Sunday, June 25, 2017

MARKSIZEM, KI GRE V KORAK Z ČASOM, kratka Facebook polemika z Galom Kirnom

MARKSIZEM, KI GRE V KORAK Z ČASOM
Kratka Facebook polemika z Galom Kirnom


Gal Kirn: Evo, malo mojega pisanja o koncu zgodovine v danasnji Mladini: kratek zapis, ki motri padec berlinskega zidu, ki prica o zmagi neoliberalizma, do padca WTC, ki potrdi ponovni premik k avtoritarnemu (neo)liberalizmu (in njegovim pravim zacetkom). Ta konec zgodovine se ustavi ob "padcu" Grenfell Tower", ki lahko za levo sceno postane nas padec neoliberalnega-konzervativnega zidu, premik od obrambnih k napadalnim pozicijam? Ostane naj kot spomenik neoliberalizmu.
Na neki tocki bodo verjetno clanek odklenili, za tiste, ki imate dostop, pa tukaj link:


Dimitar Anakiev: Avtoritarni liberalizem? Ta sintagma ima težave z logiko.


GK: Sploh ne, lahko mu reces tudi nacionalni neoliberalizem, ki je pravzaprav vladajoca politika zadnjih 20, ponekod 40 let, v EU pa recimo zadnjih 10 let po krizi. Trump, Orban, ipd so zgolj morbidni simptomi razkroja-dekadence neoliberalizma, njegova radikalizacija, vsekakor pa ne izjema. Liberalizem ima dolgo zgodovino sistemskega nasilja, rasizem, kolonializem so vpisane v njegov modus vivendi, da ne govorimo o zgodovini kapitalizma, s katero liberalizem ima veliko sticnih tock. In tu je ocitna tudi razlika z 20-30.leti, ce takrat pride do nacional-socializma kot odgovora na kapitalisticno krizo, ki jo fasizem - nacizem "resita", pa pride danes do sinteze nacional-liberalizma. Govori o tem, kako sibka je danes (se) levica, ceprav bi jo ti zadnji dogodki, v drzavah, kjer smo najmanj pricakovali (Zda, Vb), lahko presentljivo vzdignili.


DA: No, ja, nacionalni liberalizem ima manj težav z logiko čeprav tudi ni ravno logičen medtem ko je fraza “avtoritarni liberalizem” na logične nivoju enaka frazi "suha voda" ali podobno. Mislim, da je potrebno iznajti boljšo terminologijo, ali pa morda že obstaja?


GK: ja liberalci in ekstremni center (se ena na prvi pogled nelogicna skovanka) bi radi te tendence preimovali zgolj kot (desni, ali pac levi) populizem, ali pa kot "illiberalism". Kot da imajo ekstremni centristi (konzerve in socialdem) pa res neko demokraticno platformo, kot da oni sami niso podpirali pogojev za nastanek tega nacional-liberalizma, sedaj si pa perejo roke...tisti avtoritarci pa pravzaprav delajo za njih dirty job. Sicer glede EU res postaja ociten nek razkol znotraj sirse politekonomske elite, a to je za kak drug post. Nadalje, liberalizem kot ideologija res predpostavlja recimo temu prosti trg in zdravo konkurenco, a kot se je ponovilo nic kolikokrat v zgodovini, je bil to le ideoloski slogan - v praksi je razbijal nacionalno protekcijo manjsih drzav (recimo zgodovinsko je angeska krona okupirala Indijo in deindustrializira njihovo proizvodnjo, s tem so angleske manufakture-tekstil lahko prodajali dalje, tudi v Indijo seveda), s strani vecjih drzav pa uveljalvlja sirjenje njihovih trgov, lahko preko vojn, lahko preko raznik memorandumov trojke; seveda modus je predatorstvo in kupovanje - beri dokapitalizacije - manjsih dobro stojecih firm in resurosv s strani multinacionalnih korporacij. To, kar se dogaja zadnjih 10 let v Slo, v zadnjih 20 letih na bivsem Vzhodu je dosti zgovorno, kar se tice ekonomskega neokolonializma, ki pac pritice vsakemu liberalno-kapitalisticnemu projektu. Da dobi ta projekt svoj militarni, bolj radikalno avtoritaren, naj bo nacionalisticen ali imperialisticen obraz, pa ne rabi dosti: ali naleti na delovne mozice, vstaje (npr slo, grcija pred leti), ali naleti na regionalne hegomene (npr rusija, ali na bliznjem-srednjem vzhodu sirija, iran). Ce pogledas Trumpizem, ali desne sile v Evropi zagovarjajo mescanico med nacionalno protekcijo, da bodo zavarovali vsaj deloma del domace proizvodnje, in pomagali demontirati socialno drzavo, deloma pa gre za neofasizem- rasizem do drugacnih, do beguncev, Islama,,.... to jih seveda v nicemer ne zaustavlja manjsati davke za bogate in financne fimre, seveda pa skusajo cim vec postoriti za sirjenje poslovnih-trgovinskih interesov. Tu se vidi npr koliko je ZDA kot hegemon izgubila... Tako da v realnosti pride do mesanice, ne pa neke ciste politike, zato so vsi tisti slogani neoliberalizma v veliki krizi: sam je svoje srece kovac (po koncu socialne drzave, seveda cisti darwinizem), lahko se samouresnicimo, in podobna jajca; trg ni le tam kot edini, ki lahko naredi balans med povprasevanjem in pondubo, kot korektor in nevidna roka, pac pa kot sokreator kriz; pod neoliberalizmom prevlada celo slogan-teza, da naj bi prinasal tudi demokracijo. Odprta druzba? Kar je pac nelogicno, posebej ko pogledamo njegovo prakticno uvajanje. A eno je ideoloski projekt, PR, drugo je politekonomija. Zacne se z vojasko dikatuturo v Cilu, nadaljuje po J-Ameriki, Jugoslaviji v 80etih, na Vzhodu v 90ih, nato spet zaostri po 2001.

DA: Hvala za razlago. Iz nje izhaja, da je liberalizem „liberalen“ le v pogojih dominacije, brez ovir. Če naleti na oviro postane militanten in ga lahko imenujemo imperijalizem, to pa je termin, ki ga uporablja marksizem, ko govori o „liberalizmu“. A ni potem boljše uporabljati marksistično terminologijo, ki bolj natančno in jasno opredeli problem, kot da se slepomišimo z različnimi nelogičnimi iznajdbami buržoaznih teoretikov (ko smo že pri marksizmu) nastalih verjetno samo zaradi prikrivanja prave narave „liberalizma“. Na primer, fraza "oportunistična levica" se mi zdi veliko boljša kot "ekstremni centrizem"...

GK: vsekakor, saj gre za marskizem, ampak taksen, ki gre v korak s casom, se pravi - zadeve so leta 2017 slabse kot leta 1917 - ostaja nekaj podobnih iztocnih in zahtev konkretna analiza konkretne situacije, a sovraznik je vendarle bolj kompleksen, kapitalisticna formacija pa bolj nepremagljiva kot takrat, ko se je zdeja zgodovinska nujnost, narediti revolucijo, in odpreti komunisticni horizont. Predvsem cesar manjka danes je organizacije, in bolj ambiciozne vere v spremembo. To danes najdemo recimo pri tistih, ki se borijo za islamski kalifat. Danes se zdi, da je teorija dalec napredovala, dalec pred prakso, in da tisti, ki vstopajo na politicni prostor, to delajo iz bolj individualisticnih vzgibov, manj pa zaradi idej in globokega prepricanja....


DA: Na teoretičnem nivoju (buržoazne teorije) zadeve so res bolj kompleksne, v praksi je pa revolucionarna obrt enako enostavna in premočrtna. Na primer, v Tuzli 2014 so delavci 5 tovarn in študenti zlahka zrušili kantonalno in občinsko oblast, ter dvignili celo Bosno na noge. To, da v Tuzli ni formirana narodna vlada, temveč "ekspertska" je zasluga oportunistične levice (Lijevi), ki so v biti izigrali delavce za račun svojih plačnikov (Die Linke & Co). Nič tu ni drugače, kot je bilo 1917. Revolucionarna naloga nikoli ni zruši vso moč kapitalizma, kot to predstavlja oportunistična levica, temveč le tisto, ki je nad teboj. To pa seveda gre tudi danes na isti način kot nekoč...

23.6.2017

Saturday, June 17, 2017

SEĆANJA NA TUZLANSKU REVOLUCIJU 2014




Dimitar Anakiev
SEĆANJA NA TUZLANSKU REVOLUCIJU 2014


       Stogodišnjica je velike Oktobarske revolucije a istovremeno predvečerje petogodišnjice revolucije u Tuzli (februara 2014) , kada su radnici i studenti srušili vladu kantona Tuzla i izrekli istorijsko „ne“ privatizaciji, etničkoj podeli BIH i raspadu Jugoslavije... Ja sam u Tuzlu prispeo, kao delegat Izbrisanih radnika Slovenije, dan nakon što je vlada pala (8 ili 9 februara, ako me sećanje ne vara) i na ulicama Tuzle se je osećala jaka revolucionarna emocija. Bili so to dani bezvlašća, zgrada vlade bila je uništena, popaljena, organizovane grupe radnika i naroda noseći transparente i zastave marširalo je Tuzlom a u hladnom vazduhu, uprkos haosu, titrala je nada. Svuda su bila očekivanja o formiranju narodne vlade, što je bio radnički zahtev.
         Odseo sam u tuzlanskom Domu penzionera i tamo, na trećem spratu, odmah primio druga iz partije Lijevi koji me je opširno infirmisao o stanju. On je pričao, ja sam pisao, puna dva i po sata (1). Iako sam od drugova iz francuske Partije nezavisnih radnika (POI), pred sam put za Tuzlu, bio upozoren da su u Bosni i Tuzli, baš kao i u Sloveniji, veoma aktivni Pabloiti (oportunisti) ja tada nisam znao šta bi to tačno značilo, primenjeno na situaciju bezvlašća u Tuzli. Onda, kada me je drug iz Lijevih počeo informisati o pripremi za organizovanjem „plenuma“, shvatio sam. Isto veče sam u telefonskom razgovoru sa Pavluškom Imširovićem izneo svoje mišljenje da su „plenumi“ početak kontrarevolucije. To mi je govorilo iskustvo iz Slovenije gde je vlast putem sličnih kvazi-anarhističnih formacija uspostavila sistem kontrole marginalnih grupa (izbrisani!) i pobunjenog naroda. Sve to su vodili, naravno, profesionalci, politikolozi sa državnih univerziteta, što je skladno sa Badjuevom tvrdnjom iz knjige „Ime čega je Sarkozi“ da su univerziteti na Zapadu posle 1968 strogo kontrolisani od strane tajnih službi i pretvoreni iz revolucionarnih bastiona u instrumente kontrarevolucije. Pavluško nije bio siguran šta se tačno događa ali je shvatio šta mu govorim, ipak, savetovao me je da sačekam sa zaključkom dok se ne pokažu rezultati. Čini se da je verovao da su radnici dorasli problemu... A rezultati su se brzo pokazali. „Plenumi“ su poslužili kao sredstvo razvodnjavanja revolucionarne energije pomoću kojeg je klasni karakter revolucije pretvoren u obično građansko nezadovoljstvo – kao da se narod pobunio zbog nerešenih komunalnih problema. Sprečeno je stvaranje narodne vlade a uskoro su plenumi izglasali vladu „eksperata“ koje su im podmetnuli politički kumovi iz senke služeći se aparatom oportunističke levice. „Eksperti“ su naravno brzo pokazali svoje lice i Tuzlaci su već aprila shvatili prevaru ali bilo je kasno - „sami su ih izabrali“, demokratski, najdemokratskije – „direktnom demokratijom“. Oportunistička levica (Lijevi, Dosta! Demokratski socijalizam, Nova levica, Marks22 itd.) pokazala se glavnim saveznikom mafijskog kapitalizma protiv radnika i naroda na Balkanu a finansirana je uglavnom iz centara oportunističke levice u Nemačkoj (Die Linke i njena fondacija Roze Luksenburg).

(1) Otvorenost i opširnost informisanja, kasnije sam shvatio, rezultat je nesporazuma. Ja sam kod predstavljanja pozdravio tuzlanske drugove od strane slovenačkih izbrisanih radnika a onda i od strane drugova iz Pariza (Misleći na POI a ne na NACP). Pošto su tuzlanski Pabloiti očekivali dolazak predstavnika francuskih Pabloita (o čemu ja tada nisam imao saznanja, ali se je kasnije čulo da ih je marta meseca posetio predsednik francuske Nove-antikapitalističke partije (NACP), Olivier Besancenot, glavom i bradom). Verovatno je, kada sam pomenuo pozdrave drugova iz Pariza, tuzlanski drug, Pabloit, pomislio da dolazim kao prethodnica francuskih Pabloita. Tako sam, slučajno, tokom opširnog informisanja, verovatno čuo i ponešto što možda nisam smeo čuti.

z


Monday, May 22, 2017

ZAŠTO KLIFISTI ŽELE DA BUDU TROCKISTI?


(Iz diskusije sa port-parolom Marks22 sajta, na kome slave stogodišnjicu nekog Tonija Klifa koji je izumio "kontra-revolucionarni Trockizam")

Pročitao sam tekst o Deflekciji stalne revolicije. Tekst je akademski zanimljiv ali zaključci nisu potresni. Pre svega dovoditi u pitanje revolucionarni karakter radničke klase (tačka 2, u analizi razmišljanja Trockog) znači dovesti u pitanje Marksizam. To se teško vidi i kod (pravih) anarhista, jer koren te tvrdnje nalazimo još kod Dejvida Hjuma i potpuno prevazilazi "Trockizam" kao takav a verovatno i Marksizam. To je jednostavno osnovni aksiom čovekove slobode... U tom smislu niti koncept Stalne revolucije ne treba banalizovati na nekakav automatični "perpetum mobile"... Još i to: ideja da je SSSR kapitalistička država pripada međuratnom trockisti Brunu Rizziju. On je to diskutovao sa Trockim i posle neslaganja odstupio od trockizma. U pozadini te ideje je negacija revolucije. Cliff je očito preuzeo koncept od Rizzija, nije originalno njegov ali jeste kontra - revolucionaran po značenju, odnosno "demokratski"... Još jednom hvala za upućivanje u delo Tony Cliffa. Meni je uvek zanimljivo čitati društveni kriticizam, ako je pravi, čak i kada se neslažem sa nekim premisama

Rizzi i Cliff tvrde isto: da do revolucije nije došlo, dakle revolucija u SSSR se negira! Samim tim i revolucija kao takva. Hvala i Vama Dragane na diskusiji!

Ja mislim da niko nikad nije tvrdio da je radnička klasa UVEK I DEFAKTO revolucionarna, to bi bilo neozbiljno tvrditi, naprotiv, postoje razdoblja ova i ona. Međutim, u načelu, ona je UVEK revolucionarna, dakle, radnička klasa i ona koja glasa za Miloševića, i koja daje glas Hitleru i Musoliniju, je u načelu revolucionarna, ima potencijal samooslobođenja, revolucionarnosti. Da li će ga ispoljiti, to je drugo pitanje, to zavisi od puno drugih stvari a ne samo od karaktera radničke klase. Zato je diskusija karaktera radničke klase voda na buržujski mlin, dovođenje u pitanje, sumnjanje. To se zove "malograđanaka malodušnost"... :-) Pozdrav još jednom

PPS. Što bi se reklo: već izbor teme ukazuje na domet diskusije. Bojim se da taj domet kod Cliffa nije najveći tj. ne dobacuje do revolucije

Zašto bi neko nazvao sebe Trockistom, makar i "novog kova", a pritom bio protiv revolucije? Jer Trocki je bio revolucionar ne samo u tadašnjoj Rusiji već i u Meksiku, SAD... i svakom deliću sveta u koji je kročio, a revoluciji je žrtvovao i svoju decu pored svog života... A onda se pojavi neki Cliff i kaže ja sam "anti-revolucionarni Trockista". To znači pljunuti na Trockog. Takav paradoks, da ne kažem iživljavanje mogao je smisliti samo Staljin jer to znači posthumno ubijanje Trockog - ubijanje ideje o Trockom, nakon što je fizički likvidirano sve što je na bilo kakav način imalo veze sa Trockim. Tako danas umesto da imamo "Cliffiste", što bi bilo jedino logično, imamo "kontra-revolucionarne Trockiste" koje vodi neki Cliff, pozamljujući ime Trockog. Ludilo.

/E tu me je moj ljubazni domaćin Klifista izbisao i rekao baj-baj. Jedino argumentovano rešenje!/
21.5.2017

Monday, May 8, 2017

MACRON HAS NO LETIMACY WHATSOEVER!



MACRON HAS NO LEGITIMACY WHATSOEVER! And yet the institutions of the Fifth Republic give him full powers to destroy the Social Security system and what is left of the Labour Code. How can this be prevented? Through workers’ unity!

On 7 May 2017, Macron was elected President. But the facts show that he has the smallest minority positon.
The proof: - 26 per cent of registered voters abstained; - 9 per cent of registered voters cast a blank or spoiled ballot;  - The ballots cast therefore represent fewer than two out of three voters, a record low, and in some working-class districts fewer than half the voters; - With a 65 per cent share of the votes cast, Macron was therefore the electoral choice of just 42 per cent of registered voters; - And everyone knows that more than half of the votes he received were from voters who disagree with his programme but wante
Thus, four out of five voters refused to support Macron’s programme. This ultra-minority President has no legitimacy whatsoever. 

 And yet, the institutions of the Fifth Republic are such that a President who represents 20 per cent of the electorate holds 100 per cent of the powers of his office.

This is the logic of the anti-democratic institutions of the Fifth Republic 
Under the Fifth Republic, political elections do not aim to allow voters to choose between different programmes. The decisive election is the plebiscite held every five years to elect a king without a crown, to choose someone whom voters prefer – or rather, someone they detest the least. Once elected, even by default, the President then has full powers to attack the working class and democracy.

This is why the election of the President of the Republic by universal suffrage must be abolished. This is why the institutions of the Fifth Republic must be abrogated.

Yesterday, today, tomorrow: in all circumstances, the Democratic Independent Workers Party (POID) acts for working-class unity and democracy 
As a supporter of a workers’ government, the POID declares itself in favour of a Constituent Assembly in order to have done with the European Union and the Fifth Republic. 
As a supporter of the workers’ unity together with their organisations in the class struggle, yesterday against the passing of the El Khomri law, today for its repeal, the POID intends to use all its strength in taking political action to help achieve the most solid possible common front, a united bloc of workers and organisations to put a stop to the murderous plans of the illegitimate “20 per cent President”.
The POID considers it urgent to build a genuine workers’ party on a class basis. It is with these aims in mind that it is standing candidates in the legislative elections to help achieve unity, for the repeal of the El Khomri law, against the attacks that threaten the Social Security system and the Labour Code, and for a Constituent Assembly to put an end to the Fifth Republic. To debate these questions, we invite the workers, activists and youth to take part in the meetings we are organising throughout the country in the coming days.

National Bureau of the POID, Paris,  May 7th, 10:30 PM

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

MARXIST JUDGE OF ART by Dimitar Anakiev


Recently I discussed on the FB with a group of young Serbian Marxist aesthetics of the famous film (banned by Tito regime) Plastic Jesus by Lazar Stojanovic, one of the1968 rebels. Young Serbian Marxist tried direct ideological reading (and judging) of the film what for my opinion was wrong approach. It took time until I found L.D.Trotsky comment on the same topic (judge of art)-it is very telling and useful:
"...one cannot always go by the principles of Marxism in deciding whether to reject or to accept a work of art. A work of art should, in the first place, by judged by its own law, that is by the law of art. But Marxism alone can explain why and how a given tendency in art has originated in a given period of history; in other words, who it was who made a demand for such an artistic form and not for another, and why."

L.D. Trotsky "Literature and Revolution", 1925, New York

It is also famous Trotsky refusal to judge Military Strategy and Tactics by Marxism in discussion with Red Army generals. From that discussion are known his conclusions:

1.Marxism is a tool for judging political economy and history
2.Trying to judge everything by Marxism is a side-road created by bourgeois "extreme left".

Similarly W. Reich use of Marxism into psychology is similar bourgeois concept, unacceptable for orthodox Marxists.
(D.A.)

Published 29.3.2017 at Marxist Internet Archive Discussion Group

Monday, November 21, 2016

FROM POLEMIC WITH "TROTSKYIST" (Last part)

To Dominique

One of the best proofs of your ("democratic" -sic!) "Trotskyism" are your protégés: Yuri Glushakov ("indipendent candidat"!!!) and Ivica Mladenović (just a shit), both the same creatures of political underground so typical for Stalinism.

Shame of you all "Trotskysts"

Dimitar

PS. I am so glad that you invented "Democratic Trotskyism!" 😁

Saturday, September 24, 2016

WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN UNION BRINGING TO US? SLOVENIAN EXPERIENCE


Miroslav Samardžić and Dimitar Anakiev during forum in Zrenjanin, March, 2016



WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN UNION BRINGING TO US?
SLOVENIAN EXPERIENCE

Dimitar Anakiev, speech made on March, 3, 2016, at the forum in Zrenjanin

         Good evening! I have been travelling from Ljubljana to Belgrade by an international train whose composition consisted of two wagons, one of the first class, the other of the second. The first class wagon was locked up while in the second class one there were some ten to fifteen passengers. This image of the main railway line of former Yugoslavia is a good metaphor for the state we have found ourselves in after the breakup of the SFRY. This is an image of our disappearance and this disappearance was brought to us by capitalism and its exponents.
          The train travel from Ljubljana to Belgrade lasted for 8 hours, the time I spent reading the book by Harold R. Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution. The first part of the book describes the conditions that led to the revolution in China in 1925-1927. The analysis of the social circumstances in China given by Isaacs is good so that I am going to use it as a cue; the image of the humiliated China can be compared to our social circumstances; first of all, it is interesting to see the share of foreign capital. On page 23 of this book we find the following formulation and data, namely, that the foreign capital „occupied dominant positions in all the basic economic sectors, sucking the country leech-like of its resources. It owned nearly half the cotton industry, China's largest. It owned a third of the railways outright and held a paralyzing mortgage on the rest. It owned and operated more than half the shipping in Chinese waters and carried in its own bottoms nearly 80 percent of China's foreign and coastal trade...“. This is, therefore, a true face of the Chinese economy at the time when China reached the lowest point in its history and this state would, in its turn, lead to a series of insurrections and two revolutions.
             Let's have a look now at the image of Slovenia in the European Union. Slovenia entered the EU in 2004 and in only 12 years it has managed to completely destroy and sell out its economy. Its trade network is 100% in foreign hands; that is, today Slovenia has no trade network on its own. An exception is Tuš but is under mortgage. Beer industry, one of the key industrial branches in Slovenia, with a large market in the Balkans, is for 100% in foreign hands (Union and Laško). The same happens to the home appliance industry otherwise well known in the region; 100% is foreign hands (Gorenje is bought off by Swedish capital). The same is with steel industry (Russian capital) and industry of ski and sports equipment – all this is sold to foreign capital. A somewhat better situation is in the pharmaceutical industry which is only for 70% in foreign hands (Krka is still in Slovenian hands and it subsists probably thanks to the Russian market; however, this market is today in a serious crisis). Tourism is only partially sold but that's where sale is about to begin. We can see that all the profitable industries are sold. What does not bring any profit or disturbs someone's monopoly is destroyed. For instance, Slovenia has no longer an industry of fertilizers; neither does it have construction industry able to undertake more serious building projects. It makes sense to pose a question concerning what in Slovenia has not been sold or ruined yet? Answer is: energetics and infrastructure. They are waiting for the third wave of privatization and so are major banks. As we know, the role of banks in „transition“ is specific since the banks are the main instruments of social robbery by their system of giving loans to the chosen individuals, those loans that are to be paid off by citizens through budget „recapitalization“ of banks. Two fresh examples: the NLB or New Ljubljanska Bank has recently been recapitalized with 1, 5 billion of budget money and so has the NKBM or New Credit Bank Maribor with 900 millions. After its recapitalization, the NKBM was sold to an American fund for 200 million Euros. The Slovenian governments are without monetary and fiscal freedom. Neither have they enough money to function. Several times a year they take loans from various foreign creditors in order to pay their employees. It means that, in essence, it does not matter what color is the government since any government that has come to power will have to be obedient to its creditors. That is why a reasonable proposal has been put forward recently to, instead of electing a government, choose it by drawing lots every four years (elections are expensive and have no real purpose). Due to the fiscal rules set up in Brussels, the government of Slovenia cannot build a strategically important second track of the Koper-Ljubljana railway line that would strengthen its sea port in Kopar. It means that it cannot take a credit on its own since this credit would be too big for its fiscal frame. That is why this railway line could be only built by large foreign capital which means that foreign capital will draw profit from this important communication; however, we have seen that the majority of profit realized by Slovenian economy is squeezed by foreign capital. That is why the state is impoverished, and even its health care budget is lowered for 20% by “austerity” measures. That is why medical workers are leaving the country; at present there is a considerable shortage of doctors (the worst is in general medicine and anesthesiology) while nurses are not being paid for extra work). In such circumstances it is no wonder that 4 -5 000 young people, educated personnel, are leaving Slovenia every year while the number of children starting their primary schooling is reduced for 1/3. This is an image of genocide...
         Before we start our discussion, let me list item by item the most important political parameters that characterize the EU. If I should, on the basis of Slovenian and its congenial Balkan experience, present you with some of the features that politically characterize the European Union, I would opt for the following ones: Policy of “austerity”, privatization (destruction of social property and public sector), the Left as befits capital (class cooperation instead of class struggle), denial of the right to strike (ILO Convention 87 is denied directly or indirectly), scorn of democracy (Greece is the most telling example; denied in Greece is the will of 2/3 of people expressed at the referendum against “austerity”; a similar experience is also that of Slovenia in adopting so-called “fiscal rules” etc.), destruction of national culture, fiscal and monetary slavery and total imperial war against all the nations (EU is the key factor of world imperialism that we see at work these days in the problem of refugees). Capital has enslaved us due to its established cooperation of the Left. All over the Balkans and beyond there is no single party of the Left protecting the interests of the working class. All the Left parties serve capital and propagate class cooperation instead of class struggle (class cooperation is best expressed by the strategy of “social agreement” which is in fact the policy of “workers’ submission”). Such pro-capital Left is also recognized by its allegiance to some “democratic socialism” which actually means “bourgeois socialism”. This phrase denies the dictatorship of proletariat while it promotes the dictatorship of capital. Therefore, the “European leftists” deny the democratic nature of socialism (that is, deny the democratic character of proletarian socialism) and equate (proletarian) socialism with Stalinism. We are now in the position described by Engels in 1849 in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung2  in which he described us as “non-historic peoples”, that is, those peoples that cannot take their own destiny into their own hands. The Balkan peoples today have their own states but they are, each on its own, too weak to resist neocolonialism of corporative capital that finds no obstacle in the state. Rather, the state could be regarded as service for better exploitation of small peoples with the help of comprador governments which is exactly like the situation in the 19th century China. The difference is only in the fact that China is an enormous state, of inexhaustive human and natural resources, while we have split into pieces that nothing can come out of unless they are again assembled into a whole able to lead a struggle against foreign overpower. It is in this fight that we must ask for the help of the international labor movement – a class conscious part of the workers’ movement standing up for class struggle – that we should even now set up connections and build up relationships.

1 The day after this speech is made, we heard on the radio that the annual brain drain in Serbia is 15000 people, including many doctors and medical workers

2 Engels, „Democratic Pan-Slavism“, February, 1849, Neue Rheinische Zeitung