SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (13378)10/8/1998 11:30:00 PM
From: Dayuhan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71178
 
Democracies have been conquered by external communist aggression (hardly a phenomenon unique to Communism). None have ever fallen to internal communist insurrection. Western European countries have had Communist parties for years; the leaders travel in Russia, they worship at Lenin's tomb, they pull all the same stunts that they try in other countries. As long as their is a democratic alternative, it doesn't work. All successful communist insurgencies have replaced corrupt, impotent, crumbled regimes that clung to power through violence and repression. This is the soil in which the seed of communism thrives; it is much easier and more effective to deny it the conditions in which it grows than to try to stamp out the weed after it's taken root.

<<I believe in free will and hold people accountable for their own actions, so I don't agree that they can pawn off their behavior on "the nature of the regime [they] oppose". It's one of the defining differences between right and left, in my opinion.>>

Has the American right ever taken responsibility for the actions of Somoza, or any of the numerous others, including the dope dealers they've tolerated and assisted in a vain attempt to achieve their political ends? Of course not. If you throw a ball at a wall, do you deny responsibility when the ball bounces back at you? Ask Alex, he'll tell you that all actions have equal and opposite reactions. If you oppress people, they will hate you and fight you with all means at their disposal. If you subsidize oppressors, the people being oppressed will turn to your enemies for help.

You have yet to address the fact that the Sandinistas did hold an election generally recognized as free, and stepped down when they lost, something none of the right-wing regimes we backed ever did. I've met many Nicaraguans, many of them far from leftist, and all agree that the country had far more freedom under the Sandinistas than it ever did under Somoza.

I'm neither a leftist nor a rightist, and I see very little difference between extremists on the two sides. The right has often justified brutality of the most extreme kind by claiming it was necessary to prevent their (inherently evil) opponents from attaining power: remember "we had to destroy the village in order to save it"? A courageous sentiment, if it's your village. It wasn't.

Change a few key words in your posts, and you can pass for a leftist. Same asumption of inherent correctness, same intentional tunnel vision.

You don't seem to realize that we're not debating left vs. right, we're debating the most effective means of resisting leftist extremism. I happen to think that promoting independent democracy - not slavish obedience to American dictation - works better than clumsy efforts at subsidizing dying feudal, colonial, and fascist regimes. What do you think?

Steve