Carrol Cox wrote: >These states did not fall _because_ they were democratic; they fell >because the U.S. undermined or attacked them. But those who are all hot >for third-world anti-imperialist democracy need to explain how these >states might have survived. It's easy to say, they should arouse the >populace. Gee whiz. They all _did_ arouse the populace. They were all >popular governments. It takes time to turn a populace into an army that >can defend itself -- more time than the US ever has or ever will allow. Ok, so the alternatives are: 1) be open and democratic, and the US will overthrow you, or 2) be autarkic and repressive and your revolution will have failed itself, and your regime will eventually fall because of its own internal contradictions. Is there a third option, as long as the U.S. remains unchallenged? Doug
- Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Jim Devine
- Re: Michael's Question Gar Lipow
- Re: Re: Michael's Question Carrol Cox
- Re: Re: Michael's Question Gar Lipow
- Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Michael Perelman
- Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Jim Devine
- Re: Re: Michael's Question Jim Devine
- Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Macdonald Stainsby
- Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Michael Pugliese
- Re: Re: Michael's Question Carrol Cox
- Re: Michael's Question Doug Henwood
- Re: Michael's Question Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Michael Perelman
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Jim Devine
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Ian Murray
- Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Michael Pugliese
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Jim Devine
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Ian Murray
- Re: Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question Gar Lipow
- Re: Michael's Question Yoshie Furuhashi
- Re: Re: Michael's Question Gar Lipow