<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
> Stalin was not hated in Soviet Russia. The Ukraine, that's another<BR>
> story. But he was idolized in Russia. the intelligentsia hated him,<BR>
> but they were not a large social group. And the fact is that, apart<BR>
> from the catastrophic crime of collectivization and the random acts of<BR>
> terror that occasionally took a worker or kolkoznik to the Gulag for<BR>
> 25 years (most of that stuff was aimed at the party any the<BR>
> intelligents, though), Stalinism vastly improved the lot of the<BR>
> peoples of the Soviet Union. They didn't have a reason to hate the old<BR>
> tyrant. they didn't have much freedom, but most people don't use it,<BR>
> so they don't miss it most of the time. jks<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
The assumption that democracy is _always_ under all conditions the best<BR>
or at least the better alternative is just that, an assumption, and I<BR>
believe it can be challenged even by those of us who see the (ultimate)<BR>
future to depend on the victory of democracy (in several important<BR>
senses of the word).<BR>
<BR>
First an observation that I think could be empirically validated by 19th<BR>
& 20th century history: those who have most to gain _personally_ from<BR>
democracy, and most to lose _personally_ from authoritarian regimes are<BR>
left intellectuals (marxist or non-marxist) -- i.e. people like us<BR>
(=lbo-talk subscribers). Certainly President Hussein's chief victims<BR>
came from this category, as did Stalin's.<BR>
<BR>
In the world outside the EU, US, & Japan, I suspect the mass of the<BR>
people in most nations are best served by patriotic dictators.<BR>
("Patriotic" here being a synonym for Anti-U.S.). Democracies in Latin<BR>
America, Africa, and most of Asia will, eventually, be run for the<BR>
interests of U.S., European, and Japanese capital, and the mass of the<BR>
people will be reduced to misery.<BR>
<BR>
The short range interests of humanity are (I suppose one could stick in<BR>
"objectively" here) best served by anti-american tyrants in the "third<BR>
world." And those short range interests in this case are not in conflict<BR>
with but an essential precondition for pursuing the long-range interests<BR>
of humanity.<BR>
<BR>
Carrol<BR>
<BR>
^^^^^^^</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Charles B: Thus, Marx didn't treat "democracy = the working class as the ruling class" and " the revolutionary _dictatorship_ of the proletariat" or dictatorship/democracy as an " exhausitve binary" & Lenin never promised you a rose garden ( anytime soon). </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>