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