Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> 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
I know that even thinking about this is often dismissed as utopian. I
would say that as long as the U.S. exists that any revolution in a poor
country must be an armed revolution, because an unarmed one will fall
via U.S. violence or U.S. sponsered violence. Carroll makes one valid
point; you cannot wait until after the revolution to arm the workers,
because the U.S. won't give you that much time. Again I suggest that
you don't have to be an anarchist to learn from the anarchists.
Mind you there are other unexpected places we can learn from; for
example if an armed movement comes to power and genuinely wishes to have
the people rather than a small elite hold power, they might follow one
part of the Swiss model, and truly arm the whole populace (excluding
those with moral objections). This would both protect against extreme
internal repression , and give any would be invaders one hell of an
obstacle.
Incidentally, any revolution via the ballot box in the U.S. would face a
similar challenge to Allendes Chile. Suppose there was an unprecedented
public opinion shift in the U.S., and we could elect a genuinely
socialist government. (Unrealistic I know, but as a thought
expermiment...) Our own military is extremely reactionary; how would we
prevent a coup?
There have been two cases I can think of offhand (Russia, and Portugal)
in which enough army factions supported revolutions to prevent facist
coups. In Portugals case, it was actually a counter-coup by socialist
minded officers who toppled the military dictatorship and instituted
liberal democracy. (They actually wanted Portugal to be socialist, but
were too democratic minded to institute socialism against the will of
the majority of the Portugese people.)
