On 2011-08-27, at 2:15 PM, // ravi wrote:
> On Aug 27, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 18:32, Carrol Cox <cbcox at ilstu.edu> wrote:
>>> Among all the weaker nations, independence probably depends on having an
>>> authoritarian state. Eventually Venezuela, Bolivia, and Equador will
>>> probably have to abolish elections or give in to being dependencies of the
>>> U.S
>>
>> Ridiculous, hideous argument.
>
>
> Carrol’s point, I would guess, is that so-called democratic institutions and processes are susceptible to being manipulated both by local oligarchs and the OECD/IMF nations with whom they collude. It’s a legitimate concern, isn’t it? What do you say to that?
Why stop there? Congress and Parliaments in the developed countries are similarly "susceptible to being manipulated" by the rich and powerful, which is understating it. Of course, it's a "legitimate concern", but it doesn't follow that the solution is to abolish these institutions and elections and transfer power to a single party or strongman to rule by decree. Evidently, Ravi hasn't been following this thread.
Not that it much matters. The unions, blacks, women, gays and other social movements which have won reforms by exploiting the openings afforded by bourgeois democracy, and similar movements fighting for these similar institutions and rights in autocratic states, wouldn't give this bizarre notion the time of day. It's one which sounds attractive only to left-wing political innocents detached from broad-based struggles, and, historically, to sinister fascists and other right wing parties opposed to bourgeois democracy who understand better than some on this list how it has allowed the masses to organize in defence of their interests.