>> It's
>>not at all clear to me that DIY despotism is to be
>>valued over, e.g., a genuinely democratic government
>>installed by the SAS at Whitehall's behest.
>
>Maybe I'm being naive, but I thought that democratic governments wee
>installed by electorates, not foreign powers or armies.
I'm not sure 'naive' is the right word. To put it as politely as possible, it seems unlikely to me that you don't understand that a process and an outcome can be quite different.
>> The idea
>>that it always and necessarily is, it seems to me, is a
>>species of racism.
>
>Quickest way to short-circuit an argument... Maybe self-determination
>does seem like racism to you, but then that's you, what can I do about
>it?
Well, you could choose not to twist my words. That would make a start, at least.
There is no fundamental difference between believing, e.g., All scots are humorless penny-pinchers and No scots are humorless penny-pinchers. Either way, it doesn't pay the people the courtesy of looking at them as the individuals they are. That is the root of racism.
>>If we are in solidarity with other working folk around
>>the world, why wouldn't we want the best for them, no
>>matter where it comes from?
>
>Because you cannot force people to be free. I want the best for the
>people of the Balkans, but trust that they have a better idea of it than
>I do.
No, one cannot force people to be free. But one _can_ use force as a barrier against those who would foreclose choice. That's more or less what the idea of Society is all about, after all: communal support against predation.
I take the simpleminded position that predation is always and invariably bad. I don't make an exception for home-grown predators. That's as unreasonable as thinking it better to have your house burgled by a neighbor than by someone from out of town. It makes no sense.
>
>>if the choice
>>were home-grown Fascism or foreign-grown Socialism,
>>guess which i'd choose, every time? Wouldn't you?
>
>Interesting idea, foreign-grown socialism. (I must admit I hadn't
>realised that Nato was attempting to install a socialist republic,
>assuming that it was in the business of dismantling a 'Socialist
>Republic') I would like to suggest that it is a contradiction in terms,
>like a chocolate tea-pot, or rocking horse shit.
Why do you choose to twist my words? You didn't respond to what i actually said, but rather to some twisted re-construction of your own. Why?
>At the end of the War the peoples of Eastern Europe had 'foreign-grown
>socialism' imposed upon them, and struggled against it, preferring home-
>grown reaction. Were they wrong? Socialism is not welfare (after all
>fascists gave the people welfare). Socialism is self-government. To put
>it strongly, 'foreign-grown socialism' is fascism, i.e. socialism
>without democracy.
I too tend to think of socialism as implying democracy and equality, though that is more properly the definition of communism. The key features of Soviet hegemony were totalitarianism and lack of equality, not its nominal socialism. Those characteristics adequately account for the 'struggle' you cite, not the imposition from outside. We can see that by looking at the identical rejection inside the country, and by the contrary example of Germany, which also had a government imposed from the outside after WW2.