The former Yugoslavia on the road to revolution!

[CyM]

Bosnia-Hercegovina: Revolt puts class struggle back on the agenda (http://www.marxist.com/bosnia-hercegovina-revolt-puts-class-struggle-back-on-the-agenda.htm)

Bosnia is on fire! Masses demanding nationalizations.

Statement from the Belgrade police union. (http://bhprotestfiles.wordpress.com/2014/02/09/statement-by-the-belgrade-police-union-belgrade-1/) Yes. Serbian police breaking ranks, inspired by events in Bosnia.

This is beautiful, and not being mentioned on the news.

[Creative Destruction]

very nice. i'm interested in their demands for a non-partisan government.

[Creative Destruction]

also, what relation does this have to the EU protests in Ukraine? i read on wiki that one of the demands is EU accession.

[Skyhilist]

Fuck yeah this is great!

Another article about the protests: http://revolution-news.com/class-war-bosnia-herzegovina-government-fire/

My favorite line was


State officials fled from people’s fury.

[adipocere]

also, what relation does this have to the EU protests in Ukraine? i read on wiki that one of the demands is EU accession.
from what I am aware, the west had not yet scheduled a regime change in Bosnia. However, I am sure CANVAS and the astroturf industry is already scrambling in a panic to co-opt the movement as we speak. The reason I say this is because Stratfor is analyzing it from the outside and seems... concerned.

Growing Revolt in Bosnia Unites People Against Elites (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/11-3)


Thousands demonstrate in Sarajevo in sixth day of nation-wide uprising

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/_bosnia-unrest.jpgAnti-government protesters protest in front of the Presidency building in Sarajevo February 9, 2014. (Photo: Antonio Bronic/ Reuters)Thousands of Bosnians shut down the center of the capital city Sarajevo Monday in the sixth day of demonstrations, breaking across ethnic barriers to demand the resignation of the elitist leadership.
According (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/europe/bosnians-furious-with-politicians-shut-down-central-sarajevo.html) to the New York Times, the demonstrators chanted slogans against the “criminals” in government and urged those in authority to “resign today.”
Sparked by a demonstration in the city of Tuzla last week (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/02/06-5)—where recently laid-off workers rose up against the failed privatization of previously state-owned companies—the protests have spread across Bosnia-Herzegovina in more than 30 cities, thus far forcing the resignation of the leaders of four regional cantons.
On Friday, demonstrators — which according to (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/europe/protests-over-government-and-economy-roil-bosnia.html) The New York Times included "unemployed youths, war veterans and disgruntled workers, among others"— set fire to government buildings in the capital and across the country.
Most remarkable about the uprising, witnesses note, is how it has connected the disparate and frequently-feuding ethnic groups.
"In one of the photos from the protests, we see the demonstrators waving three flags side by side: Bosnian, Serb, Croat," writes (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/02/10-7) Slavoj Žižek, international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities at the University of London. "[W]e are dealing with a rebellion against nationalist elites: the people of Bosnia have finally understood who their true enemy is: not other ethnic groups, but their own leaders who pretend to protect them from others."
"I think the biggest fear of our politicians is a united people," demonstrator Lejla Kusturica told (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/europe/bosnians-furious-with-politicians-shut-down-central-sarajevo.html) the New York Times.
With overall unemployment estimated (http://www.euronews.com/2014/02/10/unrest-in-bosnia-as-protesters-demand-resignation-of-government/)to be as high as 40 percent among the general population, and 70 percent among young people, the protesters are denouncing the overly-bureaucratic system which they say only divides the population and caters to elites.
As the New York Times explains:

The Dayton accords among the leaders of warring Serbs, Croats and Muslims — the latter now called Bosniaks — brought an end to the 1992-95 civil war by constructing a decentralized state that gave each a share of power and none of them dominance. [...] But the Bosnians have since added layers of complexity to the original design that have entrenched the political elite while often hindering economic development.
According to Žižek, one of the primary targets of the protesters is the EU administration overseeing the Bosnian state which, he says, "entrenches partitions" by only dealing with "national elites as their privileged partners."

[CyM]

There is a reason this is not being covered. The un high representative has also threatened to use un troops to put down the protests.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[hashem]

this movement is still far from a conscious class struggle. people are protesting under current system, not against it, so there can be no revolution. however, their demands should be supported and directed into a correct line by communists. communists can use current protests in order to create an organized and conscious proletarian movement.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not aware of any specific demands for nationalization as such in Bosnia, at this time; the demand that was widespread and was pushed for most forcefully at the beginning of the protests and riots was for a revision of the privatization process - which is mostly aimed at what people regard as illegal procedures, and outright theft whereby individuals connected to the political establishments (the plural is necessary in the case of Bosnia since the country is effectively divided along ethnic lines) got filthy rich at the expense of the workers. This is connected to the idea of nationalization, but cannot and must not be considered as basically the same.

Also, as far as my knowledge goes, the workers from five specific companies, initially the originators of the movement, did put forward this demand of nationalization, but in the context of keeping their workplaces afloat - the owners do plan closures (alongside the fact that wages hadn't been paid out for more than a year, at least in case of one of these companies to my knowledge)

From where I stand, it's borderline ridiculous to claim any road to revolution here. The movement is significant, and what is more important, it's predominantly a (working) class movement, but definitely not without its alien class elements and a whole host of problems. The focus on the political establishment with the demand for a technical government and resignations* being, in my opinion, at least to an extent, part of the problem.

*Incidentally, the first few Tuzla assemblies (plenum) had seen this complex of demands centered on the political apparatus totally push out the prevalent social content. I'm not so sure that this is today a fair assessment of the situation, but it is worthy of noting nonetheless.


also, what relation does this have to the EU protests in Ukraine? i read on wiki that one of the demands is EU accession.
It has no relation whatsoever.

[red flag over teeside]

seems like the rebellion is much more healthier from a working class perspective than the recent events in the Ukraine. As far as I can see all rebellions which lead through class struggle to a working class socialist revolution needs to have both working class participation, obviously, but also an organisation that has both a political programme as well as influence within the working class.

Interesting though not a word of this struggle in the media especailly the BBC or ITV.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

*Incidentally, the first few Tuzla assemblies (plenum) had seen this complex of demands centered on the political apparatus totally push out the prevalent social content. I'm not so sure that this is today a fair assessment of the situation, but it is worthy of noting nonetheless.

Those are the demands of the Sarajevo "plenum" (a term that, as far as I can tell, was imported from the student protests in Croatia, where it designated a sort of talk-shop pretend-soviet) as well. Generally, this is the point where communists demands should be heard - if not, this will simply be another indignadiad, Bosnia might end up with a "technical government", and the working class will have burned much of its militancy up setting up a new bourgeois clique.

[Thirsty Crow]

Those are the demands of the Sarajevo "plenum" (a term that, as far as I can tell, was imported from the student protests in Croatia, where it designated a sort of talk-shop pretend-soviet) as well. Generally, this is the point where communists demands should be heard - if not, this will simply be another indignadiad, Bosnia might end up with a "technical government", and the working class will have burned much of its militancy up setting up a new bourgeois clique.
Yes, the term was introduced by the student occupations and obviously people are quite familiar with it, and the mechanisms of organizing that it entails. During the student occupation, it represented the body with the decision making power with regard to the management of faculty property (e.g. day to day functioning and not smashing shit up) and more importantly, it determined the course of struggle.


seems like the rebellion is much more healthier from a working class perspective than the recent events in the Ukraine. As far as I can see all rebellions which lead through class struggle to a working class socialist revolution needs to have both working class participation, obviously, but also an organisation that has both a political programme as well as influence within the working class.

Interesting though not a word of this struggle in the media especailly the BBC or ITV.
This needs to be underlined tenfold. The class perspective was crucial especially at the beginning - completely the opposite from the case of Ukraine.

Plenums in Bosnia are, from what I can gather, very similar to the assemblies connected to the indignado movement.

I also quite agree that this might turn out to be only another indignadiad (nice neologism there btw), although things already moved further here. And by further, I mean further from seething resentment and apathy with regard to collective action. But the point is that the working class in Bosnia really can't be expected to achieve something other than setting up a new clique - though this is tied in to the possibility of some real benefits for the class. This will happen to an extent, no doubt (it remains to be seen just how much of the old, ridiculously inefficient and corrupt political and bureaucratic apparatus will actually go), and sure the militancy might be burned up as you say, but I also hope that this stage could serve as a springboard for future developments.

Another hugely important point relates to the ethnic divisions which have been at least somewhat compromised through this movement, but definitely not enough. I think that the majority Serb and Croat areas have witnessed significantly lower levels of unrest, and there's the mandatory nationalist mystification really going on at the moment with the aim of pitting workers against each other. And by mystification I really do mean mystification, as the favored narrative form has been up til now a version of conspiracy theory; shadow centers of power with the aid of X (insert ethnicity) aiming to destroy (insert the ethnically, regionally determined political apparatus of regional governance, and the federal government)

Unfortunately, the communist millieu is practically non-existent there, at least from what I know.

[CyM]

Reversing privatization is nationalization. Let's not mince words.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Thirsty Crow]

Reversing privatization is nationalization. Let's not mince words.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

To quote myself:


revision of the privatization process


Which does not imply wholesale nationalization, which was never voiced as part of the demands by any significant section of the protesters. I outlined what these demands entail in the post above.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

True, all these things could theoretically be carried out within the confines of capitalism. But the truth is that in a peripheral capitalist economy, based on mafia-style capitalism, which is affected by internal collapse along with the global capitalist crisis, these demands could never be achieved within the narrow and rotten confines of the present system.


The fact that the IMT is attempting to put the demands raised by the Bosnian protestors within the framework of the transitional programme and it's "too radical for capitalism" brand of reformism fully demonstrates both how incoherent the transitional programme is and how delusional the IMT is. Yes this uprising has a class content but all of these demands are compatible and in many ways desirable for the long term maintenance of the capitalist system. The myriad forms capitalism has taken throughout history has shown us that no demands can ever go truly "beyond capitalism". Besides the very transitional idea of demanding something which can not be achieved is absurd in of itself. If the struggle for the demand does not achieve the goals, which is supposedly the point of the transitional programme, then nothing is accomplished other than an expenditure of political energy and the demoralization of the class. Hence Communists should not bother with anything that is not achievable and does not stand to directly benefit their tactical position.

[Prometeo liberado]

end of the last century.
http://revolution-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/1011261_190686111141722_1495844548_n-300x225.jpg (http://revolution-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/1011261_190686111141722_1495844548_n.jpg) “Everybody to the streets. Death to nationalism!”- grafitti on a government building in Tuzla, BiH



This pretty much says it all right there. Warms my heart.

[Thirsty Crow]

Actually, I was under the impression that the article linked to by CyM is pretty bad from the user's laconic statements about the masses demanding nationalization. However, it's not a bad piece of writing, apart from the obligatory transitional programme/demands obfuscation.

In relation to nationalization, however, the article even quotes the Declaration of Workers and Citizens of the Tuzla Canton. Let's see what that document has to say about nationalization:


3) Resolving, through an expedited procedure, all questions relating to the privatization of the following firms: Dita, Polihem, Poliolhem, Gumara, and Konjuh. The [government] should: + Recognize seniority and secure health insurance of the workers.
+ Process instances of economic crimes and all those involved in it.
+ Confiscate illegally obtained property.
+ Annul the privatization agreements [for these firms].
+ Prepare a revision of the privatization.
+ Return the factories to the workers and put everything under the control of the public government in order to protect the public interest, and to start production in those factories where it is possible.


(emphasis mine)

As we all can clearly see, the situation isn't that simple as the idea of the masses demanding nationalization would have us believe.

[ckaihatsu]

the following firms: Dita, Polihem, Poliolhem, Gumara, and Konjuh.





As we all can clearly see, the situation isn't that simple as the idea of the masses demanding nationalization would have us believe.


Let's just say that the workers are sticking with what they know for the time being, so as to not overreach.

[cyu]

Capitalists in Yugoslavia suffering from the "danger" of a good example? Perhaps their history of a more self-managed, less authoritarian version of communism leaves authoritarian capitalism with a bad taste in people's mouths.

[Thirsty Crow]

Let's just say that the workers are sticking with what they know for the time being, so as to not overreach.Of course, this is true, and my comment wasn't in any way meant to belittle the struggle we're talking about.
And surely, the demand for wholesale nationalization would imply a critical level of class militancy - which is simply not there - and a situation on the brink of being pre-revolutionary. We have had it quite different in these regions, mostly battered and decimated, so this development first needs to be taken for what it is and secondly, as I said, as a potential stepping stone.

[red flag over teeside]

To support workers call for nationalisation doesn't mean that we recognise nationalisation as some sort of step towards communism/socialism it isn't. What it is however is a recognition that it is preferable to keep workers at work rather than thrown into unemployment with all of the demoralisation this brings.

[CyM]

+ Confiscate illegally obtained property.
+ Annul the privatization agreements [for these firms].
+ Prepare a revision of the privatization.
+ Return the factories to the workers and put everything under the control of the public government in order to protect the public interest, and to start production in those factories where it is possible.

This is called nationalization under worker's control. So either you haven't read it, or you're intentionally trying to misrepresent what the demands are.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[red flag over teeside]

Problem with nationalisation under workers control within a capitalist world will only mean that workers driven by the dynamics of capitalism will be forced into doing what capitalists do all the time cut wages and drive up the rate of exploitation.

[CyM]

Problem with nationalisation under workers control within a capitalist world will only mean that workers driven by the dynamics of capitalism will be forced into doing what capitalists do all the time cut wages and drive up the rate of exploitation.

Agreed, hence why it is impossible under capitalism, and this demand is a transitional demand to the socialist revolution.

These demands would only work under socialism, so more misrepresentation from certain people in this thread who seem to think these demands, including nationalization under worker's control, are perfectly acceptable within this system.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[ckaihatsu]

Nationalization is the same as de-privatization, so it's merely an *incremental* step.

[CyM]

Some were denying that workers were demanding nationalization. Either because of comprehension problems, or intentional misrepresentation.

An it may be incremental, but it remains a radical class demand.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Thirsty Crow]

This is called nationalization under worker's control. So either you haven't read it, or you're intentionally trying to misrepresent what the demands are.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using TapatalkI bolded and italicized that this was brought up only in relation to the following enterprises: Dita, Polihem, Poliolhem, Gumara, and Konjuh. Whether this is impossible or not is another matter, and I for one don't think such transitional sloganeering is productive in understanding the situation.

I simply can't see why you'd disregard this. What's also incomprehensible is how you misrepresent what I said about the demands. So, you can either quote me where I deny that there were any demands for nationalization. On the other hand, what I am doing is putting some context into a discussion which lacks it sorely.

[CyM]

I'm not aware of any specific demands for nationalization as such in Bosnia, at this time; the demand that was widespread and was pushed for most forcefully at the beginning of the protests and riots was for a revision of the privatization process - which is mostly aimed at what people regard as illegal procedures, and outright theft whereby individuals connected to the political establishments (the plural is necessary in the case of Bosnia since the country is effectively divided along ethnic lines) got filthy rich at the expense of the workers. This is connected to the idea of nationalization, but cannot and must not be considered as basically the same.


Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[CyM]

To quote myself:



Which does not imply wholesale nationalization, which was never voiced as part of the demands by any significant section of the protesters. I outlined what these demands entail in the post above.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[CyM]

Actually, I was under the impression that the article linked to by CyM is pretty bad from the user's laconic statements about the masses demanding nationalization. However, it's not a bad piece of writing, apart from the obligatory transitional programme/demands obfuscation.

In relation to nationalization, however, the article even quotes the Declaration of Workers and Citizens of the Tuzla Canton. Let's see what that document has to say about nationalization:



(emphasis mine)

As we all can clearly see, the situation isn't that simple as the idea of the masses demanding nationalization would have us believe.



Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[CyM]

Should I keep going? Or have I adequately demonstrated how you have misrepresented events in Bosnia?

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Thirsty Crow]

Should I keep going? Or have I adequately demonstrated how you have misrepresented events in Bosnia?

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
No, you shouldn't. Wouldn't want to embarrass yourself further. But let's go over this yet again:


I'm not aware of any specific demands for nationalization as such in BosniaThis poorly worded statement was meant to indicate that there were no political demands for nationalization of industry, of the economy - a demand that can be expected from political organizations or in different, basically pre-revolutionary situations on behalf of numerous workers - but only of the five enterprises whose workers and union reps kick started the whole thing.
This really can't be glimpsed from the "nationalization as such", and yes it was a poor word choice.

This is clearer in the next quote:

Which does not imply wholesale nationalization, which was never voiced as part of the demands by any significant section of the protesters.I'd normally highlight the relevant part butI don't think that would make sense in this discussion. But to provide you a hint, the "wholesale" modifier isn't there for no damn purpose.

So, to reiterate, nationalization of the economy wasn't on the agenda of workers. I'm not really sure if there was a radical organization which pushed for this idea among the protesters, but the point is that as I claimed, a wee bit sensationalist sloganeering of "masses demanding nationalization" is vapid and empty, and doesn't explain anything. What's more interesting is that the article you linked to doesn't actually put forward such a view. Obviously, since it quotes from the Declaration.

And if this is an indication of denying anything, then you've got serious problems with thinking things through:


the situation isn't that simple as the idea of the masses demanding nationalization would have us believe. Since, according to you, the situation is simple, right? Masses demanding nationalization. Yeah, of what? Under which conditions? That's some unnecessary complicating, right?

And finally, if someone is misrepresenting the situation here, an obvious candidate would be the person who's doing two things: 1) showing no concrete understanding of the conditions and relation of forces on the ground, all the while 2) pulling up the strait jacket of transitional demands on this struggle.

I'd also wager that this ridiculous accusations of misrepresenting the situation come from a perceived need to defend the approach of the transitional programme, which would amount to nothing more than naked sectarianism since it's plain clear that I didn't deny something which I've been aware of from day one of this struggle. However, I do deny that your approach is useful and productive.

[CyM]

No one ever claimed "workers demand abolition of capitalism". That is what nationalization of the majority of the economy under worker's control, abolition of private property, would mean. At least to me.

But it is clear that workers are demanding "wholesale nationalization" of all privatized companies.

You may not think this is a radical demand, but it certainly is accurate to describe it as "workers demand nationalization", and to consider it a step forward in radicalization of demands. A step closer to nationalizing the commanding heights.

Simple mathematics dictates that a mass movement demanding nationalization of some industries is a transitional step closer towards nationalizing all industries.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Thirsty Crow]

Anyway, a comrade of mine and a former user of this board (guess who :laugh:) has recently returned from Bosnia where he did a longer interview with worker(s), I think from Dita, in cooperation with comrades from Wildcat (Ger), so I expect more light to be shed on this development (I'll probably handle the translation into English; I also think there will be more translations available)

[Thirsty Crow]

No one ever claimed "workers demand abolition of capitalism". That is what nationalization of the majority of the economy under worker's control, abolition of private property, would mean. At least to me.

Contrast this with:


But it is clear that workers are demanding "wholesale nationalization" of all privatized companies.
I gotta ask. What were you thinking when writing this? So, we have publicly owned companies and privately owned. You claim, contrary to all evidence and even to the article you linked to, expressive of a view of IMT, that workers demand that all privatized companies be nationalized.

Do you think that the listed and named 5 companies are the only ones that are privately owned? I hope not. But as the declaration clearly shows, the demand is strictly for these 5 enterprises to be nationalized. And you're still harping on about, well, what?

Another problem here is that you effectively contradict yourself within the space of two paragraphs.
If the demand is for nationalization of all privatized companies; and if


nationalization of the majority of the economy under worker's control, abolition of private property...is equal to abolishing capitalism, it's clear that you do in fact think that workers are demanding the abolition of capitalism, something which you flat out deny in the very first sentence of this post.



You may not think this is a radical demand,This is a curious imputation. In fact, I do think that the struggle itself and original workers demands might reasonably be called radical. In context, of coruse, and not at all as a demand and struggle for the abolition of capital


but it certainly is accurate to describe it as "workers demand nationalization"Not nearly accurate enough. It's not even a description, it's a simple reiteration, a piece of information. Where's the analysis, the assessment?
This is my point.


and to consider it a step forward in radicalization of demands.As I said, this is an obvious and important step forward for the proletariat in Bosnia; perhaps even for the proletariat in the entire region, but I have my doubts on the effect of Bosnia's workers struggle on other neighboring workers.

[CyM]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your lack of comprehension is due to ESL? I hope so, in which case, let me clarify:

A private company is one privately owned by capitalists.

A privatized company is a nationalized company that has been rendered private. Hence, privatized, the past tense of the verb to privatize, which is an action one does to nationalized companies.

Now, I think we've clarified.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your lack of comprehension is due to ESL? I hope so, in which case, let me clarify:

A private company is one privately owned by capitalists.

A privatized company is a nationalized company that has been rendered private. Hence, privatized, the past tense of the verb to privatize, which is an action one does to nationalized companies.

Now, I think we've clarified.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk
Relevance? I don't get it.

Much more than these five companies have at some point been privatized in Bosnia after the dissolution of Yugoslavia; I don't know exactly when that happened with the five of them. I'd say that a good majority of enterprises were privatized. That's why I'm having problems with your statement that workers are demanding the nationalization of all privatized companies, especially since this has had some circulation in circles of political activists in this region as of lately.

[CyM]

Relevance? I don't get it.

Much more than these five companies have at some point been privatized in Bosnia after the dissolution of Yugoslavia; I don't know exactly when that happened with the five of them. I'd say that a good majority of enterprises were privatized. That's why I'm having problems with your statement that workers are demanding the nationalization of all privatized companies, especially since this has had some circulation in circles of political activists in this region as of lately.
Fair enough, I can admit error, I misspoke. I did not intend to say "all" privatized companies but was writing quickly, and that has certainly not been the implication in the article or in my posts at all.

You've been searching for something that isn't there. If you put aside typos, no one is implying the overthrow of capitalism is the immediate demand of these workers.