Skip to main content

View Diary: Honduras' Coup Congress Cancels Five Basic Liberties (331 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't agree with your anarchist tendencies (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane, nefrocatracho, thethinveil

    but I think people support authoritarianism when for their entire lives they have seen their politicians and the elite screw everyone over just to maintain their privileges. But not only that, they see how this leads to basically everyone of all classes trying to screw each other over. Hence, a tyrant is viewed as keeping the country from total chaos.

    ¡¡Sí se pudo!!

    by Anak on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:27:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  After all the Mara Salvatrucha (0+ / 0-)

      gangs have a large presence in Honduras.

      ¡¡Sí se pudo!!

      by Anak on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:41:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where on the spectrum are you? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      litho, lotlizard, Anak

      i mean you speak against tyrants/dictators/authoritarians. The other extreme is power in the hands of the people, which is my definition of functional anarchy.  Also when I say anarchy that is not 'chaos', i'm sure you know that but some use the 2 interchangeably.  I just don't trust most people to do the right thing with too much power.  Cuba is a sad example of a good movement gone bad. And in the end it's not even socialist.

      On my most conservative days I'm a Democrat

      by nefrocatracho on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:45:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amigo (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lotlizard, Jaffa Kree

        I wanna reply but I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. I'm not saying that because you are an anarchist that you approve of tyrants.

        And yes, Cuba is a sad example of a movement gone bad. But that doesn't mean I am anti-Fidel or anti-Che. Quite frankly, both Fidel and the US were straight-jacketed by the Cold War. In other words, Fidel is no worse than the US and the horrors we wraught upon Latin America and Vietnam and elsewhere. Actually, the US is worse...

        ¡¡Sí se pudo!!

        by Anak on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 12:54:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agree on the latter points without a doubt (6+ / 0-)

          believe me I'm familiar with the history of US intervention in Central America going all the way back to the 1800s.

          I was asking where do you fall on the spectrum. You said you don't agree with anarchism, but at the same time you obviously don't support tyrants.  There's a spectrum of how govt is administered, and  those are two extremes. I wouldn't call myself a complete anarchist, but I fall very far down that end of the spectrum.

          Regarding Cuba yes that is true regarding how the Cold War framed its ability to act.  My problem is what actors like he and Stalin have done to the idea of socialism. They've done more harm than good, IMHO. Well, Stalin without question. And in the end neither are/were socialist. It's a lie, I've seen it firsthand. Sure there are aspects like education and healthcare which Cuba does very well, but haves and have nots are as prevalent there as anywhere I've been in Latin America. Spain in the 1930's was amazing, even if lasted only 2 years.

          On my most conservative days I'm a Democrat

          by nefrocatracho on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:07:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ay, amigo, ya voy acostarme (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Paul Goodman, lotlizard

            but I'll at least reply to the anarchist thing.

            I experienced anarchists first-hand in Germany in 1989. They called themselves Autonomen. Who knows what the hell they wanted; to me they just seemed like disaffected youths venting.

            Now, there is nothing wrong with youths venting. But in one of the richest countries in the world?!  How so many Mexicans, Guatemalans, Hondureños, Bolivians, Peruvians would have loved to be so repressed by the free health care Germany was giving to those anarchists. In short, anarchists in First World countries seem to me nothing but decadents.  

            As you know, however, from our previous exchanges, I am not accusing you of being a decadent. You are a good guy.

            Buenas noches.

            ¡¡Sí se pudo!!

            by Anak on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:22:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That was in Göttingen in 1989 (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lotlizard, Jaffa Kree

              where the Autonomen were raising a fuss and protesting and destroying things. One protester got killed and a huge shrine was set up where she died.

              Now, I totally suppported the Autonomen politically and I totally grieved that one girl's death.

              Still, I never really understood why Western Europeans might think that anarchy is better than living in Honduras or Chiapas or Guatemala...

              ¡¡Sí se pudo!!

              by Anak on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 01:38:25 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Having lived in Germany for many years, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Anak

                … I think I share your attitudes towards the Autonomen.

                On the one hand, considering the quality of life in Western Europe, I found their general discontent unreasonable; on the other hand on any given specific issue so often I found myself in agreement with their movement's analysis of the situation.

                Almost every other institution seemed by comparison to be simply dishonest and corrupt in many of their positions. A feeling which by now probably sounds familiar to all of us, in any country.

                The Dutch kids' chorus Kinderen voor Kinderen wishes all the world's children freedom from hunger, ignorance, and war.

                by lotlizard on Thu Jul 02, 2009 at 04:52:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  How the Cold War game was played (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Econaut, Anak, Johnny Q, nefrocatracho

            Communist regimes like Vietnam and Cuba were definitely willing to cut deals with the capitalist West in their early days.  Tito actually got that deal, leading to a higher standard of living there than the previously more advanced countries to his north.

            However, at some point the USSR came to share with the US a belief that the greatest threat to their Orwellian permanent war was a truly independent leftist regime.  The handling of Cuba and Nicaragua seems to follow this formula:

            1. Victorious Marxist revolutionaries grab US corporate property but want to continue trade & free contact
            1. US sanctions country and backs counterrevolutionaries on the grounds that this is the only way to stop USSR domination
            1. USSR says "I told you so" to revolutionaries and comes to the rescue by imposing the full Soviet model
            1. It becomes another US-USSR confrontation and the actual justifications of the masses of the country are safely drowned out in the usual propaganda, trade embargoes, travel restrictions
            1. The US can now say "All socialist movements must lead to Soviet tyranny", and the USSR can now say "All socialist movements must lead to the Soviet model".  Status quo preserved.

            If we hadn't orchestrated a successful coup in Chile Allende would have been stuck in a similar trap.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site