Re: Michael's Question

["Andrew Hagen" <xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The United States, India, Israel, Turkey, and Mexico were able to
remain both open societies and independent. Each of these successful
nations embraced capitalism, albeit to different extents. One
additional item to add to Michael's list would be that the revolution
is socialist in character. That makes the problem even tougher.

Several strategies come to mind, though. First, do everything you can,
from compromises, to counter-intelligence, to raising awareness in the
press, to forming international alliances, to dissuade the imperial
power from taking an interest in wiping you out. Second, figure out how
to run a successful socialist economy in the context of an open
society. That hasn't been done yet. If your own economy fails you, then
the people will turn against the new regime. At that point the actions
of the imperial power are probably irrelevant.

Andrew Hagen
xah@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


On Mon, 03 Sep 2001 18:57:25 -0500, Carrol Cox wrote:

>
>
>Michael Perelman wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me ask a different question: a revolution has broken out in a poor
>> economy, without the ability to confront the imperialism powers head on.
>> Clandestine operations can do great damage to the society.  Less committed
>> citizens can be bribed.  Misinformation can confuse people, creating factional
>> divisions.  Suppose further that the society is divided among different ethnic
>> groups?
>>
>> How far will an open society get?
>>
>
>It seems to me the answer is "An Open Society will only get them a
>bloodbath" (Chile is paradigmatic here).
>
>For revolutionaries under such conditions to create an "open society"
>can be rephrased: They would do so only on the basis of trusting the
>United States. Juan Bosch, who attempted to build an open society in
>Santo Domingo, commented later that all patriotic Latin American leaders
>who trusted the U.S. ended up dead or in exile.
>
>Carrol
>
>