Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Nicaraguan Parallel: Some ke Message-ID: <7800508@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 12-Oct-85 20:38:00 EDT Article-I.D.: inmet.7800508 Posted: Sat Oct 12 20:38:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 07:39:05 EDT References: <720@whuxl.UUCP> Lines: 283 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-72000:inmet:7800508:000:11770 Nf-From: inmet!janw Oct 12 20:38:00 1985 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