Ethno-Nationalism, or Racism, or Whatever??? ( was Re: a discussion

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I've had the misfortune of being involved in a car accident there
> > when it was still Yugoslavia. The mentality of the officials in
> > those public institutions I got in contact with pursuant to that
> > was such that I would distrust any type of state those people
> > would make based on whichever ideology.
>
> ****GK: This seems to indicate that Solzhenitsyn was
> wrong when, in his famous letter to the Soviet Leaders
> of 1973, he stated that all that needed to "make
> things right" in the Soviet political space was to
> abandon the Marxist ideology: "keep the power and drop
> the Marxism!" But individuals brainwashed into Marxism
> don't automatically become liberal democrats when they
> "keep the power".

The China option? Party adopts new ideology and stays in power? That
would require Chinese measures to make work. That might look right to
Great Russian like Solzhenitsyn, but obviously not to the putative
inhabitants of his empire. People want an identity from somewhere.
So now you live in the independent state of Ukraine. Hopefully it is
not too inconvenient for you.

> Re-education is needed. If that is unavailable you can easily get
> messy "transitional situations".****

All this talk of re-education makes me nervous, since it's usually
people like myself who are seen as being in need of re-education.
What type of accommodation did you have in mind? Something with a
fence around with lots of fresh air?

BTW I have an idea that the whole silly idea that of course the Soviet
Union would remain after the Soviets had gone stems from Raisa
Gorbatchova. He was obviously in love with her to the point of not
using his brain independently.

> > In specifically the case of Yugoslavia, the scenario as I recall
> > it was this: Around 1990 all the ex-communist states were
> > converting to capitalism and some type of democratic rule, but
> > some held out, the more easterly and southerly, the longer, so
> > that when change happened in Yugoslavia, federal states
> > (Yugoslavia was a federation) like Slovenia and Croatia were for
> > change, Serbia against. Slovenia broke out with not much trouble,
> > since it was ethnically 'clean' already, so that fact was
> > recognized by most states. The trouble was that that was the first
> > of increasingly unacceptable stepping stones,
>
> ****GK: I find nothing unacceptable about the
> self-determination of Slovenia.

I agree.

> In this context I reject the principle that "some are more equal
> than others" ****

Some states are more ethnically mixed and therefore potentially more
volatile than others. But as long as people like you maintain that
ethnically 'clean' states have no more chance of survival than those
composed of people who can't stand each other, we will see still-born
states like Bosnia-Herzegovina being recognized on the principle that
they are no worse than other states.

> > since now it was difficult to maintain that Croatia, even though
> > ethnically mixed, shouldn't be allowed to do the same.
> > Predictably, England and France were against, while Germany and
> > Denmark (foreign ministers Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Uffe
> > Ellermann-Jensen were personal friends; the latter had great
> > success with his personal involvement in the liberation of the
> > Baltic states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania from Soviet and
> > Russian rule and he probably pushed Genscher in the direction of
> > supporting the recognition of ethnically based states elsewhere)
> > were for. Recognition ensued, chaos followed. Similarly, the
> > Soviet union fell apart into ethnically based states, some
> > descended into chaos, some didn't.
>
> ****GK: What smoothed things here (partially) was the
> original inclusion of the "right of secession" in the
> Soviet constitution, and the doctrine that ultimately
> sovereignty resided in the "Union Republics", with
> revocable "delegation" to the center. This system was
> not that of Western federations like the U.S. or
> Canada. But it was unfair in the context of the
> doctrine of the right to self-determination in
> general, since it denied e.g. to Chechnya what was
> available to e.g. Estonia, merely because Chechnya was
> not a "Union Republic".****

That same right, according to some theorists, was also included in the
various declarations which formed the legal foundation of the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession
This is why the Union did not immediately attack the Confederate
states, but waited until the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter, which
was Union territory. Lincoln's reason for not accepting secession, as
I understand the Gettysburg address was that the idea the USA was
founded was such a great idea that lessening its chances by dividing
the union was impermissible. Khruschëv and Brezhnev argued similarly
for socialism and Gorbatchev could have too, but by that time it was
(should be) obvious that democracy is a good idea and socialism isn't.
And from that may learn that one should have a good idea.

> >
> > > So all you've done is to cite a perfect example of the evils of
> > > ethno-nationalism.
> >
> > People are not right in the head in that end of the world is all I
> > can say,
>
> ****GK: With thoughts like that a world state is unworkable.

Yes, I should have told them that. Not even a Yugoslavia.

> But that's OK since I don't think it would work anyway.****

I can assure you that I entered the area in question in my VW-bus
filled with Scandinavian ideas of love and brotherhood. Perhaps we can
make a world state if we leave them out plus Beirut?


Torsten