janw@inmet.UUCP (02/15/86)
[michael@ucbjade] /* ---------- "Re: (Fellow-)Travelers" ---------- */ >I disagree. Nicaragua is different. > 1) Nicaragua has had pluralistic democratic elections (certified by >independent international organizations). Credible organizations ? Warsaw Pact is an international organi- zation, too... Anyway, I'm not sure it is relevant to the par- ticular topic of discussion. Germany, Italy, Russia, Soviet- occupied Hungary and Poland all had multiparty elections after the totalitarian forces were already in power. On the other hand, Mexico's elections are a sham, yet it is not totalitarian. > 2) Nicaragua is neither communist nor totalitarian. There is a large >amount of private ownership (well over 50% of the country). Much of the economy is privately "owned"; but it is government controlled. The same was true of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (totalitarian countries). The same was true of the USSR in the 20's; and is now true of China, Yugoslavia, Poland (Communist countries). Nicaragua is *communist* in the sense that the ruling party is Leninist. It is Leninist in three senses: (1) it says it is and derives its goals from that tradition; (2) it is built on the Le- ninist model (in particular, no factions are allowed); and (3) it is part of an international community of Communist ruling par- ties: what is called in the USSR, "the Socialist camp". Nicaragua is *totalitarian* in the sense that its political ar- chitecture is. That is, the system of institutions in which real power resides is built on the totalitarian model: --the monolithic militant ruling Party; --the secret police responsible only to it; --the comprehensive network of Party-affiliated youth organizations, trade unions, cooperatives, neighborhood organizations etc.; --ideologized armed forces; --ideologized, Party-controlled schools and child-care institutions; --the pervasive, state-funded propaganda machine; --the omnipresent surveillance; --the task of transforming society declared a national goal; --official manicheism: the nation declared an armed camp besieged by forces of darkness; --not merely obedience, but active political participation ex- pected from the populace; --the media, the arts and literature not merely censored, but *mobilized* in the task of transforming the people and creating the New Man, as well as defeating the demonic enemy. In this sense, totalitarianism is *binary*. It's a package deal. E.g., political architecture of Mussolini's Italy and of Hitler's Germany was essentially the same. *All* the above features were there, and others I could name; and so they were in Russia, Chi- na, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Albania, Vietnam. There's a *pattern*, easy to recognize once you've learned it. Noticing a few features, you can *predict* the others, and not be mistaken. Once in power, this political machine tends to transform the whole society, eliminating all forms of social life independent of it. *This* aspect of totalitarianism is *not* binary: the pro- cess is gradual. E.g., Germany went much further than Italy down that road, and in shorter time. In *this* sense Nicaragua *is* different; but they all are. E.g., contacts with outside world are discouraged to a different degree. In Nicaragua, less than in Soviet Russia, but more than in Fascist Italy. A recent visitor writes: "In the three weeks I was in Nicaragua I did not see a single foreign noncommunist newspaper or news magazine for sale". > 3) I for one have travelled to Nicaragua fairly indepedendently and >personally know others who have either lived in Nicaragua for weeks or months >and/or have travelled their without tours. Right. No one claimed *all* travel was on guided tours. The dis- cussion was of the travelers' psychology. Hollander's article "The New Political Pilgrims" in the August issue of Commentary should be interesting in this respect: it is specifically about Nicaragua. I have not read it yet, though. Jan Wasilewsky
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (02/17/86)
In article <7801001@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > >[michael@ucbjade] >/* ---------- "Re: (Fellow-)Travelers" ---------- */ >>I disagree. Nicaragua is different. >> 1) Nicaragua has had pluralistic democratic elections (certified by >>independent international organizations). > >Credible organizations ? Yes. The information is publicly available. >Nicaragua is *totalitarian* in the sense that its political ar- >chitecture is. That is, the system of institutions in which real >power resides is built on the totalitarian model: >--the monolithic militant ruling Party; [etc. -- long list] That is NOT what "totalitarian" means, as ordinarily understood in discourse on political theory -- although such terms will always have fuzzy boundaries. A well-known definition is that of Carl Friedrich: A totalitarian regime is an autocracy with all of the following characteristics: --a totalist ideology --a single party committed to this ideology --a fully developed secret police --monopolistic control of mass communications --monopolistic control of operational weapons --monopolistic control of all organizations (including economic ones) [See Friedrich, Curtis & Barber, *Totalitarianism in Perspective*, and Friedrich's article therein, "The Evolving Theory and Practice of Totalitarian Regimes".] In general, then, a totalitarian state is one in which all voices of criticism are silenced as a matter of government policy, or at least all criticism aimed at the legitimacy of the state and its leaders and ruling party. All tolerance for dissent disappears when the state is threatened. All organizations -- universities, unions, churches, professional associations, etc. -- are forced to become subservient to the state. Nicaragua does not at all fit this description. Nicaraguans are not afraid to speak out against the government without concealing their identities, and this at a time when the government is under attack from the contras and in serious economic difficulties. This says a lot to me, and should say something to Jan. >--the omnipresent surveillance; I thought "omnipresent" meant "present everywhere". >--the task of transforming society declared a national goal; Shocking. Any decent government in Central America wants to transform the society. Did you mean something more specific? >--official manicheism: the nation declared an armed camp besieged > by forces of darkness; If this is true, which I'm not sure about, how does it make Nicaragua totalitarian? A famous British Prime Minister spoke about Britain in similar terms, during WWII. >--not merely obedience, but active political participation ex- > pected from the populace; Could you be more specific, and also explain how this implies totalitarianism. Perhaps Jan believes that Nicaragua is bound to *become* totalitarian, barring an overthrow by the contras. If so, let him present his reasons. The following does not count as an argument: >In this sense, totalitarianism is *binary*. It's a package deal. >E.g., political architecture of Mussolini's Italy and of Hitler's >Germany was essentially the same. *All* the above features were >there, and others I could name; and so they were in Russia, Chi- >na, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Albania, Vietnam. There's a *pattern*, easy >to recognize once you've learned it. Noticing a few features, you >can *predict* the others, and not be mistaken. Such generalizations are dangerous. What set of similar characteristics would enable one to conclude that country X will follow the path taken by e.g., Cuba? All you can claim is that there is a correlation among several countries, which in itself proves nothing about causality. The task of historical analysis, as opposed to ideology, is to figure out just what caused what in each specific situation. Then, using what has been learned, we can apply it to Nicaragua, which differs from the above-named countries in numerous respects, as well as being similar to them. I guess I should expect to read next that Daniel Ortega is really a dictator, that the government's relocation of civilians is really Stalinism, and that Nicaragua is in reality fascist -- suggestions are welcome. But such label-mongering advances no one's understanding of a historical reality which, like all post-revolutionary societies, is exceedingly complex and difficult to analyze. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes