Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!cca!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Totalitarian Nicaragua
Message-ID: <7801001@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Feb-86 01:07:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.7801001
Posted: Sat Feb 15 01:07:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 20:55:04 EST
Lines: 82
Nf-ID: #N:inmet:7801001:000:4065
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Feb 15 01:07:00 1986


[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