State power/consolidating gains

[Brian Turner <myrd62@yahoo.com>]

APOLOGIES TO ALL FOR SENDING THE BLANK POST

--- Rwchina@aol.com wrote:

> They did a pretty good job of ousting Aristide in
> Haiti a couple of years 
> ago, despite all the blather about democracy. 

Was the US the crucial factor in the success of the
coupists? (I have no idea). I would say even if in
this case it was a tipping factor, the tools in the
toolbox are greatly reduced from prior historical
periods.  

>  It has certainly been 
> facilitated by the "distraction" of the empire in
> the Middle East. 

The US government is big, I think they can multi-task,
but even if you are right, perhaps in the absence of
such distraction, and a bolder attempt was made to
impose the Washington Consensus model, that might
create more popular backlash the anti-WC democratic
elements could feed off.  

> This is the overall 
> weakness of the new "anti-globalization" movement,
> which not only is not, but 
> in some cases is very resistant to the concept of,
> exercising state power.  

I agree. 

> [...] I think the experience of
> the CR is relevant here, since 
> I believe that it suffered from a similar inability
> to consolidate at the 
> center the democratic gains made at the base...

I can't resist using this as a transition to one of
the questions that most perplexes me about the CR. 
You say they didn't consolidate the gains -- but was
there even an unconsolidated foothold at the center? 
If so who?  Who among the central leadership is not
complicit in the major purges and massacres of rebels
in the 1968-71 period?  Even if not complicit, who
said/did anything against it?

The thing that is perplexing the most is how rebels
retained power in Han Dongping's village (and perhaps
elsewhere) until the late 1970s?  



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com