Carrol Cox wrote:
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me ask a different question: a revolution has broken out in a poor
>> economy, without the ability to confront the imperialism powers head on.
>> Clandestine operations can do great damage to the society. Less committed
>> citizens can be bribed. Misinformation can confuse people,
>>creating factional
>> divisions. Suppose further that the society is divided among
>>different ethnic
>> groups?
>>
>> How far will an open society get?
>>
>
>It seems to me the answer is "An Open Society will only get them a
>bloodbath" (Chile is paradigmatic here).
>
>For revolutionaries under such conditions to create an "open society"
>can be rephrased: They would do so only on the basis of trusting the
>United States. Juan Bosch, who attempted to build an open society in
>Santo Domingo, commented later that all patriotic Latin American leaders
>who trusted the U.S. ended up dead or in exile.
So you've settled on the inevitability of a "closed society." Could
you offer some details? Would we be allowed to carry on as critical
political economy types on PEN-L? Would newspapers publish freely?
Elections? Parties? Independent unions? How many people would get
shot? Let's put some detail on this closed society of yours.
And let's talk about this "poor economy" and its revolution of one.
How big is this poor economy? Could a lone Cuban-style revo survive
more than a few minutes in a world without the USSR?
Please tell us more about your post-liberal imaginings.
Doug
