[lbo-talk] Law Student With a History of Taking Left Turns

[C. G. Estabrook]

Or, to put it another way, the first three were native leaders of mass
movements that defended their people against First World (primarily US)
depredations and took harsh measures to promote modernization.  The second
triad lacked mass backing because they were corrupt agents of narrow First
World interests.  Given the choice, the first are to be preferred, although
a libertarian socialist republic -- hardly possible under Western attack
-- would have been preferable to any of them.  --CGE

On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Brad DeLong wrote:


> 
> ...In all three pairs, the first members are charismatic dictators who
> believed in the abolition of markets, the collectivization of
> agriculture, and the centralization of an enormous amount of power in
> the hands of the states. In all three pairs, the second members are
> corrupt comprador politicians of one sort or another. Answers tend to
> go together...
> 
> [childish abuse snipped]