Dimitrije Tucovi and Serbian-Albanian Historicist Relations

Sezgin Boynik

Intro: Reading Tucovi Today

The call for contributions which has been made by the editors of this book draws
special attention to the legacy of Dimitrije Tucovi, Serbian socialist from the
beginning of XXth century who wrote a controversial book in 1914 called Serbia and
Albania: A Contribution to the Critique of the Conqueror Policy of the Serbian
Bourgeoisie. This is a very interesting decision since Tucovi, who was largely
referred to during the discussions in socialist Yugoslavia (both in Kosovo and Serbia,
and as a part of very antagonistic discourses) on the topics of intra-national relations,
class exploitations and bourgeoisie corruption, is also one of the rare (if not only)
Serbs and rare socialists (probably only) whose name is still adorning one of the
streets of city in Kosovo, in Prizren.

I would like to use this opportunity to deal in detail with the discussion made almost
twenty-five years ago in the pages of the weekly NIN in the feuilleton Socialists and
the Serbian-Albanian Relations which was largely based on the theory and practice of
Dimitrije Tucovi. Today of course the topic of our discussion is the artists and the
Serbian-Albanian relations, but by referencing Tucovi we might be able to trace
some structures which still might be in play at the very core of the problematic of
ideology (as well in ideology of art) of Serbian-Albanian relations. The fact that
Tucovi (hard-line Austro-Marxist, propagator of Second International and pure
Hegelian) is still relevant, and part of todays problematic, is the starting point of my
astonishment. Is there a structure which is resisting any change in this relation? What
are the ideological patterns which still haunt the problematization of the Serbian-
Albanian relations? These are the burning questions of this article.

Today, reading Tucovi is not just a matter of remembering the past, or as Marx said
in The Eighteenth Brumaire not of making its ghost [of past] walk about again but
still as in case of many socialist writers from the beginning of XXth century it is
possible to find a good dose of sarcasm which brings upmost clarity to some
contemporary issues. We can see this sarcasm in Tucovi when he describes the
relation: And that mixture of living people and old statues, which gave such a hard
time to the London Conference trying to determine the border between Albania and
Serbia (Tucovi, 1945: 25). Here Tucovi is clearly describing the elementary
problematics of the relation between Serbians and Albanians, which is at same time
determining his own philosophy. These are ideological problems of historicism and
contradiction. We will here discuss only the former.

Tucovi the Historicist

Historicism occupies an important place in Marxist theoretical discussions. Not

always has it had negative connotations. We could start our problematization of the
issue of historicism in Tucovi in relation to the discussions made regarding the shift
in the Marxist discourses during the decline of Second International and the role of
Social Democrats in this theoretical shift which had large political consequences. But
instead we will start from a most radical critique of the historicism, from the position
which the theory of Louis Althusser occupies. An important part of the book which
Althusser co-authored with some of his students, Reading Capital is largely dealing
with a critique of historicism. One crucial chapter in the book has the sloganistic title
Marxism is not a Historicism. The obvious provocation of this slogan is aimed at the
vulgarizations of Marxs theory which limit its scope by reducing it to a sort of
historicized Hegelianism. For example, what is usually imagined in relation to this
distortion has been popularized as Marx being the corrector of Hegels position which
was upside down; this means that there were no big differences between Marx and
classical economists like Ricardo or Smith. According to this schema, Marx has
ensured the continuity in classical economist analyses by merely updating or
correcting its categories by historicizing its methodology from fixed, absolute or
eternal to relative, provisional and transitory (Althusser and Balibar, 2009: 93-103).
This popular imagining of Marx as historicist which is still very fresh and popular was
severely attacked by Althusser as a non-Marxist world view. In order not to cause any
misunderstandings we have to mention that Althusser was not against the concept of
history, even his thesis that Ideology does not have history fuelled many
structuralist readings of his theory. On the contrary, the concept of history in
Althussers theory plays a crucial role in his reading of Marx; for example his claim
that Marx is a scientist who found a new continent, the continent of history. But what
is more crucial here is that the concept of history in the imagining of Marx the
historian is a particular one which is of ordinary imagination, or vulgar
empiricism of the false obviousness of everyday practice (Althusser and Balibar,
107). Here allusion is made to the spontaneous conception of historical time, which is
teleological, transcendental, and in many cases spiritual. Althussers intervention on
this conception of history and his critique of the Hegelian categories has deeper
philosophical implications (reaching even to the methodological problems of the
professionals of history, the Historians), and nevertheless it is aimed at its ideological
practicality. Historicism as a world-view is ordinary, obvious and everyday, it is
practical and ideological, and its practicality has very deep political consequences.
These consequences are what we are interested in, but in order to show their actuality
in the ideological recognition of Serbian-Albanian relations, we have to clarify them
more thoroughly. What is at stake when Althusser criticizes historicism as the
empiricism? At stake is a theoretical problematic related to empiricism which is in the
essence of the Althussers reading of Marx and history. Vulgar or abstracted, an
empiricist world view is always reproducing the dual categories of being (inner and
outer world) by continuously confusing their role in the knowledge process. Since
these categories are false (because of their metaphysical origin and being primarily
based on the concept of identity) any knowledge process which is based on this
assumption is an idealist abstraction of everyday recognition. According to this
schema, objects have their inner (latent) meaning hiding behind their outer (manifest)
meaning. The role of the empiricism is to remove this confusion and to introduce the
knowledge of the absolute truth. This is how empiricism operates within spiritualism
for example. But Althusser is insisting that the abstraction of empiricism is also at
stake in most of the Marxian philosophies, especially the way they interpret history.
Althussers aim is to carefully separate the manifestations of this idealism in Marxism
by naming it as the confusion between object of knowledge and real object.1 This

1
While the production process of a given real object, a given real-concrete totality (e.g., given
confusion represents theoretical collapse when applied to history, because it
introduces the false relation between the real and non-real histories, or in old spiritual
language, between inner and outer history. Of course this is, in the end, the
capitulation of materialistic philosophy, since this false dichotomy is in the service of
the inner history which is idealist, eternal, and absolute. In historicist Marxism this
theoretical collapse precipitates the theory of history into real history; reduces the
(theoretical) object of the science of history to real history; and therefore confuses the
object of knowledge with the real object(Althusser and Balibar, 148). Now we are in
situation to see that this confusion between object of knowledge and real object is
based on the assumption that the real object is the real one, or the object which
matters and has its own pure ontology. Even more crucial is that we are now in
situation to see that this pure ontology of the real history is based on the homogenous
and continuous ideological time (Althusser and Balibar, 117). Althussers insistence
on this thought clarification, or theoretical break from idealism is aimed at the
political and economic views which are fuelled by this confusion; for example the
notions of unevenness of development, of survival, of backwardness (in
consciousness) in Marxism itself, or the notion of under-development in
contemporary economic and political practice (Althusser and Balibar, 117). But all
these discussions have even more explicit political importance; the homogeneous and
continuous absolute idealist time is firmly connected to the historical time of
contemporaneity, to the history which is possible only in its own times, the history
which is not for change, except in his known logic of continuity. This is history of the
Hegelian philosophy and as Althusser strictly puts it in another of his theoretical
slogans, this is why no Hegelian politics is possible (Althusser and Balibar, 106).

This small detour was important in order to show that the differences between
materialist and idealist conceptions of history are huge, and that the socialist
conception is not always based on a materialist philosophy. Also in this small detour
we problematized the political consequences of the idealist conception of history in
socialist thought, or more precisely we have shown the un-political aspect of
historicism which some socialist world views are infected with. Especially regarding
the relations such as Serbian-Albanian relations which are based on this asymmetry,
or more precisely, the unevenness of this confusion between theory of history and
real history might cause very drastic political consequences. It will be clear that in
this text what interests me is actually the theoretical history. Insistence on the theory
in dealing with historical issues such as Serbian-Albanian relations are in some sense
necessary in order to avoid some incorrect realistic views of these relations such as:
but isnt a simple fact that Albanians are historically more underdeveloped than
Serbs!? This rude realism of empiricist knowledge is what this text aims to destroy.

Now we will come back to the beginning and try to magnify the historicist world view
in the book of Dimitrije Tucovi on Serbians and Albanians. In fact this reading does
not need magnifying, since the main logic of the book is based on historical
idealism. Sometimes unfortunately even readers with the good intentions of finding

historical nation) takes place entirely in the real and is carried out according to the real order of real
genesis (the order of succession of the moments of historical genesis), the production process of the
object of knowledge takes place entirely in knowledge and is carried out according to a different order,
in which the thought categories which reproduce the real categories do not occupy the same place as
they do in the order of real historical genesis, but quite different places assigned them by their function
in the production process of the object of knowledge (Althusser and Balibar, 2009: 44).
emancipation of thought from the ideology of nationalism through socialism are not
able to see the collapse of the text into this idealism. This might also be the case with
Tucovis reading Marxist texts, and similar to the situation with many contemporary
socialists and artists reading the text of Tucovi. Without any bother, these readings
interpret the texts as prophetic or groundbreaking analyses of the current class and
national relations. We have to stop for the moment and ask if these readings are
historicist readings of the historicist text, or if the idealism of the past is easy to
translate into the idealism of the current. Only after thinking of these questions we can
read Tucovi without any retrospective conservatism. Otherwise we are in position of
todays historicist, surprised (or excited) by the fact that the barbarous Serbian social-
democrat could go so far to criticize his own nation in relation to the eternal enemy,
the Albanians, almost a century ago!?

Tucovis position expressed in the most breathtaking part of the book

Characteristic of the People and Spiritual Life on historical formation or
development of the classes is this: Today, that bourgeoisie denies to the proletariat
equal political rights on the basis of the same, long ago rejected theories which the
nobility once applied against it, and against which it pitted its strongest men.
(Tucovi, 1945: 43). In this typical social-democratic phrase the politics is, of course,
measured with right and tolerance; but what is more interesting, and which often
passes unnoticed, is the historicist conception of the classes. In this case the classes
are gradually developing towards perfectionism through historical continuity; the
aristocracy diminish, and in its place come the bourgeoisie, which also consequently
has to fade away leaving the infant proletariat to enjoy its political rights. In this
scenario the problem (or the obstacle) is the Serbian bourgeoisie, which is interrupting
the natural development of its opponent class. Tucovi is holding on to this historicist
view even when he criticizes this obstacle, or more precisely when he criticizes the
colonialist adventure of the Serbian bourgeois and capitalist state against under-
developed states with the rationalized manipulation of cultural tutoring; as he wrote:
[this politics] is oblivious the fact that all cultured peoples have passed through the
form of tribal community and primitive states (Tucovi, 1945: 43). In this case the
bourgeoisie and capitalism with its amnesia are interrupting the natural development
and continuity not only of other, under-privileged and under-developed classes but
also the natural growth of these nations. The obvious conclusion of this historicist
conception is that the under-developed nations (primitive and tribal) are still in pre-
capitalist formation, and that the aggressiveness (colonization) of developed-
capitalism toward these nations will cause the delay in their evolution to normality.
These ideological conceptions are directing the entire course of Tucovis book; he is
with surprising clarity describing his subject, the Albanians, in the light of this
historicism: history has not said the final word on the Albanians (Tucovi, 64).
Respectively in the emancipatory folk songs in Elbasan, Albania are associating him
of an age Europe went through in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries and of Bauers
fine descriptions of Eastern revolutions (Tucovi, 68). This idealist conception of the
historicism which is bordering on social-evolutionism even bothered dissident
Milovan Djilas, at the time a Stalinist, who wrote in the introduction of the re-
published Tucovi book in 1945 that at a time when comrade Stalin, in his famous
work Marxism and the National Question, dealt decisively with Otto Bauer, the best-
known theoretician of the national question within the Second International, Tucovi
was very enthusiastic about Bauer (Tucovi, 10). It is true that Tucovi is much
excited by Bauer, he is the thinker who taught him that the nation is not only a
natural, but also the cultural community (Tucovi, 62), and that [today] it is not the
shape of the skull or the elements of race, but the history and sociology which decided
what is a nation (Tucovi, 64). The fact is that Tucovi refers only once to the name
of Marx in the entire book, but the name of the Bauer is repeated at least three times.
Nevertheless the main wind for the idealist conception of Tucovis world view is not
blowing only from Bauer and the Second International; most of the socialist idealism
is also based on some sort of historicism. Stalin for example, as has been very clearly
shown by Etienne Balibar in On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, is the communist
who conceptualized the history strictly with evolutionist theories. He introduced the
concept of evolution to the communist theory by claiming that its development is
finished, or fulfilled, or as Balibar showed, by the political decision of ceasing the use
of the concept of dictatorship of proletariat from the official communist literature.
But we have to stop here for a moment and look at this Stalins conception of
stopping history and its relation to the concept of nation. As James M. Blaut is
arguing in his important and unjustly forgotten book on socialism and nationalism The
National Question: Decolonizing the Theory of Nationalism, Stalins approach on the
question of nation put forward the theory of national minorities which was implicitly
the theory of non-nations, the theory which justified the denial of the right of self-
determination and set the policy regarding the governance of any given minority.
(Blaut, 1987: 49). Because nation according to Stalin had a very clear and finite
definition: a nation is a human group which possesses certain definite characteristics.
It is a historically stable community of people. It has a common vernacular language.
It occupies a single piece of territory. It has an integrated, coherent economy. It
possesses a community of psychological make-up (a folk psychology, a national
character). And it is a historical category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of
rising capitalism. (Blaut, 148). This definition is justification not only of the
historicist view of the nation, but is also complementary with the historicist view of
the classes; Stalin in fact abandoned the use and existence of underdeveloped versions
of both of these terms. Or as Blaut rightly observes, Stalins essentialist approach
leads one towards the Hegelian argument that the nation itself is an entity, an active
subject in history. (Blaut, 62). Or if we speak in Althusserian terms we could say that
Stalin is confusing the given historical nation with the historical nation of
knowledge and letting the empiricist abstractionism have the last word: things are
developing unevenly but they have their inner logic of teleology. Dimitrije Tucovi
agrees, he wrote the Serbia and Albania a year before Stalin published the Marxism
and National Question; the cry of Djilas was for nothing, Tucovi could very well
have read Stalin. But in fact he would learn the same thing that he learnt from Bauer,
that the nation is not only a natural community, but it has sociological and cultural
characteristics too, which are gradually developing. This would not stop Tucovi
building his evolutionist theses on an under-developed nations destiny in the
historical course of the relation to the tyranny of the over-developed.2

2
Here what might seem as the equitation or comparison of Stalin with Tucovi needs an urgent
clarification. It is true that both were sharing the same concept of historicism and teleology (as with
many other idealist comrades); the difference is in the theoretical handling of this historicism. Stalins
politics were based on practical handling of situation, which was based on synthetic intervention to
this teleology, or to put it more rigorously, to recognize (in ideological sense) the telos of the history
(or historical flow) and accordingly to intervene in it. Tucovi had more peaceful politics, which led
him to the non-handling alternative, or to the alternative of the natural evolution of the teleology, or
to put it simply, to let things develop according to necessity. Both were empiricist, and of course both
confused the real object with object of knowledge.
Now we have to look at the consequences of the historicist conception in the light of
some readings of Tucovi.

Albanian Tucovi

Dimitrije Tucovi is a strange attraction. He died as the soldier of the capitalist

bourgeois state which he was criticizing most directly. He was criticized during his
lifetime and again in the eighties by nationalists as the one who sold his own nation,
or as the Serbian who attacked his own national benefits in order to please the benefits
of the enemies, or more precisely, Albanians benefits. In this section we will deal with
some of the interpretations of Tucovi affirmed in the feuilleton Socialists and
Serbian-Albanian Relations which appeared in NIN in 1986. Tucovi had, according
to these nationalist writers an Albanian agenda. According to this viewpoint, Tucovi
and other Serbian communists heritage is the reason why Serbia lost control over
Kosovo after Second World War. A short definition of this thought is that Tucovi is
Albanian (as he is enemy). But apart from this popular one, there is another Albanian
Tucovi, one which is yet to come, which is interestingly the product of the most
delicate and sophisticated nationalist discourse of the eighties. This Albanian Tucovi
is best pictured by Milorad Vueli and Sava Dautovi, the editors of the NINs
feuilleton who in the last article titled Challenge of Tucovi developed the thesis that
Tucovi is the progressive and the internationalist face of the Serbia. They conclude
this from Andrej Mitrovis contribution to the same feuilleton who alluding to Brecht
wrote that everyone has to talk about their own shame. Tucovi according to
Mitrovi, Vueli and Dautovi did that seventy years ago, from the time when they
wrote these texts, and elevated the Serbia to the democratic, progressive, critical and
European pantheon of culturally and intellectually over-developed countries. This is
the reason why today, Tucovi argue the writers, fulfilled his nations historical
mission and contributes to the continuity of the development of the nations being,
and can act as an example to the other, under-developed nations who have to follow
his step, and start to talk about the shame of their own nation. Vueli and Dautovi
are explaining the urgency and actuality of the situation as this: How is it possible
that, after the numberless atrocities of today, cases of rape, various occurrences that
belong to the sphere of violence, to pre-civilisational forms of conduct and sheer
vandalism, there is almost not a single man in Kosovo from among the ranks of the
most reputable Albanian intellectuals, scientists or artists to have condemned such and
similar acts, be it on their own behalf, without feeling obligated to any socio-political
organisation, and also in the name of the tradition, values and future of their people, to
have voiced words expressing their abhorrence, distancing themselves from such acts,
words of castigation and stern warning. (Vueli and Dautovi, 1986: 47). Their real
problem is actually that there is not an Albanian Tucovi, Tucovi now after seventy
years delay, is talking about his own nations (Albanians) evils. Even if seventy years
passed since the time of the original Tucovi, Albanians still dont have their own
Tucovi, they still have the inertia of attempting to elevate themselves to the pantheon
of civilization; they are still insisting on their historical backwardness. Exactly in this
moment Vueli and Dautovi are warning that this does not mean that in the heated
times of the anti-Serbianism they have to abandon the legacy of the Tucovi as the
nation who one more time has masochistically sought to humiliate themselves. On the
contrary, they have to actualize Tucovi one more time, now as the symbol of the
Serbian anti-nationalism, or Serbian internationalism which is the proof of their
nations sustainability in the evolutionary process towards a coherent national form.
Because the real nationalism today lies in democratic and social program of the
nation (Vueli and Dautovi, 46), which means that Serbian nationalism has to be a
non-nationalistic nationalism. This impossible thought on nationalism which Vueli
and Dautovi are explaining with such an oxymoron that it deserves the full
quotation: The basic reason for fighting nationalism should be sought in the fact that
today it is a permanent obstacle to the realisation of the authentic national interests of
every people, including the Serbian people. (Vueli and Dautovi, 47).3 Tucovi
here has a double role, one as the proof of Serbian over-development in relation to the
Albanians, and second, as the Serbian theorist who taught that nationalism can be
achieved with other means. Thats why Tucovi has the strange attraction. In fact this
is not a new thing. Already in 1914 in the newspaper Borba Duan Popovi who
wrote a review of the book of Dimitrije Tucovi on Albanians and Serbians defending
the publication with one very particular aspect; as the book which the Serbian nation
has to present to Europe. Because as Popovi wrote It is not merely a matter of a
protest on the part of the Serbian proletariat against the policy of the Serbian
bourgeoisie towards the Albanians; what also needs to be done is to preserve the
reputation of the Serbian people before cultured and democratic Europeans (Popovi,
1914)4, a reputation which has been severely damaged by some barbarian
theoreticians like Balkanikus and Dr. Vladan. Popovi is finishing his review with
pathetic culturologism, claiming that with the promotion of the book Serbia and
Arbania What should be proved is that there are many people in Serbia who hold
views different from those of its owners, whose opinions are contrary to theirs, and
that these people are headed by the proletariat, by social democracy!

Tucovi of Shkelzen Maliqi

Shkelzen Maliqi, Albanian philosopher from Kosovo who contributed to the

Socialists and Serbian-Albanian Relations discussion in the NIN weekly with the text
Balkanized Tucovi has criticized the ongoing interpretations of Tucovi by labelling
them as the Balkan brawlers who pervert and falsify the original thought of the
long time forgotten Serbian socialist (Maliqi, 1986: 46). In cases when he is not
forgotten, his contribution on the better understanding of the complex situation of
Serbian-Albanian relation is dismissed as a thought which time showed as the
mistake. Also Maliqi is much bothered by the fact that Tucovis thought is abused

3
This does not mean that Vueli and Dautovi are in the same terms with the other nations
situation in Kosovo. They solve this theoretical issue by claiming that in Kosovo the real problem is
not a nationalistic problem but the abyss between the citizens and the state apparatuses, and that
because of this problem (abyss) and the fact that the victim always has to have the national aura,
the majority of the ethnic group (Albanians) will inevitably attack the minority ethnical group
(Serbians). But the real motif of their theory is based on this empiricist survey of theirs: Therefore,
what is unfolding in Kosovo today is a process of discrimination of men and citizens, which is
consequently a process of discrimination of Serbs and Montenegrins. (Vueli and Dautovi, 46).
Considering the fact that one of the writers (Milorad Vueli) in the nineties became the director of
Serbian Radio and Television and an open supporter of Milosevics fascism, we have to be careful not
to indicate any retro-active readings which will set the circle of historicism now from different point.
4
Vuceli and Dautovi were so considered to re-publish this review in the last episode of their
feuilleton. It would be unfair not to mention Tucovis sarcasm on this Europeanisation: The owners
of Serbia have initiated their own register of colonial killings and atrocities, and as such, they can join
the company of the owners of England, Holland, France, Germany, Italy Russia on an equal footing
(Tucovi, 1945: 136).
many times by the Serbian nationalists, and he is asking if Tucovi himself, even in
the slightest degree, contributed to such abuse of his work (Maliqi, 47), his answer is
categorically negative, he is even taking the thought of Tucovi further by claiming
that Tucovi is not only a thinker of past, but also of today, and of the future.
(Maliqi, 47).

This was not an only contribution of Maliqi to the discussion in the weekly NIN; an
article which was originally published in the journal of the Sociologists and
Philosophers Association of Kosovo, Thema, was republished within one of the
episodes of discussion with the title Science and National Ideology. This re-
publication (with great omissions and restrictions from original) was in fact very a
strange occasion, since rarely is it seen that an article published in a scientific journal
reappearing in a populist magazine within such a short period of time. Maliqis article
which originally appeared in the pages of journal Thema from Prishtina is actually a
critique of the book of Serbian academic and expert on medieval Serbian literature
Dimitrije Bogdanovis new publication Book on Kosovo. Bogdanovis book which
was published by the pantheon of Serbian intellectualist institution SANU (Serbian
Academy of Science and Arts) is trying to prove that Kosovo is painful question for
the Serbs and that Kosovo, which is the cradle of Serbian spiritual and cultural life, is
by conspiracy with the communists (among them some Serbian socialists like
Tucovi) gradually belonging to the Albanian invaders and collaborators with
Serbias long time occupiers, the Turks. In his critique of Bogdanovis arguments
Maliqi is not opposing them with counter-arguments or with discussing the verism of
this claims; he is expressing surprise at the possibility of asking such a question of
Kosovo within socialist Yugoslavia in 1986. Maliqi is posing even more of a radical
critique by arguing against any question apart from the Socialist question, that is,
according to him, impossible to introduce any new conception in the problematic of
Kosovo, and Serbian-Albanian relations. His proposal is this: it is impossible to pose
any question on Kosovo, except one based on the principles of Socialism, which will
not be a tautology of nationalist interpellation of its subject. He is putting this
problematic philosophically as follows: When raising the issue of Kosovo, a
polemical discourse is required for its articulation. When one says that Kosovo is an
issue, that presupposes that it is something other from what it appears to be, or from
what some other people suppose it to be. The issue of Kosovo is a question of
reducing Kosovo to its real denominator. (Maliqi, 1986a: 188). This is the main
principle of ideology on the Kosovo. The main signifier of the Kosovo question in
many cases is reduced to the problem of conflict. But Maliqi is insisting, and in
following parts of his article making even more clear, that the question of Kosovo
which will inevitably end up in a problem of (national) conflict has to be avoided
from being asked.5 That is the reason why Bogdanovi is an anachronous thinker,
because his questions are anachronous, they ask the questions on Kosovo in such a
way that any kind of answer will not make much difference in the conception. The
sociological reason of this tautology is according to Maliqi the conservative un-

5
In arts as well this question of Kosovo is also in many cases in strict company of nationalist
obviousness. For example Mica Popovi in the early eighties when asked if he considers himself a
nationalist, answered that he does as this is his intellectual responsibility. But it is interesting to
notice that in an interview which otherwise tries to be philosophical (as he tries to understand the
meaning of life!) the nationalist turn happens when the discussion hits Kosovo, actually when Popovi
and his compatriot start to discusses the organized crime against the Serbian population in Kosovo.
(Gligorijevi, 1984: 96-98).
political decision of Bogdanovi to cancel the definition of Kosovo as revolutionary
achievement. This decision, furthermore, precludes the possibility of giving a single
meaningful answer about Kosovo that, in terms of topicality and perspective, would
be essentially connected to the development of socialist social relations. The issue of
Kosovo is neither Serbian nor Albanian on the contrary, the issue of Kosovo can
only be a matter of the socialist emancipation of all social and economic relations in
Kosovo. (Maliqi, 1986: 190).

Maliqis insistence on discussing Kosovo as socialist/revolutionary achievement,

apart from opposing Bogdanovis idea of anachronous Kosovo, is at the same time
attacking the idea of Kosovo as a gift from the communists to the Albanians. It is
not exceptional to hear that the ideology of communism among Albanians was
programmed by the Serbian intellectuals, even the Albanian communist movement
has been interpreted by many over time as the Serbian product gone wild. Typical
imagery of this is the bewildered Stalinist Enver Hoxha who misunderstood the
lessons of his tutor Svetozar Vukmanovi-Tempo. The same tune is heard many times
for Kosovo Albanian communists; that they were indoctrinated by Serbs, but in fact
they were never in reality emancipated from their nationalistic secret agenda. Their
communism was false communism its roots always staying firmly planted within a
true nationalistic chauvinism which was demonstrated soon after as the national
march towards Stalinism. In Kosovo the national liberation struggle (Partisan
struggle) was never a mass movement and collaborators were widely supported by
the Albanians, argues Bogdanovi paradoxically who himself was declared an anti-
communist and undeclared supporter of chetniks.6 How to understand this paradox?
Bogdanovi, who is anti-communist, is criticizing the Albanians saying that they were
never communists and that they were on the other side in the Second World War. This
is not so much a paradox for Bogdanovi, since he is interested not in Albanians but
in Serbs. Serbs were guilty here, Serbs who were true non-patriotic communists
miscalculated the situation and sacrificed Kosovo for their ideals. Ideologically the
real problem is this: communist Serbs which gave the gift of communism (as the
package of Kos-Met) to the Albanians. This is not a paradox because in this schema
the Albanians are the same old infantile, under-developed and ignorant Albanians;
thats why they couldnt understand communism, and thats why their autonomy has
to be given.7 What constitutes Serbian-Albanian relations in the last instance is this
over-determination (reference to Althusserian psychoanalysis is not arbitrary here,
because this relation in many cases is operating unconsciously) of Albanians as the
underdeveloped party in this relationship. It is possible to explain even some of the
positive aspects of the relationship between Serbs and Albanians from this ideological
perspective of over-determination. For example it is challenging to look at the
historical periodization of this relation when these antagonistic contradictions didnt
exist. Since logically Serbians and Albanians cannot be eternal enemies, there must
have been the period in the history when there was no antagonism between them.8
6
Un-declared or silent, as Shkelzen Maliqi very interestingly showed, because he was referring
to some pan-serbian ideologists and shared the same historical conclusion on Serbia and Albania with
the influential immigrant nationalistic pamphlets. Maliqi wrote: Surreptitiously, he smuggled Nedi-
Chetnik-or other Greater Serbia-type of views (Maliqi, 1986: 196).
7
One doesnt need to have a farsighted intuition to recognize the same ideology in the
discourse of given and gifted character of actual Kosovos independency.
8
Indeed this ideology logically does not allow for the eternal animosity between the Serbs and
Albanians. Otherwise that would mean that Serbs and Albanians are equally developed on one issue, on
the timing of their hatred. This is impossible because this ideology is based on absolute unevenness.
Usually it is assumed that this period was before the arrivals of Ottomans. This
historical assumption is the founding thesis of the book of Petrit Imami, Serbs and
Albanians through the Centuries and is an important historical fact of the Tucovis
book on Serbs and Albanians.9 This historical assumption is cited in many cases with
the aim of encouraging the stabilization through an automatics humanist effect of an
otherwise unbearable antagonistic relationship, but at same time it is postponing the
rigorous theoretical discussion on the problematic of this relationship. This means that
by proposing a hypothetical peaceful and harmonious period of Serbian-Albanian
relations it is possible to simplify the otherwise complex ideological determinants
which are crucial in understanding the concrete conditions of this relationship. How is
this harmony imagined? It is possible to clarify this discussion by referring to
Maliqis very effective critique of Bogdanovis imagined harmonious past.
Bogdanovi was fond also of the assumption that Ottomans spoiled the idyllic
relations between the Serbs and Albanians. This relation was idyllic according to
Bogdanovi because the Serbs and Albanians had the perfect example of a
relationship based on feudal principles, where the latter was happily served the
former. This was disturbed by the Ottomans who destroyed this relationship and
appropriated it for their own means by elevating the Albanians from the pre-historic
and blind hordes to the nation which served them until the end of their colonization
of the Balkans. Here we can recognize some very precise structure to this ideology of
the relation with the under-developed. Albania was formed as a nation at the
moment when Ottomans invaded Serbia, and Albanians who stopped being the hordes
in feudal relation with aristocrat Serbs continued to serve (vassalic commitment) the
Ottomans, now as a nation. In this scenario the silent assumption is in fact that
Albanians were manipulated by the Ottomans against the Serbs, moreover that their
national identity, which came to fore with the arrival of the invaders, was the result of
simple manipulation of this invasion policy. This means that the Albanian nation is a
false nation.10 This is actually the same ideological effect from the view which claims
that Albanian communism was false and manipulative communism. This is
historicism in its most absolute, pure and conservative form. Maliqi in his critique of
Bogdanovis book on Kosovo effectively demonstrated the structures of this
ideology and showed the metaphysical character of this historiography very clearly.

Now, after this historical abstraction, we can go back and ask why then couldnt
Maliqi, who was very much aware of these historicist consequences, read historicism
in the book of Tucovi? Even if Maliqi in an abundance of mis-readings of Tucovis
work is momentarily confused when asked if the cause of this situation could be even
slightly because of the writings of Tucovi, his answer is not perplexed: Tucovis
legacy is still valid, it will even be valid for future generations (who knows if we have
reached or surpassed this Tucovi moment?!). While criticizing Bogdanovis
conceptions related to his historicism, Maliqi is showing that he is always
representing the history of Serbs as real, while the history of the Albanians as
prehistoric or archaeological. (Maliqi, 1986: 198). This is very correct and precise

9
We have to keep in mind that Tucovis interpretation of this fact is completely different:
he is seeing it as the sign of the natural co-operation of opressed against the opressor. According to
Tucovi this co-operation was between the Serbians and Albanians when were opressed by common
enemy; it was the unity of proletariat.
10
Maliqi put this image of Albanian identity most concisely: It is a lower-rank identity,
acquired under the circumstances of being under foreign rule, and getting it from those foreign powers-
that-be. It is an identity of servitude, reliance on a foreign administration. (Maliqi, 1986: 203).
formulation of the problem, but this could also be applied without any difficulty to the
theory of Tucovi. The difference between the Bogdanovi and Tucovi is based on
the handling of this historicism; Tucovi is hoping for further development of the
Albanian prehistory to the actual history, while Bogdanovi is convinced that the
formation of the historical nation are complete and he is hoping for an unmasking of
the truth of Albanian historical (national or communist) truth. In both cases there is a
historicist view present in the theory, and in both cases the consequences of this
historicism is somehow re-producing the ideology of an unevenness in relations
between Serbs and Albanians. Probably the easiest way to answer the above question
is to ask one more question: why does Tucovi hope for the development of Albanian
historical being from prehistorical to actual? Or more precisely, what is affirmative
in Tucovis acceleration of the history of Albanian underdevelopment? Tucovi
himself answers this question: True economic emancipation of Balkan peoples lies in
establishing a Balkan economic community (Tucovi, 1945: 140). This economic
union of the Balkan people has not-yet-come, this alternative is only possible within
the societies where the elements of bourgeois (in Tucovi this is interpreted as civil
society, or graanstvo) structure has developed, this is not the case within the nations
of the Balkans; or as Tucovi writes: Only the bourgeois element could be the bearer
of progressive views of political and economic issues, and bearing in mind the
primitivity of Albanians, it is still very much underdeveloped.11 There is a historicist
mission to elevate this element to the point of the uninterrupted blossom of economic
relations. This is not possible without removing the primitive elements which are
obstacles to this evolution. Shkelzen Maliqi is presenting this problematic with a
different vocabulary, but arriving at the same end of culturalizated solutions.
According to him the emphasis on socialist social relations are very important and
necessary both in actuality and in the perspectives of the economical development in
the Kosovo at large. But there are many obstacles, or numerous difficult problems
in this socialist transformation, which Maliqi is referring to as the tectonic forces
of the past, shaped into tradition, even the sort of tradition one calls cultural (Maliqi,
1986a: 191).

The normalization process which this historicist view is assuming is what makes
Tucovi so important not only to Maliqis perpectivist transformation, but to many
cultural and artistic projects based mainly on the ideology of transition.

Epilogue: on the Possibilities of Dealing with Contradictions When Relations are

Over-determined by the Historicism

After all this theoretical discussions on historicist consequences we can draw some
preliminary theses on the issue of contradiction in Serbian-Albanian relations.
Bearing in mind that some aspects of the discussion on contradiction (especially in the
theory of revolutionary moments) could more accurately be defined as manifestations
of history of Marxist theory than explorations of the question of historicism, we can
begin an investigation by combining these two: contradictions in society are
ideologically interpreted as the symptoms of the historicist effectuality, or more
precisely, contradictions are manifestations of the transitions in historical continuity.
11
When in this schema of society the question of Art is added (as requisite to the politics and
economy) we can see very performative solutions where almost all the parameters of the Serbian-
Albanian relationship is changed, except the matrix of relations of progress and citizenship.
Dimitrije Tucovi explained the contradictory elements in the writings of the Serbian
ethnologists concerning the Albanians as being due to the transitory period which
they were at the time passing through (Tucovi, 1945: 47). This is a contradiction of a
historicist interpretation; in this world-view, contradiction is almost synonymous with
paradox and impossibility and it is always manifested as a broken story of historical
homogenous development, which due to the misfortune has became apparent. This is
ideological because it is interpreting the contradictions as strictly connected to
transitions, and according to this world view the contradictions will disappear soon as
the historical development sets itself on the right track. We could demonstrate this by
continuing the detour from the utopia of Tucovi, namely from the imaginary
historical point when, for example, bourgeois Albanian elements developed to such
an extent that the economical co-operation between the Serbs and Albanians is not
impossible anymore. This is the harmonious historicist dream of fulfilment, the
momentary stalemate where peaceful co-existence is proof for the absence of
contradiction. In this article I am not dealing with the theories of contradiction in
connection to Serbian and Albanian relations, this issue deserves more considerable
dedication. As an epilogue I want to deal only with the specific form of this
manifestation related to the discourse of contradiction which exists within the
ideology of historicism: the contradiction between socialism and nationalism.

Since socialism, according to historicist view, fulfilled its mission, and diminished in
the ashes of the history, it is obvious that many people recognize this disappearance as
the consequence of unbearable impossibility, the impossibility of contradiction. This
could be a case of the contradiction between the socialism and private property, or
between socialism and nationalism; but in all cases the basic contradiction is between
the human condition and the socialist condition. In this regard the human condition is
accepted as natural and obvious self-explanatory existence, contrary to socialism
which is understood as a synthetic, unnatural, forced and indoctrinated construction.
In many cases nationalism, which is imagined as a real human need, as the most
natural human condition, is viewed and interpreted as in direct antagonistic
contradiction with the socialism. This is the central thesis of the Walter A. Kemps
book on nationalism and communism which pictures these two as basic
contradictions because communism as an ideology had long since been discredited
in large part due to its inability to come to terms with nationalism... fostering of
internationalism had been a part of the Communist design; ironically, Communisms
failure to cope with nations and nationalism contributed to the strains under which it
withered away. (Kemp, 1999: 206).12 This is also the attempt of the book of Dejan
Jovi who is trying to explain the break up of Yugoslavia through the lens of a basic
contradiction between self-managed socialism and nationalism, which became
unbearable. This is not just an arbitrary mediation on the theories of the contradiction
between socialism and nationalism; but has a very important role to play in
understanding Serbian-Albanian relations. We can recall the earlier accounts of
Bogdanovi and Vueli on the subject of Albanian fake socialism, which they
interpreted as a concealment for the Alabanians hidden nationalist conspiracies. This
implies a complicated situation which we have to solve here; the basic contradiction
between the socialism and nationalism, but there is also another basic contradiction

12
In following pages of his conclusion Kemp is giving the almost medical explanation for the
necessity of nationalism as the human condition: The most important consideration is that nations
show no sign of withering away and we should therefore learn to live with them. (Kemp, 1999: 215).
Kemp was High Commissioner for National Minorities and Senior Adviser for OSCE.
between the nationalism of the Serbs and the nationalism of the Albanians. Since we
saw that the obvious ideological recognition of the first basic contradiction is based
on the discreditedness and un-naturalness of socialism and since the socialism of
the Albanians is especially accepted as false, we can recapitulate this thesis by
accepting that the only possible way to think of the relationship between Serbs and
Albanians is as nationalistic, or, if you like, through their naturalistic conditions.
But the real problem starts here, actually the same old problem occurs now in a new
form, the naturalness or nationality of the Serbs and Albanians are not in symmetric
relation: Albanians are more natural than Serbs, since they were not spoiled by un-
natural socialism (i.e. they dont have their Tucovi and they didnt participate in the
Partisan liberation struggle, etc.). In laymans terms this means that Albanians are in
this case less civilized, and their primitivism (paradoxically achieved also by not
being socialist enough) is what Serbs as the authentic socialists (as the nation who had
its own Tucovi, and whose members died for un-natural historical causes such as
socialism) have to relate with. This is the moment when the situation gets
complicated, because of this asymmetrical relation no equality is possible; if the
relationship is reduced only to naturalness this will reduce the Serbs complex
identity (natural and un-natural) to a uniform naturality. The practical conclusion of
this world view is that the Serbs in relation with the Albanians will ultimately reduce
themselves to primitivism. The ideological justification of this world view
(unfortunately a very fashionable one) is based on the view that Serbs and Albanians
can communicate only as nationalists, and the latter will be infinitely reproduced as
inferior due to the inevitable effect of this structure. That is why Maliqis insistence
on the discourse of Kosovo as revolutionary /socialist achievement is very important.
But unfortunately the historicist view also effects thinking on the otherwise very un-
natural tendencies such as socialism. The reason why we insist on the de-
mystification of the historicist tendencies in Serbian-Albanian relations is based on
these consequences. Especially we have to insist on the rigour of de-mystifying any
historicist tendencies in socialist theories. Because the only un-ideological and equal
relationship which could take place between Serbs and Albanians is through the un-
natural and constructive materialist field of socialist theory and practice.13

13

What is the situation when the relationship is based on the un-natural and constructive theories and practices
but is not socialist? For example when the relations are based on the theory and practice of art? And especially
when relations are based on the art produced in the so called conditions of post-socialist transition? We can say
that the problems of this kind of relations are based on the non-antagonistic contradictions, which has its own logic
of appearance. Which means that these kind of relations (we can call them the relations based on cultural co-
operation) are showing very manifest signs of historicism by dealing with the contradictions as the momentary
mess which will normalize as soon as the conditions of the contradictions pass, or as soon as history continues
with its own latent teleology. We can easily claim, and we dont need much of proof for this, that any insistence on
the normalization in culture is a reproduction of social relations (national or class ) based on non-antagonistic
forms. Even in the case when non-antagonistic relations are problematized, or preserved, they are represented as
the certain impossibility, paradox, mess or chaos.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Althusser, Louis and Etienne Balibar. (2009). Reading Capital. London: Verso.
Blaut, James M. (1987). The National Question: Decolonizing the Theory of
Nationalism. London: Zed Books.
Gligorijevi, Milo. (1984). Odgovor Mie Popovia. Beograd: Nezavisna Izdanja.
Kemp, Walter A. (1999). Nationalism and Communism in Eastern Europe and Soviet
Union: a basic contradiction?. Houndsmills: Macmillian Press.
Maliqi, Shelzen. (1986a). Dimitrije Bogdanovi: Knjiga o Kosovu [Dimitrije
Bogdanovi: Book on Kosovo]. Thema: Reviste e Shoqates se Filozofeve dhe
Sociologeve te ksa Kosoves, 5-6, 188-191.
Maliqi, Shkelzen. (1986). Balkanizovani Tucovi: socijalisti i albansko-srpski odnosi
[Balkanized Tucovi: Socialists and Serbian-Albanian Relations]. NIN, 1859. 17th
August: 46-47.
Popovi, Duan. (1914). Jedna nova knjiga [A New Book]. Borba, 16. februar.
Tucovi, Dimitrije. (1945). Srbija i Arbanija: jedan prilog kritici zavojevake politike
srpske buroazije [Serbia and Albania: A Contribution to the Critique of the
Conqueror Policy of the Serbian Bourgeoisie]. Beograd: Kultura.
Vueli, Milorad and Sava Dautovi. (1986). Tucoviev izazov: Socijalisti i albansko-
srpski odnosi 6 [Challenge posed by Tucovi: Socialists and Serbian-Albanian
Relations 6]. NIN, 1860. 24th August: 46-47.