Salvador

[luiz]

Trotsky believed in the concept of worldwide revolution, and even if today he is oftenly associated with democratic and peaceful socialism this does not reflect reality. For exemple, during WW1 he opposed Lenin's decision to wirthdraw from the conflict. he believed that a prolonged war would open the way to massive communist revolts.

Even if later he became a Bolchevist(like Lenin), for quite some time he flirted and even took part on the Menchevist movment. This means that too some extent he believed that Capitalism should be introduced in Russia before the transition to Communism. This puts Trotkyism closer to original marxism then Leninism.

As for the flaws in Marx's works, they begun to be pointed out in the late 19th Century. Bohm-Bawerk's Critique of the Exploitation Theory does an excellent job in refuting this part of the marxist doctrine. But a more comprehensive critique was only avaiable in 1920, with von Mise's Socialism.

 

[FredLC]

As I said, I don't really have much knowledge of the true historical Trotsky, and I'll look for it, so I'll take your opinion in account until I know enough to have my own.

As for the "Critique of the Exploitation Theory", I haven't read it. And while I believe that it possibly has made a good criticism, it was theoretical - as theoretical as Marx own ideas still were. What we have, then, is that the common folk had felt the unfairness in capitalism in their skin for quite some time, and learned of a proposed alternative that, for all they know, could possibly work. As I said, it's not hard to see why it seduced so many people.

Specially because there are many proofs that, in general, we humans need illusions to deal with reality - but I won't be more specific on this to avoid pushing this thread off topic (besides, to a bright man, half of an explanation is enough ).

Regards .

 

[eyrei]

The uprisings were more about change than about whole-heartened communism, and they just incorporated the new ideas that were popping in the old continent that suited their desires. That's why they all inspired themselves in Marxism, not truly due to a real commitment for the proposed utopia - what, by the way, does show that they were not as moral as they liked to portray themselves.

This is kind of the heart of the issue. Does the USA have the right to cause the deaths of people that are simply trying to overthrow the dictatorship they are living under? Is the fact that they may have been inspired by Marx's call for the proletariat to revolt enough for the USA to step in? I don't think it is our purpose to stop peasant uprisings.

 

[luiz]

This is kind of the heart of the issue. Does the USA have the right to cause the deaths of people that are simply trying to overthrow the dictatorship they are living under? Is the fact that they may have been inspired by Marx's call for the proletariat to revolt enough for the USA to step in? I don't think it is our purpose to stop peasant uprisings.

That was my original point.

They were marxists in fact, but this does not justify american intervention(specially if the intervention supported governments as brutal as the guerillas).

 

[eyrei]

That was my original point.

They were marxists in fact, but this does not justify american intervention(specially if the intervention supported governments as brutal as the guerillas).

I think they were Marxists only in that they wanted to overthrow the repression of the upper class. If that is all you take from Marxism, I don't think anyone can really say you need to be contained or defeated.

Clean drinking water and womans' rights are something many of us here take for granted, yet in the name of containing communism the US caused many of these people to suffer more.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I support FredLC's points. The American Revolution (1776), the French Rev. (1789) both sparked Simon Bolivar's uprisings in South America in the 1820s. The new world colonies of the age of discovery freed themselves from overseas rule. The industrial Rev. and oppressive factory life led to Karl Marx and the social revolutions of the 19th Century as it sent the European powers looking for new colonies in Africa and Asia. It took two world wars to break the back of world empires. Political ideology became the new world order from 1945 to 1989 and with its demise, a new dominant theme is evolving. Religious and economic systems camps seem to be forming as front lines, as well as, the devolution of nation states along ethnic/cultural lines.

As usual, the dominant nations struggle to maintain their position in the world order as their enemies try to take them down. It's all about money power and prestige. It has always been about money, power and prestige for leaders and governments. The work for a better world, is secondary and incidental to the real struggle between nations. We are fortunate that human values have changed enought since the days of Rome to allow for programs that promote world health and peace.

 

[luiz]

I think they were Marxists only in that they wanted to overthrow the repression of the upper class. If that is all you take from Marxism, I don't think anyone can really say you need to be contained or defeated.

Clean drinking water and womans' rights are something many of us here take for granted, yet in the name of containing communism the US caused many of these people to suffer more.

But their ideologies went far beyond women's rights and clear drinking water. That's the problem of Oliver Stone and alikes, they really only show one side of the coin.

They were indeed fighting against oppression. But their goal was to create their own oppressive state. When the cuban revolution started, they were regarded only as "freedom fighters". Nobody took their marxist influences seriously back then - not even the US, that immediatly recognised Castro's government. Now look at the result.

Even if the platforms that they used to gather public support are coherent with liberal democratic principles, the truth is their agenda went(and in the cases of the FARCs and ELN still goes) far beyond that. Forced land reforms, expropriation of private newsagencies, persecution of anyone slightly above the middle-class - that's what you can expect from Sandinistas, Zapatistas and their similars. In the case of Sendero Luminose you can also expect massive executions of anyone considered "enemies of the people" - including starving peasants that refuse to give their production away.

 

[storealex]

What about Guatemala and Chile? I believe the US to be a positive factor in the world, but certainly not for Latin America.

 

[downtown]

First, it was never our responsibility to uphold the concepts of "liberty" and "justice" outside of our home shores. Our primary goal should be to advance the agenda of the United States. Whether this is compatible with democratic measures or not is irrelevant.

The rebels, regardless of whether they were "actually communist" or not, they were still against the goals of the United States. It was almost the same in Iran, where a pro-Soviet leadership didn't take over, just a rabidly anti-U.S. one.

We should also get some world perspective in this. Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all collectivist murderers. Of their regimes, how many more lives were lost? Literally tens of millions.

Even Tito, the "moderate" communist autocrat, killed more than the regime in El Salvador. Between postwar Franco, El Salvador, Pinochet, Rhodesia, and Malaya, none of those come close to even the first year of Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein.

Beside even this, who says that states shouldn't be allowed to protect their interests?

This is refrigginmadiculus.

First Sharpe, we need to look at why the Americans opposed Communism. Firstly, its economic system and political system, by nature, were at odds with ours. they also had this nasty habit of KILLING LOTS OF PEOPLE. By replacing Pseduo Commies (and weather they were commies or not is still in doubt), with people who destory their nation's economies, slaughter their people, and create a new autocratic ruling class...how have we bettered America? how have we bettered the world? basically, America took a crap in latin america during the cold war. We didnt help ourselves or the latin americans.

it is 100% RELEVANT if any regime change America institutes is kosher with our own democractic beliefs we hold so dear. We cant advance American interests any other way. You wont have any credibilty, and you end up with a bunch of little Iraqs. is Latin america any better off now? has it helped America any?

Duirng the cold war, were you really afraid that a bunch of backward Latin American countires were going to form some uber commie super power and annex texas? Is El Savaldor, at any point in history, a threat to american interests? I fail to see how creating a ruling power that slaughters its own people is helpful to anybody, with the exception of maybe arms dealers, and terrorists.

You cant just cap people who disagree with you. Otherwise, I would have hunted you down and shot you, Orin Hatch, Wolfowitz, Ashcroft, etc

 

[downtown]

I didn't say it was right, I just said it was necessary.


....

The U.S. is a country, and so long as other countries set the standard for barbarism, we should not act any differently. Trying to say that "we're better than that" or "we won't sink to their level" is exactly what they want us to do. As long as we follow these shackle conventions of Geneva and the like, we're going to be fighting the battle uphill. We should get that Sadr and wrap that towel around his head so tight his brain explodes.

.

to the first part...whats the difference? doesnt necessary mean to that those actions were correct in those circumstances?

what do you mean by fighting the battle uphill? by stooping to the terrorists level, we become what we are trying to kill. The point of fighting terror is to keep the American way of life. Publically filming a beheading, being a suicide bomber, tourtre, etc are completely against what America stands for. we take the high road, because we must. We're better then the scumbags who kidnap soliders and cut their thoats. we must show that to the rest of the world, or we'll have more of our solider's throats cut

 

[eyrei]

But their ideologies went far beyond women's rights and clear drinking water. That's the problem of Oliver Stone and alikes, they really only show one side of the coin.

They were indeed fighting against oppression. But their goal was to create their own oppressive state. When the cuban revolution started, they were regarded only as "freedom fighters". Nobody took their marxist influences seriously back then - not even the US, that immediatly recognised Castro's government. Now look at the result.

Even if the platforms that they used to gather public support are coherent with liberal democratic principles, the truth is their agenda went(and in the cases of the FARCs and ELN still goes) far beyond that. Forced land reforms, expropriation of private newsagencies, persecution of anyone slightly above the middle-class - that's what you can expect from Sandinistas, Zapatistas and their similars. In the case of Sendero Luminose you can also expect massive executions of anyone considered "enemies of the people" - including starving peasants that refuse to give their production away.

I think we are going to just have to agree to disagree here. When a peasantry rises against the wealthy oligarchy of their country, I see nothing wrong with them seizing the land of those people who have oppressed them.

At any rate, just to add some more facts to this discussion, the current political situation in El Salvador is interesting. While the ARENA party controls the presidency, the FMLN (the supposed communists) control about half of the parliament. Obviously they are capable of pursuing their goals without bloodshed, though armed 'guards' are omnipresent in the cities and on the estates of those that are upper class. So, to some extent El Salvador has recovered from their civil war and US intervention.

However, my initial point in this thread still stands. The US government supported a murderous military leader simply because he was not 'communist', and I believe that the men representing the US in this catastrophe should be called to account for their responsibility for the execution of people because of their political beliefs.

 

[jroa99]

When a peasantry rises against the wealthy oligarchy of their country, I see nothing wrong with them seizing the land of those people who have oppressed them.

Just a small comment....

That sounds fair enough in abstract theory....except that, in the practical cases of the marxist guerrilla groups outlined previously, they will also harm, kidnap, oppress and execute not only the "oppressors" but also the bystanders who simply stand in their way, those who are at the wrong place and in the wrong time, whether they are rich or poor, national or foreign, innocent or guilty. Nothing matters, so long as the "revolution" wins. That can still be seen quite clearly today in the cases of the FARC and the ELN in Colombia.

It's basically the mirror image of their opponent's (and the U.S.'s) argument, which is what makes it so hypocritical (and wrong). Fighting intolerance and unfairness with intolerance and unfairness.

In the end, if most of those guerrillas achieve victory through these actions, they'll simply institute a much more efficient system of repression, which will be far less democratic and free than that of those they've toppled (which is not much, to start with).

Perhaps the peasant's living quality as a whole will be improved (if the economic/international conditions permit it), but at the cost of their individuality, expression and freedom. And there will be a new oligarchy as well, made up of the "Party" and "Chairman" apparatus, which won't even go through the motions of periodic elections with a plurality of options, however imperfect they might be in most Latin American countries today.

The true solution isn't the status quo, of course, I am just pointing out that such a flawed alternative is not worth it. There surely has to be a better way than either of those.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

We learned a bit about this in school, while watching the movie Romero. America was almost certainly wrong in their support for the government. Terrorizing voters is hardly upholding democracy.

 

[jroa99]

The problem is that the U.S. usually took what some would call the "easy way out", considering the international anti-communist/pro-capitalist struggle as its primary concern, putting fairness and democratic values in a tertiary or nonexistent position.

The U.S., considering its superpower status and subsequent impossibility of true isolationism, should have intervened when necessary but as a moderating influence, putting a fair degree of pressure on the government but evidently also on the rebels, in order to at least achieve a measure of progress and peaceful reform.

Such a strategy doesn't wield too many electoral votes though, sadly, but works much better in the long term, and the American people and government would have been spared much of the currently generalized anti-U.S. sentiments throughout the world (which might be harmless individually, but collectively and with a degree of radicalization, are quite deadly and counterproductive, as recent history shows).

 

[amadeus]

"Peaceful reform" is all nice and good when Moscow is shipping hundreds of thousands of AK-47 assault rifles to communist militias.

 

[Akka]

Yeah, because the CIA forming totalitarian states to the arts of torture and civilian repression is much better

 

[jroa99]

"Peaceful reform" is all nice and good when Moscow is shipping hundreds of thousands of AK-47 assault rifles to communist militias.

So the right answer was just to ship thousands of say, M-16s to all governments regardless of their condition and simply look away?

Come on. Look at today's world and see what such behavior has produced. The USSR is dead and the USA rises triumphant...but slowly has to deal with the bloody results of such irresponsible action and many people inside the country openly question it.

Evidently some degree of military aid would have to be used in those cases were the guerrillas had a chance of achieving military victory, that is obvious, but in conjunction with the proper political and diplomatic pressure. Yeah, you can use those M-16s against the guerrillas....but at a price.

"The price", of course, usually was just formal (though shallow) alignment with the U.S., but could have and should have been much more than just that.

 

[eyrei]

I figured I would add this interesting article to the discussion:

Link.

Obviously it is mostly an opinion piece, but it paints an interesting picture of the current political situation in El Salvador. I'll have to ask my new sister-in-law about it when she gets into the country in a few weeks. It would be pretty sketchy if the US was really attempting to influence El Salvadoran democracy in this way...

 

[Stapel]

But they were Marxists, Stapel.

The Sendero Luminoso, the ELN, the FARCs, the MR-8, the Sandinistas, the Zapatistas, and of course not to mention the succesful communist guerilla that fought in Sierra Maestra.

I beg to differ. At best they were marxist in name, as it might have appealed to many people.

Said organisations have been called marxist so many times, that people start to believe it.
BTW: I am not saying non of them had collectivism ideas. Or that they were honoust freedom warriors. Just that any opposing armed group in Meso America was labelled communist.

 

[jroa99]

That might well be so for Meso America, but further south, at least the FARC, ELN and Sendero Luminoso have repeatedly made their ideological loyalties and beliefs quite clear, almost from the day of their foundation. They don't hide the fact that they are marxist (in fact you can even read it in their own communiques, for god's sake).