Last point on this: I wonder if Chile et. al. really fell because they
were not repressive enough? Could it have something to do with the fact
that in all the cases mentioned, the military were reactionary, and thus
ready to overthrow the democratically chosen govenrments? (The only
exception to
I don't think that anybody ever suggested that repression was sufficient.
I don't think that anybody ever suggested that it should be a major
aspect. Jim's point is that it should be a minor factor.
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 05:59:12AM -0700, Gar Lipow wrote:
Last point on this: I wonder if
Carrol Cox wrote:
Do you draw any distinction between the hypothetical situation of a
revolutionary society in the U.S., EU, or Japan on the one hand, the
rest of the world on the other hand? Do you want the same answer for
What would a Socialist U.S. be like? and What would a Socialist
Bolivia
I wrote:
It would be even harder if it tried democracy more serious -- i.e.,
socialist democracy -- than the current US system.
Macdonald wrote:
Given all the factors that you correctly outlined as to the Cuban situation in
the Carribbean beneath America, (etc) it would do us well not to
Gar wrote:
I tend to think that government (socialist or otherwise) will be at
least as repressive as it's population will tolerate, and that when
under attack from outside, a population will tend to tolerate a great
deal. In short revolutions under attack from a strong outside force will
tend
At 05:59 AM 09/04/2001 -0700, you wrote:
Last point on this: I wonder if Chile et. al. really fell because they
were not repressive enough?
is it possible that Allende fell because he didn't want to risk a civil war
by arming the workers to defend democracy against Pinochet?
Jim Devine [EMAIL
Gar Lipow wrote:
I tend to think that government (socialist or otherwise) will be at
least as repressive as it's population will tolerate,
This personifies government, ripping it out of the concrete context of
activity in which an actual government exists. General remarks about
- Original Message -
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem with anarchism, as I understand it, is that its opposition to
the state (centralized authority power) _per se_ implies an opposition to
democracy, since without a state to enforce the rules, you can't have
Could it have something to do with the fact
that in all the cases mentioned, the military were reactionary, and thus
ready to overthrow the democratically chosen govenrments?
Not the entirety of the Chilean military. Remember that the
constitutionist General Prats that was assasinated to make
Jim Devine wrote:
Of course, even earlier, Guatemala's Arbenz tried to run an open,
democratic, society while instituting reforms to help the people. It
provoked US intervention and his overthrow. And as Carrol mentioned, the US
marines overthrew Bosch's democratic government in the
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
Macdonald writes:
The problem with anarchism, as I understand it, is that its opposition to
the state (centralized authority power) _per se_ implies an opposition to
democracy, since without a state to enforce the rules, you can't have
democracy except under utopian conditions.
It's
we should also distrust those who stand above society and decide
which
movements from below are revolutionary (and thus okay) and which are
counterrevolutionary (and thus not good). That decision can only be
made
democratically. And those above -- i.e., in positions of power --
are
just as
The accts. of the overthrow of Arbenz in such books as the one by Richard
Immerman, The CIA in Guatemala, Univ. of Texas Press and the Kinzer and
Schlesinger book, Bitter Fruit, (and an out of print book by a CIA agent
in Iran that helped to overthrow Mossedeq, blanking on his name.
I wrote:
we should also distrust those who stand above society and decide
which movements from below are revolutionary (and thus okay) and which
are counterrevolutionary (and thus not good). That decision can only be
made democratically. And those above -- i.e., in positions of power --
I have to run to class, but a quick answer is that we in the US have the
obligation to try to help to create the space for No. 3.
On Tue, Sep 04, 2001 at 01:00:50PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
Ok, so the alternatives are: 1) be open and democratic, and the US
will overthrow you, or 2) be
Dr. Arrow, Dr. Arrow, you're wanted in intensive careThe
voters
can't agree...Dr. Arrow
You'll note that in his book _Social Choice and Individual Values_,
Kenneth
Arrow pointed to similar problems for all other methods of social
decision-making. It's not just with voting.
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
Actual there are some answers to this that do not require utopian
assumptions about human nature. Basically, there are anarchists who
distinguish between state and 'polity'. So the commune up the stream
can't put up a nuclear power plant because it is part of a larger polity
that votes against
I asked:
Ian, what's your alternative to democracy as the main political
principle?
He answers:
Hey, I'm with Churchill on this one.
do you think that Churchill _really _ liked democracy?
=
How's the quote go; democracy is the worst form of government, except
for all the
Ian writes:
How's the quote go; democracy is the worst form of government, except
for all the others? Do you _really_ think I'm a fan of Churchillian
personalities?
no, I don't. I was reacting to the fact that Churchill -- who was clearly
an anti-democrat -- gets quoted so often on this issue.
I wrote: I ask the question: what happens if the anarcho-syndicalist
commune across the river democratically decides to build a nuclear power
plant (or to pollute the river)?...The answer, of course, is that they
wouldn't do it, since they're properly emancipated.
Gar wrote:
Actual there
Ian writes:
How's the quote go; democracy is the worst form of government,
except
for all the others? Do you _really_ think I'm a fan of
Churchillian
personalities?
no, I don't. I was reacting to the fact that Churchill -- who was
clearly
an anti-democrat -- gets quoted so often on this
http://www.mises.org/wardlibrary_detail.asp?control=5264
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/8269.html
-Original Message-
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:48 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:16705] Re: Re: Re: Michael's
- Original Message -
From: Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:46 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:16705] Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question
I wrote: I ask the question: what happens if the
anarcho-syndicalist
commune across the river democratically
Doug Henwood wrote:
Carrol Cox wrote:
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
Yes, Doug says that with Cuba, it could only happen because of the USSR. Castro did
not seem as a threat at first, an only later when he threated expropriations did he
run into serious danger. Even with the Soviet support, think of all the dangers that
he faced. When Jim Devine and I were in
Michael Perelman wrote:
Just imagine if a power, much, much mightier than the US were to
flood us with media
that undermined the society. Pumping out TV, Radio, Newspapers, and
subsidizing and
arming violent opponents of the government.
Michael, I'm completely opposed to the arming of
Michael Perelman wrote:
Yes, Doug says that with Cuba, it could only happen because of the USSR.
You didn't answer any of my other questions about a post-liberal
revolutionary society.
Doug
Doug Henwood wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
Yes, Doug says that with Cuba, it could only happen because of the USSR.
You didn't answer any of my other questions about a post-liberal
revolutionary society.
Do you draw any distinction between the hypothetical situation of a
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Monday, September 03, 2001 6:54 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:16643] Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question
Michael Perelman wrote:
Just imagine if a power, much, much mightier than the US were to
flood us with media
that undermined the society. Pumping out TV, Radio
I don't really have much to contribute. US popular culture is powerful,
perhaps some sort of bandwagon effect, where everyone wants to identify
with what is popular.
On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 09:54:36PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote:
Michael Perelman wrote:
Yes, Doug says that with Cuba, it could
At 07:39 PM 09/03/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Do
you have any retroactive advice for Juan Bosch or Salvador Allende or
[memory block: the Panamanian president who died in a plane crash]?
Omar Torrijos (who was replaced by America's Friend, the drug-friendly
tyrant, Manuel Noriega, who was later
Andrew wrote:
The United States, India, Israel, Turkey, and Mexico were able to
remain both open societies and independent. Each of these successful
nations embraced capitalism, albeit to different extents. One
additional item to add to Michael's list would be that the revolution
is socialist in
Nicely put.
Jim Devine wrote:
A party's dictatorship is justified in the
end only if it uses it to build popular power. Unfortunately, the US and
other imperialist powers consistently push these parties to make the
decisions that make the most sense militarily rather than democratically.
--
Re: Cuba, Jim Devine writes:
It would be even harder if it tried democracy more serious -- i.e.,
socialist democracy -- than the current US system.
Given all the factors that you correctly outlined as to the Cuban situation in
the Carribbean beneath America, (etc) it would do us well not to
36 matches
Mail list logo
