janw@inmet.UUCP (10/10/85)
/* ---------- "Re: Re: Nicaraguan Parallel: Some k" ---------- */ > All I can say Tim is, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks > like a duck....... T. C. Wheeler > So when are we invading Mexico and India as "hotbeds of Marxist > totalitarianaism"? > Too bad we missed the opportunity to invade Daley's Chicago ... > tim sevener whuxl!orb Neither the Mexican ruling party, nor the Indian one, is monol- ithic.*) This is what preserves their other liberties. Of course, neither nation is totalitarian (nor Marxist, but this is less important). Nicaragua is both... not that it should be invaded. For now, let us just recognize a Contra government. However, your Chicago idea sounds nice ! :-) ______________ *) On party unity, see "The Foundations of Leninism", by Joseph Stalin. Jan Wasilewsky
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (10/11/85)
> > Neither the Mexican ruling party, nor the Indian one, is monol- > ithic.*) This is what preserves their other liberties. Of > course, neither nation is totalitarian (nor Marxist, but this > is less important). Nicaragua is both... not that it should be > invaded. For now, let us just recognize a Contra government. > > Jan Wasilewsky Just like the Department of State white papers on Nicaragua, US govt propagandists like Jan here make bold statements without supporting evidence. When footnotes are given, the likely quotees are Heritage Foundation Reports and the National Review (if not an older Dept. of State Report). What leads you to believe that Nicaragua is ``totalitarian''? The fact that 60% of GNP is produced by the private sector? The fact that economic support for the current regime is quite diversified? The fact that there are lots of (*gasp*) Cubans in the country as elementary and secondary level teachers, doctors, nurses, and even military advisors? The fact that the US embassy sits on a hill overlooking Managua like a vulture in a tree? (to support your thesis that Nicaragua is totalitarian, you might read the May/June issue of *NACLA Reports on the Americas* -- please recommend any readings on Nicaragua which you feel to be definitive (seriously, all irony aside)) Marxists in the government! Ohmigosh! What's worse, they're nationalist Marxists who don't tow the Soviet line - looks bad for US propaganda when you've got a Marxist government pushing policies of non-alignment and a diversified economy. Like ducks, there are many kinds of Marxists. Me, for instance - look what a fine person I've turned into, following my becoming a Marxist (i.e., learned to think for myself) during my junior year at that hotbed of liberalism, Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio). A 50 an~os...Sandino vive. My eight articles for the local student newspaper should be coming along in a week and a half, or so. I've got about three of eight written so far. Thanks for paying attention, jeff
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/13/85)
Jeff: you come at the end of a long discussion. You must be some- what disoriented - judging by the fact that, out of 30 lines of your response, not *one* addresses anything *I* have said. The score is unusual even for this net. For your benefit, I attach an excerpt from earlier polemics which should make my position clear. Preceding this, I'll touch on some of your points (even though they don't touch on mine). > >[janw] > > Neither the Mexican ruling party, nor the Indian one, is monol- > > ithic.*) This is what preserves their other liberties. Of > > course, neither nation is totalitarian (nor Marxist, but this > > is less important). Nicaragua is both... not that it should be > > invaded. For now, let us just recognize a Contra government. > > ------------- > > *) On party unity, see "The Foundations of Leninism", by Joseph Stalin. > Just like the Department of State white papers on Nicaragua, US govt > propagandists like Jan here make bold statements without supporting > evidence. Are you *really* saying I am a govt propagandist, or does it just sound that way ? > When footnotes are given, the likely quotees are Heritage > Foundation Reports and the National Review ... As anyone can see above, the footnote in what you are answering was from a *very* different source . However, addressing your statement: did you discover gross factu- al errors in the publications *you* mention, or are you just try- ing to discredit them by innuendo? Not to avoid the issue: I find these sources quite reliable. > What leads you to believe that Nicaragua is ``totalitarian''? The fact > that 60% of GNP is produced by the private sector? Again: who are you arguing against? In Nazi Germany the percentage you quote was even higher, yet the country was undoubtedly totalitarian. > Marxists in the government! Ohmigosh! Did I ever use their Marxism as evidence of totalitarianism ? Who are you talking to, Jeff ? The subject was so insignificant to me that I never addressed it before. But *now* I'll say that Marxist-*Leninist* ideology pro- vides *some* evidence of what *model* the people in power wish to emulate. The point then becomes: have they succeeded in emulat- ing it. > What's worse, they're nationalist > Marxists who don't tow the Soviet line - looks bad for US propaganda when > you've got a Marxist government pushing policies of non-alignment and a > diversified economy. Like ducks, there are many kinds of Marxists. Does one have to toe the Soviet line to be totalitarian ? Did Hitler ? Did Mao ? This is a quite different issue, but not to avoid it, I'll say that, in my opinion, they *are* toeing the Soviet line, and their non-alignment is as phony as Castro's. Whoever doubts it might try and name some major occasion of their publicly disagreeing with the USSR. A UN vote, maybe ? Now for the promised excerpts: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Glad to know the Sandinista thugs were democratically elected. > >But then , haven't you heard, so was Michael Gorbachev -- or have > >you cancelled your subscription to Pravda ??? [ Ari Gross ] > ... could you please restate the (conclusive, no doubt) his- > torical, political, and moral justification for referring to > the Sandanista [sic] government as "thugs"? And could you please > review your analysis indicating the parallel between the govern- > mental structure of the USSR and Nicaragua? [ Jim Balter (ima!jim)] I cannot speak for Ari Gross, BUT if you ever see a country where pre-schoolers are militarized and singing slogans in sweet unison, you can bet your subscription to Pravda :-) that here is yet another implementation of a familiar model of government. The country can be called the USSR, nazi Germany, or Cuba, or Ni- caragua, and the slogans may differ, but the political structure, the "technology of power" varies remarkably little. Apparently, the model, to work at all, must hang together. Besides, the social engineers who crafted this particular copy had their blueprints all ready. E.g., Nicaraguan secret police has been planned, organ- ized, and is still run by East German professionals, heirs to the finest traditions of both Gestapo and the KGB. The word "thugs" is probably redundant here. -- Jan Wasilewsky /* End of text from inmet:net.politics */ /* Written 9:51 pm Sep 20, 1985 by janw@inmet.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ [responding to Larry Kolodney's response] Larry: thank you for actually reading before responding. This is not always true on the net, and I am pleasantly impressed. I did not expect to answer any more responses on this sequence, but I'll answer yours. I agree with you to the extent that repression in Nicaragua is not (for now) on the Soviet, or Chinese, or Cuban scale. What I was arguing was that the *machinery* of repression is in place; so that, there being no checks or balances, it is merely a matter of *policy* when this machinery starts working full speed. I was also arguing that this mechanism forms a recognizable whole, copied from a master copy. If so, all of its parts need not be visible for it to be recognized. Just a little feature might be sufficient: if it quacks like a duck, etc. ... True, a glaring contradiction might (in principle) be discovered that would disprove my assumptions: my duck might turn out to be a platipus, after all. However, these assumptions are based on a long historical perspective. Other regimes with similar attributes had also their spells of relative mildness, and high hopes were raised, inside and abroad; however, the "technology of power" (the term belongs to A. Avtorkhanov whose book under the same title I recommend) kept being perfected and strengthened. It could not be any different: totalitarian model of governmernt is the most perfect way, so far invented, for a group in power to stay in power. So the people who had it would not have it dismantled. For a time they kept adding improvements, Mussolini borrowing from Lenin, and Hitler from Mussolini, and Stalin from Hitler. By now it is perfect and frozen. Before I turn to your specific points (my main objection will always be that you are talking policy while I am talking political structure), let me discuss your final conclusion. You are saying, basically, that Nicaraguan state is now half-Leninist, and external pressures would only give them an excuse to go the whole hog. My objection is three-fold. First, I believe (as stated above) that totalitarianism (like pregnancy) is binary. Second objection is empirical: pressures (including military ones) appear to have made the Sandinistas much more restrained. If it works, why fix it? Thirdly, this "excuse" argument seems to me surprisingly naive. Is anyone, are, especially, dictators, ever short of excuses ? Hitler had excuses for attacking Poland, Stalin for attacking Finland. It is not excuses Ortega is lacking. Now for some detail: > > - no dissent within the ruling Party; > Please provide evidence of no dissent within Sandanista party. I meant, of course, *open* dissent. I think the onus is on you. Proving the absence of something is kind of hard. I believe this item very important. If you could demonstrate significant factionalism, spilling out into general public, in Sandinista Party (as there was in Russia till mid-twenties, and in Germany till summer 1934), I would revise my estimate of Nicaragua from "totalitarian" to "incipient totalitarian". > > - secret police unchecked by any other institution > > but the Party; > This is a problem in Nicaragua. However, you never hear of any evidence of > torture, and little evidence of other major abuses that you might expect from > a KGB-like organization. True or false, it's a matter of policy, changeable at whim. > > - a net of informers sufficient to report on every citizen; > There are informers in Nicaragua, but I know of no evidence that that > are as omnipresent as you claim. There are also informers in this country. I've read of at least one informer per every block. > > - Propaganda a major item of budget; > Sad, but true. However, propoganda is a major item in the budget of > any nation under attack. Nations like this are always under attack. Like Oceania in 1984. This started long before any real attack, or threat of attack, existed. > > - armed forces politicized; > True. But given the circumstances of their rise to power, not surprising. I agree, but this does not change the significance of it. Again, I am not discussing their intentions, but the tools at their disposal. > > - a network of Party-affiliated organizations covering all > > areas of life, cradle to grave; > Evidence? Sketchy, but non-contradictory. The kindergarten picture I started with, peasant cooperatives, unions, illiteracy elimination groups, militia, all this wonderful stuff - it is all under party leadership, isn't it ? > > - anti-government demonstrations (of course) made impossible, > > but also pro-government ones made compulsory; > Untrue. There was just recently a major protest by the leading business > group in Nicaragua. Come on, leading businessmen (as long as they exist) can get away with a lot (as they recently did in South Africa). Show me anti-Sandinista mass rallies like they have even in South Africa, even in Chile. True, they are dispersed there, but they assemble first. Not in Nicaragua. That net of informers must be thicker, and work better, than you give them credit for. > > - censorship (of course) suppressing anti-regime information; > > but also *insufficiently pro-regime* information; > Censorship exists, but it is not nearly on the level of Soviet or > Chinese censorship. Many anti-government articles DO get printed (although > others don't). The examples of censored articles I saw were innocent news that La Prensa could not predict would be censored. Real anti-government stuff, they don't even try. > > - the country declared a military camp; > Untrue. Only those areas that are actually in the war zone are such. There > is freedom of movement in the rest of the country. I didn't mean martial law. I meant that "nation under attack", "them vs. us" mentality . In Russia they always speak of "Socialist Camp" and "Capitalist Camp", in Nicaragua it's "Yankees, the enemies of humanity", and all their neighbors are accomplices, too. > > - foreign connections made difficult; and so on. > Untrue. Foreigners are welcomed to travel freely in Nicaragua. *Foreigners*, maybe. What about Nicaraguans ? Foreigners are relatively free to come to East Germany. East Germans are shot as they scale that wall. I've read of a woman who admitted how she had snitched with extra zeal on the people in her block, for several months, so they would let her visit her relatives in Guatemala. Do you know how much a phone call costs from there to here ? I forgot the exact figure, but it is hundreds of dollars. ________________ P.S. I am not against talking to Ortega. I am certainly not against talking to Castro, who has done much more harm; but he is here to stay, at least for a while. In Nicaragua, the damage may still be undone. Toppling the Sandinistas is infinitely more attractive than any concessions they might make, or promise. We've seen so many lizards grow to dragons through neglect and vacillation. Just think back to Petrograd, 1918. If Britain and France (or, for that matter, Germany) had *really* intervened (as Soviet historians always claim they did) - what oceans of blood and suffering, and the present threat of extinction, would the world have been spared. Churchill was then, as usual, right. Jan Wasilewsky
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (10/14/85)
> > Are you *really* saying I am a govt propagandist, or does it just > sound that way ? > Yep, that's what I was saying: you've learned to read me well in only a short time - this could be a great relationship! > > When footnotes are given, the likely quotees are Heritage > > Foundation Reports and the National Review ... [or even other > > State Department publications.] [Interesting that you editted that one.] > > As anyone can see above, the footnote in what you are answering > was from a *very* different source . > Your only footnote in two articles has been Lenin - I suggested that you read the May/June issue of NACLA Reports on the Americas, with a request that you suggest something which you read and liked for me to read. Please tell us some of the stuff you've read -- where do you get your information? And remember, kiddies, never BUY a publication of the opposition - that's what libraries are for (I'm going to Memorial Library today to pick up a copy of Christian's book and one of the three govt white papers they have there). Jan, you'll probably want to do the same with the NACLA report. For those of you out there interested in purchasing this expose' on Sandinista foreign policy, send $3.75 to NACLA, 151 W. 19th St., New York, NY 10011. Hasta luego, jeff m
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (10/14/85)
> > Now for the promised excerpts: > ------------------------------------------------------- > My, my, Jan's so proud of his articles that he saves them! I save other peoples' articles rather than my own, not having unlimited disk space. > > Before I turn to your specific points (my main > objection will always be that you are talking > policy while I am talking political structure), > let me discuss your final conclusion. > The National Assembly is now in the process of drafting the new Nicaraguan Constitution - you are correct in saying that structure is a very important thing - let's see how the contitution comes out and whether or not it is ratified. However, one should also judge a given structure by its history and past and present policies: structure does not exist in a vacuum. > > > There are informers in Nicaragua, but I know of no evidence that that > > are as omnipresent as you claim. There are also informers in this country. > > I've read of at least one informer per every block. > And I've read of a chicken in every pot in the US - it's just that some of the pots are in church sponsored soup kitchens. WHERE have you read this? > > Show me anti-Sandinista mass rallies like they have even in > South Africa, even in Chile. True, they are dispersed there, but > they assemble first. Not in Nicaragua. That net of informers > must be thicker, and work better, than you give them credit for. > Such rallies certainly occurred during the elections, in support of Arturo Cruz (leader of the splinter Coordinadora parties), for the PLI and for the PCD (Liberals and Conservatives). There was a problem with FSLN youth harassment of some of these gatherings, which should rightly not be condoned, especially harassment of the PLI and PCD, which were registered electoral parties. See the State Dept white paper on the election. Another good source is the report of the University of Texas - Austin's Latin American Studies Association, titled "The Electoral Process in Nicaragua: Domestic and International Influences". The delegation of 15 US scholars observed that "the Sandinista government deliberately chose a West European-style proportional representation system that would maximize representation of opposition parties in the national legislature." > > > Untrue. Only those areas that are actually in the war zone are such. There > > is freedom of movement in the rest of the country. > > I didn't mean martial law. I meant that "nation under attack", > "them vs. us" mentality . In Russia they always speak > of "Socialist Camp" and "Capitalist Camp", > in Nicaragua it's "Yankees, the enemies of humanity", > and all their neighbors are accomplices, too. > Maybe you should read a little Nicaraguan (the Poland of Central America) history. The US invaded in 1855, 1912, and 1927, then aided the Somoza family in sitting on the country from 1933 to 1979. > > Do you know how much a phone call costs from there to here ? > I forgot the exact figure, but it is hundreds of dollars. > Jan, you're full of shit. You probably saw an old figure in C$, or co'rdobas, the analogue to the dollar in Nicaragua, also referred to as pesos. The figure now is probably a few thousand cords to call the US (C$680 per US $1, more or less). This is a hefty sum for a Nicaraguan, and not real cheap for a North American. jeff m
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (10/16/85)
> > [janw] (Re: Nicaragua) > Does one have to toe the Soviet line to be totalitarian ? Did > Hitler ? Did Mao ? > > This is a quite different issue, but not to avoid it, I'll say > that, in my opinion, they *are* toeing the Soviet line, and > their non-alignment is as phony as Castro's. Whoever doubts > it might try and name some major occasion of their publicly > disagreeing with the USSR. A UN vote, maybe ? ---- Just for the record, Nicaragua abstained on the U. N. resolution condemning the USSR for the invasion of Afghanistan. Of course, that was five years ago, when Carter was still in office, and the Sandinistas were still receiving U. S. aid. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
djs@nbires.UUCP (Diana Spalding) (10/17/85)
> Neither the Mexican ruling party, nor the Indian one, is monol- > ithic.*) This is what preserves their other liberties. Of > course, neither nation is totalitarian (nor Marxist, but this > is less important). Nicaragua is both... not that it should be > invaded. For now, let us just recognize a Contra government. > > > Jan Wasilewsky Recognize a contra government? RECOGNIZE A CONTRA GOVERNMENT????? Sure why don't we recognize a group as government that tears the skin off of people's faces while their children are forced to watch, a group that tears bodies into shreds and displays the pieces for family members to see, a group of terrorists that burn hospitals and schools and rape women as common practice, a group that tears the wombs out of pregnant women and uses babies for target practice. It would be quite fitting for the U.S. to recognize such a group as a legitimate government. So sure, let's put the contras in charge. So what if all those damn Latin Americans lose everything they gained under the Sandinistas, like literacy campaigns that are actually teaching children and adults alike how to read, many for the first time, like nutrition programs that insure for the first time that the people are getting the proper diet to stay healthy, like the fantastic improvements in medical care, and a large decrease in the infant mortality rate, like workable transportation and communication, like worker salaries that are much more reasonable than under Somoza, like much better working conditions throughout the country, like the Sandinistas' reworking of the agricultural system so that food that the people can eat is actually grown, instead of just exports, like basic human rights that many Nicaraguans are seeing for the first time in their lives. But that's no big loss, right? After all they don't even *look* like us, why should we care about them????? Sorry for the sarcasm, but the thought that someone is even suggesting that we recognize the contras as the Nicaraguan government really makes me ill. I urge anyone out there who wonders what's going on in Nicaragua to go down and see for yourselves. Nicaragua is a free country. You can go where you want when you want, by yourself or with a group. It is a beautiful place geographically, and it is filled with beautiful warm open friendly people. Nicaragua is definitely not dominated by the Soviets. One of the major goals of the Sandinista government is to not be aligned with either super power, but to trade with everyone and maintain friendly relations. Of course they can't trade with the U.S. because we are refusing (and we're also waging war against them). The Nicaraguan government does trade with the Soviet Union, and also with Canada, and several western European countries. In addition to that it is amazing how much help the Sandinistas are getting from other countries. When I was down there, I was amazed at how many Europeans and Americans I met who are *living* down there to help out in whatever ways they can. In addition, the governments of West Germany, Canada, Holland, and Belgium (as well as a host of other western European countries I can't remember offhand) are sending economic aid and/or work crews to help out. Go down to Nicaragua and remind yourself that this is not just political theory - it's human lives we're talking about. Diana Spalding {allegra, hao, ucbvax}!nbires!djs
bmac3@ssc-bee.UUCP (Scott Pilet) (10/17/85)
> The National Assembly is now in the process of drafting the new Nicaraguan > Constitution - you are correct in saying that structure is a very important > thing - let's see how the contitution comes out and whether or not it is > ratified. However, one should also judge a given structure by its history and > past and present policies: structure does not exist in a vacuum. > > > > > > There are informers in Nicaragua, but I know of no evidence that that > > > are as omnipresent as you claim. There are also informers in this country. > > Show me anti-Sandinista mass rallies like they have even in > > South Africa, even in Chile. True, they are dispersed there, but > > they assemble first. Not in Nicaragua. That net of informers > > must be thicker, and work better, than you give them credit for. > Such rallies certainly occurred during the elections, in support of Arturo > Cruz (leader of the splinter Coordinadora parties), for the PLI and for the > PCD (Liberals and Conservatives). There was a problem with FSLN youth > harassment of some of these gatherings, which should rightly not be condoned, > especially harassment of the PLI and PCD, which were registered electoral > parties. See the State Dept white paper on the election. > > Another good source is the report of the University of Texas - Austin's > Latin American Studies Association, titled "The Electoral Process in > Nicaragua: Domestic and International Influences". The delegation of 15 > US scholars observed that "the Sandinista government deliberately chose a > West European-style proportional representation system that would maximize > representation of opposition parties in the national legislature." > > > > > > Untrue. Only those areas that are actually in the war zone are such. There > > > is freedom of movement in the rest of the country. > > > > I didn't mean martial law. I meant that "nation under attack", > > "them vs. us" mentality . In Russia they always speak > > of "Socialist Camp" and "Capitalist Camp", > > in Nicaragua it's "Yankees, the enemies of humanity", > > and all their neighbors are accomplices, too. > > > > Maybe you should read a little Nicaraguan (the Poland of Central America) > history. The US invaded in 1855, 1912, and 1927, then aided the Somoza > family in sitting on the country from 1933 to 1979. > jeff m More reading could include the State Department's report entitled "The Sandinistas and Middle Eastern Radicals" issued in September. This paper charges that the Sandinistas have been closely connected with Libya, Iran and the PLO for more than 15 years. The report also accuses Nicaragua's government of providing financial help and safe haven for terrorists. Forming an opinion of a person or a country's government without taking into consideration the people and/or organizations they seem to support should result in an opinion that is without an adequate foundation. Defending a government that supports organizations that murder Americans is, of course, a matter of choice.
ekrell@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/27/85)
In article <521@nbires.UUCP> djs@nbires.UUCP (Diana Spalding) writes: > >I urge anyone out there who wonders what's going on in Nicaragua to go >down and see for yourselves. Nicaragua is a free country. *************************** This must be a joke. How can you have a free country without having basic civilian freedoms, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, etc.??. There are no such things in Nicaragua. Now, with the state of emergency declared by the Sandinistas, the press censorship will be tightened and more freedoms will be taken away from the people. -- Eduardo Krell UCLA Computer Science Department ekrell@ucla-locus.arpa ..!{sdcrdcf,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!ekrell