevic cracked down on the Albanians, the greater support for the KLA which was and is a racist, supremacist group with strong ties to the criminal underworld (Kosovo's first prime minister trafficked human organs!).Milošević also had many ties with Serbian criminal groups, as did a number of anti-Albanian paramilitaries. Whether the Prime Minister of Kosovo trafficked human organs or not has nothing to do with the question of a nation and its oppression or lack thereof.


Support for self-determination in this case would be akin to supporting Israel's right to "self-determine" that Palestinians have no right to live in Palestine.This would be an apt comparison... if Israelis were economically and politically dominated by the Palestinians, and if the Israelis had continuously lived in the region for thousands of years.

Like the Israelis, many Serbian nationalists employ religious rhetoric to justify the national oppression of Albanians in Kosovo, and not just in terms of "heroic Christians fighting the Muslim invaders" either.

[YugoslavSocialist]

Albanians in Kosovo did suffer national oppression. They suffered it under the Yugoslav kingdom (as the Titoite government admitted), they suffered it during the days of "Socialist" Yugoslavia, and they suffered it under Milošević. In all three periods Albanians faced outside campaigns of colonization, forced emigrations, and all-around national discrimination. The only concessions to national autonomy given to the Kosovar Albanians were achieved through the struggle of workers and students in the late 1960's.

If the Albanians in Kosovo (during Tito's Yugoslavia) suffered national oppression then why didn't they go back to Albania. Instead millions of Albanian fled the Hoxhaist regime to live in Yugoslavia.



Kosovo historically has been associated with Albania and its national movement, and has (more or less) always had an Albanian majority inhabiting it.

Kosovo almost always had a Serb majority and it was always Serbian. Majority of all Serbian cultural buildings are in Kosovo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbs_of_Kosovo#Medieval

[Ismail]

If the Albanians in Kosovo (during Tito's Yugoslavia) suffered national oppression then why didn't they go back to Albania.... because they were born in places like Prizren (where the Albanian national movement began), Gjakova, Mitrovica, etc. Places where, as far as they were concerned, were Albanian and where their families had established themselves for hundreds of years if not centuries.


Instead millions of Albanian fled the Hoxhaist regime to live in Yugoslavia.I'd like a source. There were cases of the opposite happening, particularly during the 1940's and 50's when the Yugoslav state treated Albanians as potential enemies and had tens of thousands forcibly emigrated to Turkey as "Turks" (because they were Muslims), as noted for instance by Noel Malcolm. This was a direct continuation of the prewar policies of the Yugoslav monarchy.


Kosovo almost always had a Serb majority and it was always Serbian. Majority of all Serbian cultural buildings are in KosovoMiranda Vickers, the aforementioned Noel Malcolm, and other researchers would certainly dispute the idea that Kosovo was "always Serbian." Even if one allows for some Serb majorities during the medieval period, it doesn't change the fact that there was always a significant Albanian element and that it was always a majority in certain areas.

[Binh]

I never claimed Albanians in Kosovo were not oppressed. You wasted a lot of text on a strawman and didn't even address the problem of the Roma and Serb minorities being oppressed there now as the result of independence.

[YugoslavSocialist]

I'd like a source. There were cases of the opposite happening, particularly during the 1940's and 50's when the Yugoslav state treated Albanians as potential enemies and had tens of thousands forcibly emigrated to Turkey as "Turks" (because they were Muslims), as noted for instance by Noel Malcolm. This was a direct continuation of the prewar policies of the Yugoslav monarchy.

The Yugoslav state wanted to incorporate Albania into SFRY so they treated Albanian decently. Albanians living in Yugoslavia had much better living conditions and higher wages. it's why millions of Albanians migrated to and Kosovo. It's why Albanians by 1989 were 90% of the population and Serbs 10%.



Miranda Vickers, the aforementioned Noel Malcolm, and other researchers would certainly dispute the idea that Kosovo was "always Serbian." Even if one allows for some Serb majorities during the medieval period, it doesn't change the fact that there was always a significant Albanian element and that it was always a majority in certain areas.

Kosovo is where majority of Serbia's cultural sites are located. So technically it was/is Serbian. Albanians only became a majority during the 20th century.

[Ismail]

I never claimed Albanians in Kosovo were not oppressed.Unless "not an oppressed nation" actually means "it's an oppressed nation" then yes, you did in fact deny that Kosovar Albanians were oppressed, and you actually compared them to Israelis rather than the more apt comparison of Palestinians.


and didn't even address the problem of the Roma and Serb minorities being oppressed there now as the result of independence.Such is the policy of imperialism and its backing of reactionary organizations, in this case the KLA.


The Yugoslav state wanted to incorporate Albania into SFRY so they treated Albanian decently.What's funny is that the 1945-1948 period (i.e. when Yugoslavia wanted to annex Albania) is probably the most violent period. They didn't treat them "decently" at all, Albanians couldn't even fly a variant of their national flag until the 60's.


Albanians living in Yugoslavia had much better living conditions and higher wages.Highly relative living conditions and wages considering that Kosovo was by far the poorest part of Yugoslavia. Not to mention that, as Yugoslav author Ramadan Marmullaku admitted in the 1970's, illiteracy was still an issue in Kosovo, as were blood feuds, while in Albania both were extinguished.


it's why millions of Albanians migrated to and Kosovo. It's why Albanians by 1989 were 90% of the population and Serbs 10%.The idea that millions of Albanians somehow migrated to Kosovo from Albania is laughable, especially since many Kosovar Albanians were forced out of Kosovo by the Yugoslav authorities (who, as noted, encouraged them to go to Turkey.) You still have not provided a source on this. "Millions" honestly sounds like some Serbian ultra-nationalist claim; apparently there was a gigantic exodus from northern Albania to Kosovo in the 1940's-80's and no history books note this.

There was internal migration of Serbs from Kosovo to other parts of Yugoslavia during the 1960's-80's, as Malcolm notes. But even then this is rather irrelevant to the question of whether Kosovo was an oppressed Albanian territory or not, which was certainly the view of the Comintern, and the CPY itself up until WWII.


Kosovo is where majority of Serbia's cultural sites are located. So technically it was/is Serbian.One can find plenty of Israelite temples and other artifacts and archaeological sites in Israel. That does not mean that "technically [Israel] was/is Israeli."


Albanians only became a majority during the 20th century.That's quite hard to believe and I would like a source. Again, Albanians have always been in significant numbers in Kosovo throughout its history, even if not in a clear majority during the medieval ages. Through the Illyrians they have had a continuous presence in Kosovo from recorded history. Even during the period of Serbian rule in the 14th century there were various Albanian nobles whom the Serb monarchs used, including those who came to fight at the famed Battle of Kosovo.

[YugoslavSocialist]

Albanians have always been in significant numbers in Kosovo throughout its history, even if not in a clear majority during the medieval ages. Through the Illyrians they have had a continuous presence in Kosovo from recorded history.

That is because Albanian thugs have committed centuries of Genocide to Serbs. Remember Albanian were treated better in Yugoslavia then in Albania. (After Rankovic)

In middle ages, shiptars were small minority.
The Dečani charters (Serbian: Дечанске хрисовуље) from 1321 and 1331 by Stephen Uroš III Dečanski of Serbia contains a detailed list of households and villages in Metohija and northwestern Albania. The first charter concludes that this region was ethnically Serbian. This data are for western part Metohija, Kosovo is acctually, just field near Priština, where famous battle took place.
In charters mentioned is 89 settlements: 86 Serbian (96,6%)), and 3 shiptar (3,3%).
If wee took nambers of shepard households listed, situation is even worse for shiptars. Out of 2,166 households 2122 is Serbian (98%), and 44 is shiptar (2%). That's much about their historical presence.
In 15th century charters, out of Of 24,795 names mentioned, 23,774 were ethnic Serb names, 470 of Roman origin, 65 of Albanian origin and 61 of Greek origin.
From Turkish defters, we could see that situation did not change much unitl end of 17th century. In 1455 we have for example 75000 households in 590 settlements, 13,000 Serb dwellings present in all 480 villages and towns, 75 Vlach dwellings in 34 villages, 46 Albanian dwellings in 23 villages, 17 Bulgarian dwellings in 10 villages, 5 Greek dwellings in Lauša, Vučitrn, 1 ***ish dwelling in Vučitrn, 1 Croat dwelling. During the Great Turkish War (1683-1698), about 37,000 families of Serb refugees were led by Patriarch Arsenije III Crnojević settled in the Habsburg Monarchy, mostly from today's Kosovo - this being known as the Great Migration of Serbs. They settled in modern Vojvodina. (But that is not core population of Vojvodina Serbs, most of them went in 15 century, when King Mathias was settling them to protect borders) And then again, from the period between 1717 and 1737, the Second Migration of Serbs.
Turkish counteroffensive saw mass killings of serbs some 100 settlements were destroyed 1690. Albanians starting to settle in great numbers.
In 1838 by an Austrian physician, dr. Joseph Müller found Metohija to be mostly Slavic (Serbian) in character. Out of 114,000 ******s (58% of whole population), 38,000 were Serbs (19%), 86,000 were shiptars (39%), out of 80,980 Christians, 73,572 were Orthodox Serbs, 5,120 Roman Catholic Albanians (3%), and 1 percent were rest (Croat Janjevci). Even then 57% population were Serbs.
Some 400, 000 Serbs were cleansed from Vilayet of Kosovo from 1876 to 1912. That is bigger teritory than Kosovo and Metohija itself.
An Austrian statistics published in 1899 estimated: 182,650 Albanians (47.88%), 166,700 Serbs (43.7%). In 1931 we have: Albanians: 331,549 (60.06%), Serbs, Croats, Slovenes and Macedonians: 180,170 (32.64%). In WWII new ethnic cleansing and mass muredrs occured. Nazi Germany estimated that just from November 1943 to February 1944, 40 000 Serbs fled Italian-occupied Kosovo for Montenegro and Serbia.
In 1948 we had 498,242 Albanians (68.46%), 171,911 Serbs (23.62%), in 1961 963,959 total inhabitants 646,604 Albanians (67.08%), 227,016 Serbs (23.55%). 1971 1,243,693 total inhabitants, 916,168 Albanians or 73.7%, 228,264 Serbs (18.4%).
After 1961, 103,000 Serbs and Montenegrins left Kosovo, mainly due to alleged mistreatment by Albanian authorities and population. Every Albanian wishin exile in SFRY got it. Constitutions from 1971 and 1974 made out of Kosovo and Metohija state wihin state.
After 1991 lot of Serbs also left KiM. Main reason was tough their overpopulation.
1991 shiptars did not wihs to participate in census, but there were estimates:
1,956,196 Total population, 1,596,072 Albanians (81.6%), 194,190 Serbs (9.9%). From 1948, shiptars multiplied 3 times, Serbs grow in number just for some 23 000.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Loads of 'my nationalism is better than your nationalism' shit going on in this thread. As if past atrocities committed by the ruling class representing one nationality against the workers of another means that the working class of the former should pay any sort of price today??

[Thirsty Crow]

In middle ages, shiptars were small minority.

In case anyone fails to notice, this is actually a chauvinist slur against Albanians commonly used in South Slavic languages.


Constitutions from 1971 and 1974 made out of Kosovo and Metohija state wihin state.
Deliberately omitting Vojvodina and the actual content of the measures, that being federal autonomy though in effect and law not of such importance such as that of the federal republics.



After 1991 lot of Serbs also left KiM. Main reason was tough their overpopulation.
1991 shiptars did not wihs to participate in census, but there were estimates:
1,956,196 Total population, 1,596,072 Albanians (81.6%), 194,190 Serbs (9.9%). From 1948, shiptars multiplied 3 times, Serbs grow in number just for some 23 000. Perpetuating the overpopulation myth, and streghtening the overall chauvinist, ethnic nationalist drive of the argument. Notice the denigrating rhetoric. Them pesky Albanians multiply like amoebae.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

And why does "paying attention" necessarily involve giving support?

I never said you should support, I said you should actualy pay attention to problems that do not involve communism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Loads of 'my nationalism is better than your nationalism' shit going on in this thread. As if past atrocities committed by the ruling class representing one nationality against the workers of another means that the working class of the former should pay any sort of price today??

Not really, all Ismail is saying is that we should acknowledge that the Albanians of Kosovo were oppressed, which I think is a good point considering the topic at hand

[Pravda]

Its fun to read argument between Serbian and Albanian nationalists on "revolutionary left" forum.
YS is, as i suspected, obviously Serbian nationalist using chauvinist jargon ("shiptar"), usual nationalistic mythology (Kosovo myth, Serbs fleeing from Kosovo in time of SFRJ because of some repression, hints about Albanian breeding like rabbits).
In Ismail case i really dont understand his fetish for Albania.
This whole thread is wrong, starting from anti-imperialist idiocy to this nationalistic shit.

[Sasha]

Threads about strasser, national-syndicalism, Peron and now this shit? I think the fash troll had enough playtime. OP banned.

[Sasha]

Also if anyone wondered, the dude posted from Australia, not Yugoslavia...

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Also if anyone wondered, the dude posted from Australia, not Yugoslavia...

Erm, that is weird. Why would he pretend to be Yugoslavian if he didn't even like Tito?

And it's almost ironic how he used his Anti-Stalinism to cover up his blatant fascism. That's not to say that any other Anti-Stalinist is guilty of this of course, since I am sure every tendency has had it's fuck ups

And I am vaguely curious, what were these other reactionary threads?

[Ismail]

Loads of 'my nationalism is better than your nationalism' shit going on in this thread. As if past atrocities committed by the ruling class representing one nationality against the workers of another means that the working class of the former should pay any sort of price today??Pretty sure no one is defending the KLA or arguing that its "retributions" against Serbian workers are justified, so I don't see your point.


That is because Albanian thugs have committed centuries of Genocide to Serbs.I think this statement sums up everything about your view. "Centuries of genocide"? Nations didn't even exist until the advent of capitalism.


Remember Albanian were treated better in Yugoslavia then in Albania. (After Rankovic)I already addressed this. To repeat:

1. If you mean in terms of material goods, it's rather relative since, again, Kosovo was the poorest region of Yugoslavia by far (and in any case problems like illiteracy and blood feuds—not to mention unemployment—were still a concern in the 1970's whereas in Albania they were dealt with);
2. If you mean in terms of national rights, then that's obviously absurd. Albanians only won rights (in the form of concessions) by struggles and protests carried out by workers and students against the Yugoslav state.

As I said in an early post of mine in the topic, Ranković was used as a scapegoat by Tito. Milovan Đilas in Rise and Fall notes that the actions carried out against Albanians in Kosovo in the 1940's-60's were under Tito's command and watch.

What follows are you copying and pasting from Wikipedia. If you're going to cite a website, how about one which has some academic credibility? You're free to cite Serbian academics, I wouldn't mind.

Edit: Just realized he was banned. In PMs a few days back he was arguing that Libya under Gaddafi was a "workers' state," so yeah.

[Sasha]

Erm, that is weird. Why would he pretend to be Yugoslavian if he didn't even like Tito?

And it's almost ironic how he used his Anti-Stalinism to cover up his blatant fascism. That's not to say that any other Anti-Stalinist is guilty of this of course, since I am sure every tendency has had it's fuck ups

And I am vaguely curious, what were these other reactionary threads?

He probably was Serbian, just an Serbian living in Australia but maybe not, who knows. Also lots of strasserist/3th positionists have an intrest in Tito and gadaffi and Peron and such.

[Thirsty Crow]

Erm, that is weird. Why would he pretend to be Yugoslavian if he didn't even like Tito?

Maybe he did identify with the Yugoslav state as some warped Third Position logic (probably used the Third Camp as a cover reference). He might be a Serbian expat, and those, of course Croatian included, are some hardcore nationalists.

[Pravda]

Well, there is relatively big number of Serbs living in Australia. That could explain it (assuming he is Serb)

[Ismail]

In Ismail case i really dont understand his fetish for Albania.Is it bad that I actually finished reading a book about Albania today and have some others (The Birth of Albania by Guy Nicola, Albania's National Liberation Struggle: The Bitter Victory by Reginald Hibbert, etc.) which I've recently acquired will soon read? :D

Not to mention the many other books I've read...

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, there is relatively big number of Serbs living in Australia. That could explain it (assuming he is Serb)
All the anti-Albanian chauvinism would be hard to explain if that wasn't the case.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Maybe he did identify with the Yugoslav state as some warped Third Position logic (probably used the Third Camp as a cover reference). He might be a Serbian expat, and those, of course Croatian included, are some hardcore nationalists.

Yea he was pretty bad at being a trot. I remember when he posted an article on "Stalinism" that was full of the basic trot stuff without any actual factual content to it and said that it was "proof" that "Stalinism"= bureaucratic collectivism. When others (including Trots and LeftComms mind you) called him out on his BS he couldn't respond and just muttered some nonsense about how Stalinist every one is, again including a wide range of people from Leftcomms, Maoists, and even other trots. Pity that he choose Trotskyism though, there are so many good trots that don't deserve to be associated with the likes of him.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Edit: Just realized he was banned. In PMs a few days back he was arguing that Libya under Gaddafi was a "workers' state," so yeah.

Can you post it here so we can laugh at his stupidity?

[Ismail]

Can you post it here so we can laugh at his stupidity?I since deleted it but it was basically like:

Me: I heard you consider Gaddafi a socialist. Why? You know in 1988 he called for all Libyans to become bourgeois right?
YugoslavSocialist: [Wikipedia article]
Me: Isn't it a bit odd you consider Gaddafi a socialist, even though he was a Muslim and came to power in a military coup, but Stalin, an actual Marxist, not?
YugoslavSocialist: [Wikipedia article]
Me: How does socialism come about via a military coup? Gaddafi's doctrines don't even call for class struggle and have the opposite goal.
YugoslavSocialist: [no reply]

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I since deleted it but it was basically like:

Me: I heard you consider Gaddafi a socialist. Why? You know in 1988 he called for all Libyans to become bourgeois right?
YugoslavSocialist: [Wikipedia article]
Me: Isn't it a bit odd you consider Gaddafi a socialist, even though he was a Muslim and came to power in a military coup, but Stalin, an actual Marxist, not?
YugoslavSocialist: [Wikipedia article]
Me: How does socialism come about via a military coup? Gaddafi's doctrines don't even call for class struggle and have the opposite goal.
YugoslavSocialist: [no reply]

So he was more of a World Worker's Party sort of Trot than a third camp trot, that is assuming that he is a trot and not just a moron who put left wing ideologies on a dart board and managed to hit the one farthest from the bull's eye

[Ismail]

There used to be a user called Barry Lyndon who thought everyone was awesome except Stalin (and Hoxha.) Trotsky? Great. Mao? Cool beans. Castro? Glorious. And he defended the Soviet revisionists to the end.

I think he's a FRSO type now.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

There used to be a user called Barry Lyndon who thought everyone was awesome except Stalin (and Hoxha.) Trotsky? Great. Mao? Cool beans. Castro? Glorious. And he defended the Soviet revisionists to the end.

I think he's a FRSO type now.

Is he in the revisionist one?

I kid, they are both revisionist of course :P

But yea, reading what some of those Brezhnevites types produce and call "Marxist Leninism" makes me want to cuddle up in a corner and cry over how far Anti-Revisionism has fallen.

[Young12Messiah73]

Well, Kosovo was part of Serbia for centurys and now it's taken away from them. I don't agree with their independence because then Serbs could request some parts of Croatia too.
Also Kosovo is under control of NATO which I definetly don't support.

[Ismail]

Well, Kosovo was part of Serbia for centurysIt was a part of the Ottoman Empire for about 470 years and part of Serbia for about 260 before then. And all this time the actual native inhabitants, the Albanians (and the Illyrians before them) continued to exist. Self-determination doesn't depend on what state controlled X land for Y amount of time, otherwise the borders of Austria-Hungary and the good ol' Russian Empire would have no reason to be changed.