Eclipsed from the headlines by the ongoing carnage, there is an active
civil resistance in Iraq that opposes the occupation, the torture regime
it protects, and the jihadi and Ba'athist 'resistance' alike.
Submitted by Sam Diener (not verified) on Mon, 12/31/2007 - 13:08.
Hello,
When actions taken by a person in power concentrate authoritarian power even more, it's not an advance towards democracy - and not an advance towards any kind of socialism worthy of the name. The claim that, "Anything Chavez does is an advance towards socialism" is a dangerous cult-of-personality style endorsement of dictatorship. I also think that portraying someone as a faultless hero is almost as dehumanizing of that person as portraying them as a demon.
I think, Bill, that your questions
"Are such authoritarian measures warranted when in the defense of socialism rather than imperialism? Do we have the courage to make such a blunt argument openly?"
are deliberately provocative.
As an advocate of democratic socialism (and an aspiring advocate of libertarian socialism), authoritarian measures can't possibly be a "defense of socialism," they are by definition an attack on it -- and my guess is you agree with this.
Similarly, I don't think it takes much courage to bluntly endorse authoritarian measures in the name of expediency, especially when it's not your rights which are being trampled. Sectarian (and many non-sectarian) leftists do it every day, the Democrats in the US constantly do it in the name of realpolitique (Carter in power vis a vis El Salvador, Philippines, and Indonesia/East Timor for example), and an overwhelming number of Republicans do it these days in defense of Bush's monarchical power-grabs seemingly as easily as breathing. I too wish that folks would be more honest about this.
(A longish aside about due process in the US: Am I just romanticizing the past, or weren't there a large number of Republicans in and out of office who eventually, but while Nixon was still in office, repudiated Nixon's crimes of Executive power? And how did it happen that the Democrats in the Congress of 1973, even though McGovern had just been thumped at the polls, had the courage and the commitment to Constitutional checks on presidential power so as to move to impeach Nixon?)
Now, I do believe there's a lot of exciting democracy building going on in Venezuela at the grassroots, and many of these folks are supporters of Chavez.
Let's continue the dialogue about these questions, both here, and I'll invite you to read and respond to the articles on Venezuela on Peacework Magazine's site.
In Peace,
Sam Diener
Peacework Magazine Co-Editor
The inconvenient facts and unanswered questions surrounding the attacks are legion, but the endemic sloppiness of the self-styled "researchers" is delegitimizing the entire project of critiquing the "official version." The ostentatiously named "Truth movement" is not clearing the air, but muddying the water.
WW4 Report pamphlets
WAR AT THE CROSSROADS
An Historical Guide Through the Balkan Labyrinth
The Balkan region is intensely multicultural - a point of crossroads and clash for some of the world's major religions, cultural spheres, and economic systems. While there have been vicious wars in Balkan history, these have taken place in the context of manipulation by imperial powers and the self-serving local leaders who cater to them.
opensource technology and the people of Sundays Energy
Let's Support Democracy Across the Board
Hello,
When actions taken by a person in power concentrate authoritarian power even more, it's not an advance towards democracy - and not an advance towards any kind of socialism worthy of the name. The claim that, "Anything Chavez does is an advance towards socialism" is a dangerous cult-of-personality style endorsement of dictatorship. I also think that portraying someone as a faultless hero is almost as dehumanizing of that person as portraying them as a demon.
I think, Bill, that your questions
"Are such authoritarian measures warranted when in the defense of socialism rather than imperialism? Do we have the courage to make such a blunt argument openly?"
are deliberately provocative.
As an advocate of democratic socialism (and an aspiring advocate of libertarian socialism), authoritarian measures can't possibly be a "defense of socialism," they are by definition an attack on it -- and my guess is you agree with this.
Similarly, I don't think it takes much courage to bluntly endorse authoritarian measures in the name of expediency, especially when it's not your rights which are being trampled. Sectarian (and many non-sectarian) leftists do it every day, the Democrats in the US constantly do it in the name of realpolitique (Carter in power vis a vis El Salvador, Philippines, and Indonesia/East Timor for example), and an overwhelming number of Republicans do it these days in defense of Bush's monarchical power-grabs seemingly as easily as breathing. I too wish that folks would be more honest about this.
(A longish aside about due process in the US: Am I just romanticizing the past, or weren't there a large number of Republicans in and out of office who eventually, but while Nixon was still in office, repudiated Nixon's crimes of Executive power? And how did it happen that the Democrats in the Congress of 1973, even though McGovern had just been thumped at the polls, had the courage and the commitment to Constitutional checks on presidential power so as to move to impeach Nixon?)
Now, I do believe there's a lot of exciting democracy building going on in Venezuela at the grassroots, and many of these folks are supporters of Chavez.
Let's continue the dialogue about these questions, both here, and I'll invite you to read and respond to the articles on Venezuela on Peacework Magazine's site.
In Peace,
Sam Diener
Peacework Magazine Co-Editor