More on Greece

[ALR]

On Fri, 2 Apr 1999, Brad De Long wrote:

> >>I'm not sure why you say that we don't know what the alternative would have
> >>looked like had Greece had a really-existing-socialist government for the
> >>entire post-WWII period. We have lots of examples of such governments in
> >>Eastern Europe, and know a lot about what they look like...
> >
> >
> >Given the number of socialists on this list and the amount of material
> >available on the various flavors of socialism on this planet, I find your
> >comment disingenuous.  I'm sure you may have met, or at least heard of
> >someone, at some point, on this planet, who thinks that "socialism" might be
> >something different than the command economies found in the Eastern Bloc.
> 
> I think that there *was* good reason back at the end of the 1950s to hope
> that Castro would be different and better than the rest of
> really-existing-socialism (though he has turned out not to be).
 

I guess I should not be surprised that you were hopeful that a nationalist
revolution that the working class was largely tangential to would create a
useful and working workers' state instead of the whatever-you-want-to-call
it that emerged (state cap, def. work state, r-e-soc, bur-col whatever).


I still think that Allende in Chile had a good chance of building a good
society, a
> better Chile than we in fact have today. I am unsure about the
> Sandanistas...

I shouldn't be surprised  at this either.  Why socialism would magically
come through parliament in Chile is beyond me.  Funny though, you didn't
think the instllation of Pinochet was just the thing needed to preserve
democracy in Latin America, though this is your exact position on Greece.
 
> 
But eastern Europe at the end of World War II? It seems very unlikely.
> 
Yes, I know you thjink it unlikely, and now given your other exampls, I
can see why.  You just have no conception of a working class doing
anything on its own.

> Is there any evidence, any reason, anything at all that you can point to
> that suggests that a Greek communist government taking over the country in
> 1944 or 1948 would have done anything other than repeat one of the sad
> stories of Hoxha--Tito--Zhivkov--Ceausescu?

Yes.
 
1. We shouldn't confuse a population moving towards socialism and a
population being moved towards a party-run command economy by foreign
tanks.  In the first one, people can and do develop their own industrial
democratic organs, usually centered around the workplace, the second is
just the nationalization of assets.

2. There already was a web of thse democratic organs in Greece by late
1943, that was administering to much of the countryside without simply
nationalizing assets.  I think a democratic socialism could emerge because
one was emerging, even under the strain of Nazi occupation.

3. The communist movement in Greece had already pried out much of the Nazi
army and Stalin wasn't too fond of them.  Unlike other countries which
were largely beaten down by the Nazis and were thus largely unable to do
much against Stalin's roll-in, the Greeks could have and possibly would
have resisted, and successfully.  A one of a kind thing to be sure, but
Greece has had one of a kind things happen before, like winning its
independence war while the other wars in the early 19th century failed to
achieve that goal for other nearby states.


Basically I don't see and I don't see any reason to see party-run states
with statified command economies as the natural or inevitable result of a
wroking class movement.  In fact, these things are likely to occur as a
result of the defeat of the woking class.


Additionally, you'll note that I actually answered your question, and in
fact have answered several times in this thread.  You continue to evade
mine.  Shall we put the 'Delong thinks fascism to democracy' subject
heading bak up.  Waving away historical circumstance as "unlikely" doesn't
mean anything.