Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ubvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!cae780!ubvax!tonyw From: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Definitive expose' of Sandinistas? Message-ID: <304@ubvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 20:35:24 EDT Article-I.D.: ubvax.304 Posted: Sat Aug 17 20:35:24 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 21-Aug-85 06:00:08 EDT References: <296@ubvax.UUCP> <1531@bbncca.ARPA> Reply-To: tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) Followup-To: net.politics Organization: Ungermann-Bass, Inc., Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 178 In article <1531@bbncca.ARPA> rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) writes: >Tony should read the book, not browse. He seems to have seen >only what he wanted to. It's simply false that: > > 1 The book is only a series of interviews. Christian > has covered & witnessed events in Central America for > years & read most of the available documents and other > literature. She's won a Pulitzer & another prize as a > a Central American correspondent. What other possible > sources of information are there --- direction revelation > from the Party? Economic, cultural and demographic statistics. They tell how many more have become literate, how much less disease, how much better the diet of the average Nicaraguan. Journalists don't notice these things much, because they aren't "news". It should be noted that even in Communist countries, general national statistics appear valid by all comparative tests US analysts put to them. Nicaraguan statistics are probably good, too. As reported by international agencies, they show great progress. > 2 The book only shows Americans, not Nicaraguans, were > deceived (I find this claim particularly bizarre). > Christian clearly documents Sandinista deceit and > manipulation of NICARAGUAN politicians, interest > groups, labor, the church, etc. Eg, during the 70s > they promised their goal was political pluralism & > democracy and toleration of private enterprise. They For a revolutionary regime, the Sandinistas ARE tolerant of private enterprise. Not like the Cubans. Sure, they put controls on private enterprise, but all nations do. The Sandinistas can be tolerant of private enterprise and still have a policy that popular needs come first (whatever that means). They are only intolerant relative to the other Central American oligarchies. > told this to moderate & conservative allies; to heads > of state in Costa Rica, Venezuela (who armed the Sandi- > nistas at crucial moments); assorted foreign sympathi- > sers around the world; Eden Pastora (who was a non- > Marxist Christian), etc. It's clear from Christian's > narrative of events that belief in these promises > was crucial for the assorted support that made possible > the success of the 1979 revolution & of the Sandinistas. Crucial? No, I think everybody promised pluralism and democracy primarily for foreign (esp. US), not domestic, consumption. See below. > Without it, the FSLN would've remained a small (200 or > fewer members) Marxist-Leninist guerilla band. Tony, > you'd better learn more about Nicaragua & Nicaraguans. The history of Nicaragua shows no period of political pluralism and democracy, ever. The FSLN is Nicaraguan; its leadership did not spend large amounts of its time abroad in exile. There is no popular understanding of what democracy and pluralism is to support a regime which would follow it according to the dictates of the US. So FSLN speakers can say they're democratic and mean "we represent most of the Nicaraguan people; we're on top; therefore most of you are on top" and get yells and cheers from audiences. Any less than being on top and many Nicaraguans would see vultures hovering for the kill, because that's their history, a military-political one. The Arena party would speak a similar dialect in El Salvador before the last election: that democracy means "we represent the leading economic sectors of El Salvador; we're on top; therefore you are on top". If that's what "democracy" means, I'd rather the "we represent x" be "we represent most of the Nicaraguan people." I'm persuaded that that is what "democracy" means to the contras: "we're on top; we represent x", but I don't think the contra "x" is most of the Nicaraguan people. Given this context, I can't conceive of how slogans of "political pluralism and democracy" in the Nicaraguan environment could be anything but posturing and displaying one's politically correct plumage to foreign democracies. And that goes for both sides, bourgeois and FSLN. Neither side has a history to teach them what "political pluralism and democracy" means, so they don't know what they're talking about, so how could they take each other seriously? They can agree to support this slogan to attract foreign support. But they can't hold each other to a slogan which can't be locally defined. Now, this doesn't exclude that some people in Nicaragua know what political pluralism and democracy means. They might think promises of this were more than sloganeering for foreign ears. And they might feel hurt, since they were deceived by their own knowledge. Their little education turned out to be a dangerous thing; had they thought politically about what they thought "political pluralism and democracy" meant, instead of looking into their textbooks and foreign experiences, they might have understood the actual context of these promises in the politics of Nicaragua and its foreign relations. My charge about Christian is that she takes the most stupid naive view of Central American political rhetoric, which even most journalists see through in a second, and turns it into a book. >BTW, Tony, are you admitting that the FSLN is/has always been >Marxist-Leninist? > >I've read enough pro-Sandinist apologies by North Americans to be >familiar with their arguments. Defenses usually consist of denying >the junta is strictly Marxist-Leninist, & blaming the US for its >excesses. It's interesting Tony's abandoned that approach in order >to be able to criticize Christian's book. > >But thanks for taking the book seriously, even if your purpose in >reviewing (browsing?) it was to find an easy handle by which you >could dismiss it. Thanks for being straightforward and clear, Ron. I would judge the FSLN is Marxist-Leninist but not "strictly" so, if by that is meant holding to an COMECON definition of the correct form of economic-political organization (central planning, Party cadres everywhere running things, collectivization, a KGB). Part of the problem is what "Marxist-Leninist" means. I interpret "Marxist" as believing in a certain relationship between economic classes and that the working class should be on top. I interpret "Leninist" as believing that a centralized, clandestine, and disciplined party which stresses propaganda and the mobilization of popular support outside of regular political channels, while maintaining democratic centralism within party structure, is the best form to bring about Marxist revolution in police states. But this says almost nothing about what a post-revolutionary regime should do or look like, aside from following common sense (which I wish the Sandinistas had had more of in their foreign policy) and giving political authority to members of the class you want to sponsor (i.e. working class) while keeping it away (but not banning it entirely) from members of the old ruling class (i.e. bourgeoisie). Most Latin-American left organizations in military regimes are Marxist- Leninist, and usually they stick to urban areas and kill each other off in doctrinal disputes, for lack of anything better to do. The better ones, like the FSLN, actually take risks to mobilize support and have a strategy for success. But it should be noted that "Marxist- Leninist" is so vague -- there are usually no books, no training, no newspaper [a critical element of Leninist strategy], so the ML is more dream than model for Latin-American leftists. I don't KNOW that the FSLN is M-L, but I wouldn't doubt it a whit. The dreaminess of their "revolutionary alliances", which, except for the Cuban connection which brought doctors and teachers, etc., brought no benefits to Nicaragua and worsened its foreign political shape tremendously, say to me that if the FSLN dreams, it dreams East. I still think FSLN reforms in health, agriculture and education, which required some dispossession and violation of private property, help the Nicaraguan people a lot more than any Somoza ever did, and that the alternatives are all worse, a lot worse. The FSLN is still my favorite Central American government, because of what it has done for the average Nicaraguan, and because it is the most unbloody young revolutionary regime I have EVER SEEN!. I appreciate that a lot. As far as blaming the US goes, I blame the US for giving the FSLN so few options for how to run their state and economy in a way that everyone feels stable and loosening and democracy can advance. US pressure may have closed openings for democracy which the FSLN would have been very happy to trade off for increased national stability and trade. Of course, then it might have been a Nicaraguan democracy which would satisfy the tolerant but could never satisfy the US. But maybe the FSLN would not have been more democratic. They have a sense of "popular democracy" which they wish to sharply distinguish from the Cuban pretence of such; maybe it's for real, and maybe it's not. There was a historical moment when it had a chance; I fear that time has passed by now. We'll see. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw