MIM Notes 187 June 1 1999

Pan-slavic unity shows in imperialist poll 
results

by MC5

The ancient idea of pan-Slavic unity appears to 
be holding true. Opposition to the bombing of 
Serbia is nearly universal in Russia (94%) and 
the Ukraine. It is also running three to one in 
Slovakia. 

Most telling of all, although the Czech Republic 
joined NATO, opponents of the bombing there 
outnumber supporters by 20%. Hungary also joined 
NATO, but its population is almost evenly 
divided. Italy is evenly divided (which has 
nothing to do with pan-Slavism but does 
demonstrate some difficulty for NATO).

Of note, the people of Croatia are heavily in 
favor of the NATO bombing, almost as much as the 
Russians are opposed.

What intrigues the phony communists of the ex-
Soviet lands about all this is the possibility 
of using pan-Slavic unity to restore the Soviet 
Union. One of the main reasons this approach has 
such credibility is the failure of the people of 
the Western imperialist countries to oppose 
their own ruling classes. If there were a strong 
and genuine communist element in each country of 
Europe, specifically ethnic strategies of 
rebuffing NATO would receive less attention, 
even by bourgeois politicians.

Thus, the weakness of the proletarian 
internationalist movement means bourgeois 
nationalist responses arise to bourgeois 
nationalism. Opportunist politicians always 
arise to reflect the political brokering that is 
possible in any concrete situation. Right now a 
truly internationalist proletarian revolution 
does not seem to be in the making in any of the 
countries concerned, so the bourgeois 
nationalist politicians move in to fill the 
gaps.

However, despite the weak position of the 
proletarian camp, the politicization caused by 
Kosovo is still of benefit to us. We must hold 
our internationalist stance as the only possible 
solution. Bourgeois nationalism will expose its 
weaknesses yet again and turn the people toward 
communism, hopefully in time to avert a nuclear 
showdown.

Note: The Economist 24 April 1999, pp. 50.