- 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-
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: R
> 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 of
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 th
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 iss
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. I
> >"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.
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 a
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 po
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. Inter
>
> 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
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.
>
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 t
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 mak
- 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 hav
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
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
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
>B
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 Chil
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 ov
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 co
m
-Original Message-
From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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, m
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
r
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
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 vi
25 matches
Mail list logo
