Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt
From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Orphaned Response (US aid to
Message-ID: <1749@dciem.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 17:43:48 EST
Article-I.D.: dciem.1749
Posted: Wed Dec 11 17:43:48 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 22:17:09 EST
References: <684@spar.UUCP> <7800868@inmet.UUCP>
Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada
Lines: 52
Summary: 


>Now about slogans:
>A one-liner can make a good slogan, and still be true.
>E.g. : "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely"
>(Lord Acton). Or: "The government is best that governs least" (Thomas
>Jefferson). Or: "Probability theory is common sense verified by
>calculation" (I forgot the source).
>
You've presented three counter-examples.  Now, how about giving some examples?
>
>Well, let me try to outline the basic steps  of  the  substantia-
>tion.  (1)  Nicaragua  is  essentially totalitarian in structure,
>though the *policy* has been relatively mild.  (2)  Totalitarian-
>ism,  once  past certain stage, becomes nearly irreversible.  (3)
>Until that stage is reached, the regime needs the support of  the
>population. (4) But it tends to ruin the economy while building
>up its machinery of control, repression, propaganda,  and  the
>armed  forces.  This  detracts  from  the population support. (5)
>Foreign aid can allow it to achieve both goals.
>
(1) Depends on your viewpoint.  Any government is *relatively* totalitarian
when seen from a libertarian viewpoint, or *relatively* free as seen from
a slave's viewpoint.  I suspect Nicaragua is about average in today's world,
more totalitarian than the USA, less than Chile.
(2) Many, many counterexamples: recently, Greece, Argentina.  Less recently
Germany, Italy.  Over history, almost every city, state or country in the
world.  (Although modern technology may make it increasingly difficult
to dislodge a well-organized totalitarian government).
(3) Almost any regime, well-established or not, needs the support of a
sector of the population and the passive non-resistance of most of the
population.  Even the American Revolution was accomplished with the
support of only 1/3 of the population.
(4) I suspect that any substantial change in the form of government
tends to give difficulty to the economy.  Totalitarian regimes usually
know more about getting and keeping power than about economics; but not
all of them create havoc with the economy.  Germany did much better than
the rest of the Western world under the Nazis, and whether you call them
Socialist, Fascist or Butchers, you can't deny they were totalitarian.
(5) Foreign aid is irrelevant.  Lots of Foreign aid goes into the pockets
of the wealthy, no matter what the regime, especially if it is totalitarian.
It takes a regime that cares (at least a little) about its people to ensure
that foreign aid does some good for the people.
After the regime is consolidated, if they have ruined the economy they
will eventually be thrown out.  If they haven't, but still need foreign aid,
they must still be doing something for the people.  Your point in
(3-5) is not clear, or if it is the point it seems to be, it is not
clearly established.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt