> >CB: So many here are holier than them Soviets.
sez me:
>I've never sent a bunch of troops to suppress the beginnings of democracy
>in Czechoslovakia.
in response:
>CB: Democracy "began" when there when the Nazis were removed by the Red Army.
I guess we disagree about the meaning of the word "democracy." Paging
Comrade Slansky...
sez me:
>In fact, I've never killed _anyone_. So I guess that I'm holier than the
>Soviets, though not necessarily holier than thou.
>CB: All the Soviets killed someone ? Even the art commisars all killed
>someone ? Where's the evidence ? I bet the vast majority of Soviets
>either did not kill anyone or those who killed someone did so in heroic
>self-defense of the country in the wars.
>I think you have an exaggerated notion of Soviets who killed.
I didn't say that "all the Soviets killed" anyone. In fact, I made it clear
that I didn't mean that (though I elided that passage in the current
missive -- look at my previous message in this thread).
I don't like the numbers game ("how many were killed in Cambodia vs. how
many in Indonesia"). But I don't think that the invasion of Czechoslovakia
had anything to do with "heroic self-defense of the country." It had to do
with tired old bureaucrats who wanted to preserve their rule and couldn't
stand any kind of democratic reform.
>The people were not to blame, since they didn't choose that leadership.
>CB: None of them chose that leadership ? Rather overstated.
Okay, a small number of CP bureaucrats chose their own leaders, highly
influenced by the power of the in-group leaders. (Gee, it's kinda similar
to here in the US.) Why this kind of quibble?
>(As Nathan might argue, we in the US are _more_ responsible for crimes
>like this (e.g., the recent terror-bombing of Serbia) because we have a
>bit more say about who are our leaders are than the Soviets did. Of
>course, Nathan would disagree about the parenthetical example I chose.)
>CB: Speak for yourself. I don't have more of a say about who my leaders
>are than the Soviets did. They limit my "choices" to all I people I don't
>want. That means I have ZERO say.
Each out-of-power individual acting alone has zero power (or close to it),
no matter what the system.
But you do have the option of attending a big demonstration or the like,
which can have some impact on our leadership. The anti-war movement won
some victories, for example, speeding the exit of Lyndon Johnson from the
White House. It's true that Nixon intensified the terror-bombing of North
Vietnam, but at least the movement saved the lives of some US troops on the
ground. That's hardly an unmixed victory, but it's not ZERO impact. The
civil rights movement also had some victories.
>That you think you have more of a choice means the U.S. bourgeoisie have
>fooled you. You buy that the U.S. election system is somewhat still
>democratic. You've bought the bourgeois propaganda that this is the Free
>World. False.
I didn't say that the US election system is democratic. Saying that "we
have a bit more say about who are our leaders are than the Soviets did" is
NOT the same as saying that the US electoral system is democratic, since I
deliberately stated it in relative terms.
BTW, I don't think that the bit of democracy we see in the US was _given to
people_ by the capitalists. There are lots of examples of capitalism that
are totally undemocratic (e.g, Nazi Germany). The little bit of democracy
was won by struggle from below, starting with the Bill of Rights, which was
a response to the anti-Federalists and "Shay's rebellion." The powers that
be keep on struggling to reduce civil liberties, so efforts from below
continue to be necessary.
You say that the U.S. election system is not "still democratic." When was
it democratic?
Finally, there's no point in throwing insults at me (e.g., that I've
"bought the bourgeois propaganda that this is the Free World"). I find that
all that insults do is to reduce my regard for those who use them.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
