Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Enigma who wrote (8042)	5/12/1999 11:22:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17770

but it's too easy to slide from this embassy fiasco and then site all of China's sins Are you implying that Chomsky should have no counterpart in Chinese society?? All nations have skeletons. Heck, one of my favorite histories of the US is, "A Country Made By War", by Geoffrey Perret. I don't try to justify past US escapades, but neither do I continue to indulge in self-flagellating myself as an American for past errors of judgement on the part of US leadership. As I've stated, there is more than enough blame to go around regarding aggressive behavior on the part of all the global powers. The major world powers have played their games since the beginning of history as they jockeyed for global position. The fundamental trend that I continue to look for is whether there arises another global power or system that can compete with what the US has been promoting, namely free trade, fundamental human rights, and political empowerment of the many over the few. I had asked you to define totalitarianism and how it differed from authoritarianism, but you apparently didn't opt to research the matter. Authoritarianism generally derives its power from a key figure or select group of individuals who, if they suddenly die or are overthrown, leave little or no process of succession for political power. The dictator dies and the gov't collapses as people scramble to organize politically to fill the vacuum. Totalitarianism derives its power from a political system of elitists who are answerable to no one but themselves. They deny political power to the masses while diverting economic benefits to their self-interests. The Russian and Chinese apparachiks provided the focus of totalitarian control over the their respective populations. A leader dies and there generally is an orderly succession of power (since successors are generally groomed well in advance). Neither state can permit democracy or freedom of speech to flourish since their citizenry would eventually call into question the cronyism and corruption of their leadership and rally to oppose it. Neither state has accountability to anyone but themselves. There is no freedom of speech (officially), and people are told what role in life they will play, or are at the complete mercy of the apparachiks. But an authoritarian gov't, due to its fragility, has the best opportunity for fostering future democracy. Chile was a prime example of this. Pinochet brutally repressed leftist groups (many of which had received training from the E. German Stasi, as denoted from the confiscated files taken from their headquarters.), restored order, and gradually loosened the reins of power as he grew older to include participation from the people. The means may be questionable, if not brutal, but the results are unimpeachable. Chile is now a thriving democracy with a far higher standard of living and political freedom than before. Totalitarian regimes are much more difficult to overthrow or rehabilitate. It consists of what equates to a number of political mafia families, each unwilling to give up their priviledged positions. And as in the case of Russia, when the system DOES break down, these apparachiks use their power to seize control and "privatize" profitable state economic resources (like Gazprom) and basically resume business as usual as organized crime bosses, much to the detriment of the common people. Just my opinion, but something you should consider when questioning why US policy has so fervently opposed totalitarianism and sometimes used dictators as proxies in order to do so. Authoritarians are the lesser of two evils. Regards, Ron