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/...s-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.