Re: Re: Re: Michael's Question

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

Carrol Cox wrote:

> These states did not fall _because_ they were democratic; they fell
> because the U.S. undermined or attacked them. But those who are all hot
> for third-world anti-imperialist democracy need to explain how these
> states might have survived. It's easy to say, they should arouse the
> populace. Gee whiz. They all _did_ arouse the populace. They were all
> popular governments. It takes time to turn a populace into an army that
> can defend itself -- more time than the US ever has or ever will allow.

Ok, so the alternatives are: 1) be open and democratic, and the US
will overthrow you, or 2) be autarkic and repressive and your
revolution will have failed itself, and your regime will eventually
fall because of its own internal contradictions. Is there a third
option, as long as the U.S. remains unchallenged?

Doug