> "Devine, James" wrote: > > okay. I wonder, though, about Soviet workers' support for their > government (that Andie points to). What are we to conclude? what are > we to say about the support by US workers for US imperialism in the > current era? > > you can use any definition you want, but how useful is the definition? > all sorts of governments (e.g., in Burma) say that they're doing it > all for the greater good. Should we take these assertions at face > value? > > Jim > >
No answer to these questions will be really satisfactory, and only occasionally, perhaps, is it worth really trying to answer them. But there is substance to a point often made by various writers from various political positions and in various words: when nothing is left but force, nothing is left. I would interpret this as assuming that most regimes most of the time _do_ have the substantial support of the governed. One possible measure is how much effort the populace will give to opposing a foreign invasion. By that criterion, I think that it is likely, not certain, that the Soviet regime of the 1930s (at least outside the Ukraine) did have substantial support of the workers and peasants. I think someone pointed out that the terror, for the most part, was directed against the state and party apparatus, not the masses of the population. That is (was) not true in Burma (Cambodia)? In South Africa? Elections that are substantive manifestations of the actual state of consciousness have been few and far between? They are evidence, but not all the evidence and not necessarily conclusive. Carrol Carrol
