If we are being robbed, then I would rather be robbed by our own people than by foreigners. This is a statement that has been sporadically encountered for years in different, related, more or less sophisticated versions within domestic public and private spaces. In different versions, it is part of the murmuring in spaces of lively socialization such as markets, cafes, squares and parks.
Most generally, the claim refers to insufficiently defined and specified, yet ubiquitous insights and impressions of collective material deprivation due to corrupt, clientelistic, and nepotistic social conditions of existence.
The late capitalist-transitional historical stage in which the phrase in question probably experienced its peak in frequency and relevance was the period of the fall of the leading domestic tycoon Ivica Todorić and his numerous associates in the Agrokor affair. There are few better examples than the aforementioned sentence that more vividly illustrate all the paradoxes, misconceptions, and misunderstandings that permeate the economic, political, and social phenomena that can be subsumed under the aforementioned “thesis.”
What exactly is problematic in the above statement? To begin with, they mix and confuse the major categories, nation and class. Ours is meant here as ethnic and national, not social-class. Does class even have a nation? That is, does class need a nation? Does capital have any practical connection with ethnicity?
The concept of identity can serve as a useful tool here. Is a wealthy Croat more related to a wealthy Serb, or is a Croat who barely makes ends meet closer to him? Doesn't a poor gay man have more in common with a poor macho straight man than with a rich gay man? Furthermore, the initial statement also reflects a certain social defeatism, a sense of meaninglessness and helplessness to socially and collectively resist large-scale thefts.
The unwillingness to collectively resist such trends results in a lack of insight that any such theft means our collective deprivation, reduced investment and consequent weakening of crucial public sectors such as health and education. The statement also conceals an unconsciously articulated advocacy of a (neo)feudal order of things.
Ours, who steal from us, and as such have an advantage over the foreigner who also robs us, rests on the summoning of some local lord, feudal lord or aristocrat, as long as he is not a foreign emperor, colonialist or conqueror. Then such a local ruler can also sit on the hill above our heads - no problem, just go ahead - just as the Todorićs occupied the palaces on Sljeme above Zagreb when they were at the peak of their power.
The claim is, after all, infinitely limited. If you think someone is stealing from you, why the hell should the identity of the thief be of primary concern to you? Shouldn't the effort and focus be on trying to do something, to resist it?
See more:
Download the app and follow the news
FOLLOW US ON
