janw@inmet.UUCP (09/16/85)
/* Written 10:50 pm Sep 3, 1985 by janw@inmet in inmet:net.flame */ /* ---------- "Nicaraguan Parallel" ---------- */ /* Written 11:51 pm Aug 27, 1985 by inmet!janw in inmet:net.politics */ > > 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 */ /* End of text from inmet:net.flame */
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/16/85)
/* Written 7:17 am Sep 6, 1985 by nyssa@abnji in inmet:net.flame */ >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. I have seen a country where school children are militarized and sing political songs in unison! I agree that this type of indoctrination is awful, it can distort a child's view of the world. What should we do about this? Perhaps we should be working to change all these governments; but you might say, what right do we have to interfere in a foreign government? The government I am thinking of isn't foreign. Ever heard of Cub Scouts/Boy Scouts? "God Bless America"? The Pledge of allegiance? -- James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa Maybe they'll want one of your women to experiment on, perhaps I shall take this one to them! -who said it, what story? (Get the reply to me by Thursday!) /* End of text from inmet:net.flame */
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/16/85)
/* Written 12:49 pm Sep 5, 1985 by st175@sdcc13 in inmet:net.flame */ In article <3900221@inmet.UUCP>, janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > > -- Jan Wasilewsky > /* End of text from inmet:net.politics */ Just what is this doing on net.flame? FLAME ON!!!! Put the political conversations (no matter how important) in net.politics, or net.redundant, or net.beat.a.dead.horse, or net.uninformed.but.want.to.spout.off, or net.unqualified.opinions, or net.etc.etc., but not flame!!! Flame a good day, Lone Stranger (didda-dum didda-dum didda-dum dum dum!!) /* End of text from inmet:net.flame */
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/16/85)
/* Written 11:00 am Sep 9, 1985 by tw8023@pyuxii in inmet:net.flame */ Yes, Armstrong, but you do not have to join the Boy Scouts nor are you required to sing "God Bless America". There's the difference. T. C. Wheeler /* End of text from inmet:net.flame */
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/16/85)
/* Written 3:50 pm Sep 10, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.flame */ In article <227@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >Yes, Armstrong, but you do not have to join the Boy Scouts >nor are you required to sing "God Bless America". >There's the difference. >T. C. Wheeler In my elementary school, we WERE required to sing "patriotic" songs every day. We were also required to salute the flag. I remember we used sing one about the Green Berets, and how great is was to be one. If this isn't militaristic indoctrination, I don't know what is. Although my parents found the idea of my joining the cub scouts somewhat distasteful, they allowed me to do so, since it was considered almost "de rigeure" for boys my age. Had I not, I would have ended up a social outcast. In the USSR, no one is forced to join the Young Pioneers. But those who don't do so suffer quite a bit of scorn from their peers, as well as unfavorable offical attitudes as a result. Please don't tell me that there is no political indoctrination in our schools, I lived throught 6 years of it. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa /* End of text from inmet:net.flame */
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/16/85)
My point has apparently been missed (at least, it was not attacked ...). It was *structural identity* of all communist - and other totalitarian - regimes. I did not quote pre-schooler drilling as a major evil, but as a *symptom*. The reasoning goes thus: a totalitarian state (by definition) enlists all the resourses of society in its service. This includes even toddlers, and by this sign you may know it. Brief review of responses: The note was not scurrilous enough for net.flame - mea culpa. My ignorance of the net was responsible. I'm moving the sequence. Cub scouts are non-compulsory, non-political, and only faintly militarized. "God Bless America" is not political, in the sense relevant here. It is a non-controversial generality. Now imagine kids chanting, say, DEATH TO DEMOCRATS; goose-stepping with wooden machine-guns to show they are serious; and children of Democrats, as everyone else, being obliged to join. That gives it a different flavor, doesn't it ? As I've said, it's *only a symptom*. Other things go with it, such as: - no dissent within the ruling Party; - secret police unchecked by any other institution but the Party; - a net of informers sufficient to report on every citizen; - Propaganda a major item of budget; - armed forces politicized; - a network of Party-affiliated organizations covering all areas of life, cradle to grave; - anti-government demonstrations (of course) made impossible, but also pro-government ones made compulsory; - censorship (of course) suppressing anti-regime information; but also *insufficiently pro-regime* information; - the country declared a military camp; - foreign connections made difficult; and so on. P.S. Larry Kolodney mentions the Young Pioneers in the USSR. He is only part right: this is for a different age group (10-14); peers couldn't care less about who joins; but official pressure is strong enough that everyone does. I should know; I've been one. Jan Wasilewsky
michaelf@ISM780.UUCP (09/17/85)
How can you say our armed forces are not politicized?
More of my tax dollars go to the military than anywhere else.
I wouls say the military is very Republican.ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/17/85)
> > /* Written 3:50 pm Sep 10, 1985 by lkk@teddy in inmet:net.flame */ > In article <227@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: > >Yes, Armstrong, but you do not have to join the Boy Scouts > >nor are you required to sing "God Bless America". > >There's the difference. > >T. C. Wheeler > > > In my elementary school, we WERE required to sing "patriotic" songs > every day. We were also required to salute the flag. I remember we used sing > one about the Green Berets, and how great is was to be one. If this isn't > militaristic indoctrination, I don't know what is. > So what? Why not salute the flag, you are an American aren't you? What is the problem with patriotic songs. Do you find patriotism offensive? Depending on which country you live in, patriotism means different things. In this country it means supporting the freedom with which our government is based. Do you find freedom offensive? > Although my parents found the idea of my joining the cub scouts somewhat > distasteful, they allowed me to do so, since it was considered almost "de > rigeure" for boys my age. Had I not, I would have ended up a social outcast. > I can't believe what you are saying. Your parents find the cub scouts distaste- full? Why? I would think that parents would object to having their kids going to geek rock concerts than to the cub scouts. > In the USSR, no one is forced to join the Young Pioneers. But those who > don't do so suffer quite a bit of scorn from their peers, as well as > unfavorable offical attitudes as a result. > Fine. It is a good thing we don't live there isn't it. > Please don't tell me that there is no political indoctrination in our > schools, I lived throught 6 years of it. > You only had 6 years of education, hmmm? > > -- > > Sport Death, > Larry Kolodney > (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk > (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa > /* End of text from inmet:net.flame */ *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (09/18/85)
In article <7800427@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >> 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. Hey! When I was a little boy in public school, I was taught about how our government was helping the Veitnamese with our neato army. This teaching, of course, did not begin before we sang at least two slogans... >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. I don't remember MY country being called any of those names... are you sure the list is complete? -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "What? With her?" -Adam from _The_Book_of_Genesis_
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (09/18/85)
> > > > In my elementary school, we WERE required to sing "patriotic" songs > > every day. We were also required to salute the flag. > > So what? Why not salute the flag, you are an American aren't you? > What is the problem with patriotic songs. Do you find patriotism offensive? No, patriotism is not offensive as long as it comes from within. If it is forced from without, it is not patriotism anymore.
lkk@teddy.UUCP (09/19/85)
In article <7800435@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: > As I've said, it's *only a symptom*. Other things >go with it, such as: > - no dissent within the ruling Party; Please provide evidence of no dissent within Sandanista party. > - 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. > - 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. > - Propaganda a major item of budget; Sad, but true. However, propoganda is a major item in the budget of any nation under attack. > - armed forces politicized; True. But given the circumstances of their rise to power, not surprising. > - a network of Party-affiliated organizations covering all > areas of life, cradle to grave; Evidence? > - 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. > - 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 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. > - foreign connections made difficult; and so on. Untrue. Foreigners are welcomed to travel freely in Nicaragua. Nicaragua does show many of the signs of a Leninist state. But it also has much in common with pluralist societies as well. US pressure and agreession towards it merely gives the hardliners excuses to crack down. -- Sport Death, Larry Kolodney (USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk (INTERNET) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (09/19/85)
Now here we have a certified twit saying that more of his tax dollars go to the military than anything else. Not so fella. More of your tax dollars go for social programs. Try reading those pie charts about where your tax dollar goes that are constantly being printed in USA Today. The military is Republican? What do we do every time we change administrations, fire all the Republicans and hire all Democrats? What a dumb thing to say. T. C. Wheeler
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/19/85)
> How can you say our armed forces are not politicized? > More of my tax dollars go to the military than anywhere else. > I wouls say the military is very Republican. You are happy not to know a politicized military. You do not have a. political officers assuring that other officers and soldiers heed to the Republican credo; b. military units dispersing riots, strikes etc; c. military affairs being secret but to the most trusted Republicans. The way I see it, a liberal selecting military carrier is a rarity. Plus folks who vote for more defence money are obviously more popular amoung officer corps. But there is still a lot of bipartisan oversight over the military, and this makes a major difference. That the money are waisted there, this is largely due to bipartisan barrels of pork in the budget, but this is another story. Piotr Berman
bottom@katadn.DEC (09/20/85)
ism780!michaelf says: >How can you say our armed forces are not politicized? More of my tax >dollars go to the military than anywhere else. I would say the military >is very Republican. Hmm.. interesting thought. However if you research the origions of the nuclear arms race it seems that current programs are just a continuation of programs that were begun in the late 50's at the urging and essential blackmail of certain leading Democrats, Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey most notably. The then Republican President (Eisenhower) resisted their programs and challenged the studies their anti-communist panic were based on because he did not believe that the American public needed to or wanted to unbalance the federal budget to buy into a defense posture that could not be relied on for anything other than revenge after the fact. I know all about the deterrant factor, it exists I agree. But do we or did we *need* bombs that were 100 times more powerful than the bombs we dropeed on Japan? Probably not. They were the pet project of a lunitic named Edward Teller who still talks about acceptable losses and survivability. Even the Democrats who have been in the majority in the house most of the time must have been voting for all of these bombs and planes or the Republicans would not have been able to buy them for their "buddies" in the Military. Many Career military men are in fact, Republicans. Many are in fact Democrats. The military is representative of the general population. It is *NOT* politicised and cannot be as it is forbidden for *anyone* reguardless of rank to actively participate in any form of campaigning. See the UCMJ and any set of regs. Dave Bottom DEC Augusta Maine !dec-rhea!dec-katadn!bottom
oliver@unc.UUCP (Bill Oliver) (09/21/85)
In article <37400005@ISM780.UUCP> michaelf@ISM780.UUCP writes: > > > How can you say our armed forces are not politicized? > More of my tax dollars go to the military than anywhere else. > I wouls say the military is very Republican. Does this mean that the military was Democratic under Carter? Bill Oliver
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/21/85)
[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 "mechanisms 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
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/21/85)
Correction: my reference to Avtorkhanov's book was inexact. The English title of it is, probably, "Technology of Power", and this is what I meant to write. -- Jan Wasilewsky
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (09/23/85)
-- Oh boy, somebody said the magic word: > So what? Why not salute the flag, you are an American aren't you? > What is the problem with patriotic songs. Do you find patriotism > offensive? "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." --Samuel Johnson -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 22 Sep 85 [1 Vendemiaire An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (09/23/85)
In article <1178@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >Oh boy, somebody said the magic word: > >> So what? Why not salute the flag, you are an American aren't you? >> What is the problem with patriotic songs. Do you find patriotism >> offensive? > >"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." --Samuel Johnson "In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last refuge of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." -- Ambrose Bierce -- David Canzi ACCUSE, v. t. To affirm another's guilt or unworth; most commonly as a justification of ourselves for having wronged him. (Ambrose Bierce)
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/24/85)
In article <28200092@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >The isomorphism (structural identity) >between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia has always fascinated me. >Here are two regimes with quite different ideologies, brought >to power by different social groups, in two dissimilar cultures, >yet as alike as two peas in a pod, and growing even more alike >the longer they existed. And quite *unlike* any repressive >regime before 1917. I see this as one of the central >facts of this century, and a challenge to any political >theorist. To my mind, it disproves, for example, both >Solzhenitsyn's explanation of Communism as something produced >by Marxist ideology, and Richard Pipes's explanation of it as >something flowing from a thousand years of Russian history. >I believe totalitarianism to be an *invention*, as specific >to the 20th century as television or atom bomb. It is a perfect >machine for its purpose, which is to permit the group in power >to stay in power. Once perfected, it is imported by country >after country. This is fine; but one must be disinformed to regard Nicaragua as totalitarian, in my opinion. The reasonably open and democratic elections held last fall have no parallel in Soviet history since 1917, and are sufficient to draw a sharp distinction between the two political systems. Not to mention other differences. If this is totalitarianism, it is a strange variety indeed. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
bill@persci.UUCP (09/24/85)
In article <851@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >Hey! When I was a little boy in public school, I was taught about how >our government was helping the Veitnamese with our neato army. This >teaching, of course, did not begin before we sang at least two slogans... >>[...] >I don't remember MY country being called any of those names... are you >sure the list is complete? >Charles Forsythe Yeah. And when I was in college, about the same time, I was taught about how evil old Uncle Sam was slaughtering millions in the name of Profit$, and how Viet Nam would become a veritable Garden of Eden once Uncle Sam took his nasty playthings home. This gospel, preached by instructors and "fellow" students alike, was of course mixed with all sorts of slogans and songs which you damned well better chant and sing and *BELIEVE*, or be excommunicated and sentenced to hell. The reason the USA isn't on the list, Charles, is that it doesn't belong, no matter how much *you* think it does. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
janw@inmet.UUCP (09/26/85)
/* Written 6:33 pm Sep 23, 1985 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics */ > >[my general observations on totalitarianism as a political invention] > >Once perfected, it is imported by country after country. > [Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes] > This is fine; but one must be disinformed to regard Nicaragua as > totalitarian, in my opinion. The reasonably open and democratic > elections held last fall have no parallel in Soviet history since > 1917, and are sufficient to draw a sharp distinction between the two > political systems. Not to mention other differences. If this is > totalitarianism, it is a strange variety indeed. My understanding of the Nicaraguan situation is that the totalitarian machinery of power has been imported, is in place, but is not working at full capacity, due to external constraints. I defended this position in an argument with Larry Kolodney on net.politics. To save you search, I'll attach an excerpt here. Larry did not, however, make your argument about the elections, so I'll answer it now. There are really two questions: (1) were they "reasonably open and democratic" ? I deny that. The cards were stacked enough so that the party in power *could not lose*. Given that, they were willing (which is, I agree, unusual for a full-fledged totalitarian society) to tolerate opposition. But the opposition is impotent. It would be dangerous only if it could ally itself (on some issues, at least) with groups within the Sandinista party. So, to me , the crucial question is NOT the existence of opposition outside the Party, but *toleration of factionalism inside the party*. I've never heard of open discord within it. I read newspapers (it's one of my vices), and their focus on Nicaragua seems sufficient for them to report such events. Your information on Nicaragua may come partially from different sourses than mine. Without blindly undertaking to trust these sourses (but not fully closing my mind), I would appreciate any clari- fication of the above criterion. (2) Such as they were, are the elections and opposition parties unprecedented in a Soviet model of government ? Not quite, at a certain stage. For a year or so, after the Soviet revolution, Socialist opposition was tolerated within what corresponded to parliament in their system (but its freedom of speech there was curbed). Did you ever hear of the Far Eastern Republic , a huge independent state spanning the eastern third of Siberia? It existed for two years as a buffer state between Russia and Japan (which had juicy economic concessions there). The state was (as Soviet historians put it) "bourgeois-democratic in form, but led by Bolsheviks". I suppose that includes elections. In due time, its Moscow-selected leaders duly liquidated it. Nearer to our time, post-war elections in both Hungary and Czechoslovakia were *not phony* (as they now are). But the cards were sufficiently stacked to ensure the Soviet-favored composition of parliaments. I agree with you that, to the totalitarian mind, this is not a normal situation. It does not last forever. But for a time, in the presence of external constraints, it can be endured. What follows is is the polemical excerpt I promised. /* 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 "mechanisms of power" [should be "technology of power" --JW] (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. Jan Wasilewsky
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/27/85)
> In article <1178@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: > >-- > >Oh boy, somebody said the magic word: > > > >> So what? Why not salute the flag, you are an American aren't you? > >> What is the problem with patriotic songs. Do you find patriotism > >> offensive? > > > >"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." --Samuel Johnson > > "In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last > refuge of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but > inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first." > -- Ambrose Bierce > -- > David Canzi > Is that the same Doc who puts out Doc Johnson's Joy Jelly, or Doc's Delight- ful Dildos?