Sounds like her husband has better things to do, but that's just my opinion.

(November 1, 2012 at 12:02 am)Ciel_Rouge Wrote: I wonder what you think about all this

Duh! ... Uhm ... What was the question?

(November 2, 2012 at 4:19 pm)cratehorus Wrote: really? tell him to make an account on this website, i'm sure we would love to hear your husbands opinion about democracy in Africa, especially since he has a double masters in international economics and african politics (is it african politics or something else) did he go to the university of london, or the U of Exeter?

Johns Hopkins SAIS program, and I was waiting for you to get online. Give me a minute to collect stuff, he sent me a 20 page book outline which I don't think I can post in its entirety.

---

(November 2, 2012 at 4:20 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Sounds like her husband has better things to do, but that's just my opinion.

Ah, but he humors me! And forwards me documents...

---

This is not my work, it is my husband's. He has given me verbal permission to post this. Notes in brackets [ ] are mine, these are excerpts, and I'm filling in.
So for starters, a working definition of totalitarianism:

Quote:Given the pejorative connotations surrounding the label “totalitarian,” it is not only necessary to be precise in its application, but to appreciate its implications. Linz [reference to Juan J. Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes] notes the following characteristics of totalitarianism:
1: There is a monistic but not a monolithic center of power, and whatever pluralism of institutions or groups exists derives its legitimacy from that center, is largely mediated by it, and is mostly a political creation rather than an outgrowth of the dynamics of the preexisting society.
2: There is an exclusive, autonomous, and more or less intellectually elaborate ideology with which the ruling group or leader, and the party serving the leaders, identify and which they use as a basis for policies or manipulate to legitimize them. The ideology has some boundaries beyond which lies heterodoxy that does not remain unsanctioned. The ideology goes beyond a particular program or definition of the boundaries of legitimate political action to provide, presumably, some ultimate meaning, sense of historical purpose, and interpretation of social reality.
3: Citizen participation in and active mobilization for political and collective social tasks are encouraged, demanded, rewarded, and channeled through a single party and many monopolistic secondary groups. Passive obedience and apathy and retreating into the role of “parochial” and “subjects,” characteristic of many authoritarian regimes, are considered undesirable by the rulers.
Linz also describes the feedback between the center and the processes of participation within the controlled organizations, the role of propaganda and intellectuals, the use of terror, the system’s collective or mobilizational aspects, the emphasis on conformity, and the frequent development of the cult of the leader as salient characteristics of totalitarianism, although some of these characteristics may also appear in non-totalitarian authoritarian regimes,2 and some of these characteristics may not always be present.

He's a dense writer, but he's writing for political scientists, not the New York Times best seller list.
Do we have agreement upon the definition of totalitarianism?

---

And I was mistaken, it is Eritrea he claims is totalitarian, not Equatorial Guinea.
[quote]
Undoubtedly, the most clear-cut totalitarian state in Africa is Eritrea, which is often compared to North Korea. Although data is scarce, since foreigners are not allowed outside the capital, Asmara, and the country rarely makes international headlines, the evidence seems more than sufficient to qualify the Eritrean regime as totalitarian, based on documentation by Human Rights Watch, the US State Department, and Freedom House, among others. In a comprehensive report by the Norwegian researcher, Kjetil Tronvoll, “The Lasting Struggle for Freedom in Eritrea,” he concludes:
“The current situation in Eritrea regarding democratization and human rights can only be described as an extremely totalitarian military dictatorship. The President is relying on just a handful of men to control the security and military apparatus in order to dominate and suppress the entire Eritrean population. As this is written, in April 2009, there are no signs of change of mind or policies among the Eritrean government, and the extremely dire human rights situation is sustained. The following points sum up the situation:
Although the Constitution has been ratified, it is not implemented, and the constitutional provisions regarding democracy, human rights and good governance are not observed;
Only the government party (the PFDJ/EPLF) is allowed;
The government controls all mass media, the independent press has been shut down since September 2001;
The government directly interferes with and controls the judiciary;
Extrajudicial sentencing and killings occur regularly;
There is widespread detention without trial of individuals associated with any kind of activity not prescribed or sanctioned by the authorities;
Detainees are routinely tortured, and prison conditions are in general inhumane;
Freedom of expression is severely curtailed, if it exists at all;
Freedom of assembly is severely curtailed, prohibiting the gathering of more than a handful of people;
Independent research and academic freedom are severely curtailed;
The government restricts the development of an independent civil society. No independent human rights or civic rights organizations exist;
Due to government priorities and mismanagement, there is escalating poverty and a sharp decline in economic activities;
The government is nourishing a ‘political culture of war’ and enforces a continuous mobilization of young men and women sustaining Africa’s biggest army;
The existence of an elaborate secret intelligence network, spying and informing on all sectors of society;
Religious communities are restricted in the practice of their beliefs and ‘new’ Christian churches are banned and their followers persecuted;
The relevance of the international society is weakened, as the government becomes more and more authoritarian;
The Eritrean government is a regional ‘spoiler’ of peace, currently pursuing destabilizing strategies in Somalia, militarily challenging Djibouti, and supporting the armed Ethiopian opposition.10
The central role of ideology in providing the framework for the Eritrean state is revealing, reinforced by the decades of war that contributed to the militarism, intolerance of dissent, and increasing centralization of decision-making. Eritrea’s president, Isaias Afwerki, has long been committed to “guided democracy,” a form of centralized control to develop the economy and unify and transform the society. “Democracy in this view had more to do with participation (voluntary or not) than accountability. In the tradition of state-centered authoritarian socialism, they relegated political democracy to the status of a luxury.” Connell traces the inspiration for the Eritrean system to Leninist traditions. “In Isaias’s case (Eritreans traditionally go by first names), this was reinforced by training in China at the height of the Cultural Revolution, during which he received intensive exposure to Maoist doctrine whose themes of extreme ‘voluntarism’ and populism continue to define his world view.”11 Despite Eritrea’s economic difficulties, the government expects the recent discovery of large deposits of gold to reinforce its ability to maintain control, while the regime is at the same time tightening the restrictions against the few international agencies still working in the country.12
Other aspects of the regime that conform to classic notions of totalitarianism are equally compelling, such as the existence of the secret Eritrean People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP) revealed by Isaias in 1994, which he said was a party within the EPLF that had functioned as a revolutionary vanguard, directing the wider organization. Although the EPRP was officially disbanded in 1989, the government continues to be run by an amorphous and shrinking group of people whose authority is dependent on the favor of Isaias. The use of mass mobilization is also remarkable. As the International Crisis Group has observed, “National service puts large pools of labour at the state’s disposal for commercial agricultural projects and the building of roads and dams; however, these are exercises in state control rather than significant contributions to economic development – many such projects are largely irrelevant.”13 Although the ICG has opined that “the state cannot strictly be considered totalitarian, since it lacks the bureaucratic and technological resources to control its citizens quite so effectively,”14 Connell has found, “Longtime confidants refused to express criticism of the regime in public places, even in whispers, for fear they might be punished. Nor would they voice criticism over the phone or in emails, as they believed all electronic communication was monitored.”15 In other words, however unsophisticated it might be, the Eritrean state has been quite effective in imposing total control.
[\quote]
He has equally compelling arguments in the case of Ethiopia and Rwanda.

(November 2, 2012 at 4:36 pm)festive1 Wrote: Johns Hopkins SAIS program, and I was waiting for you to get online. Give me a minute to collect stuff, he sent me a 20 page book outline which I don't think I can post in its entirety.

John Hopkins University is a great school! They won't mind if you post the whole thing just use the hide tag

Quote:Given the pejorative connotations surrounding the label “totalitarian,” it is not only necessary to be precise in its application, but to appreciate its implications. Linz [reference to Juan J. Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes] notes the following characteristics of totalitarianism:

talking about totalitarianism is similair to talking about witchcraft.....in the 1700's yes there are witches and there are people practicing wicca but the word itself has transformed into something completely different from the literal interpretation.

Quote: There is an exclusive, autonomous, and more or less intellectually elaborate ideology with which the ruling group or leader, and the party serving the leaders, identify and which they use as a basis for policies or manipulate to legitimize them.

this defintion suggests that the ideology is only a farce, and the government uses this ideology to trick people, while behaving differently behind the scenes even setting up secret police, while this might be an appropriate defintion for totalitarianism when discussing Marxism, it doesn't account for the US constitution or Mein Kampf, it suggests there was ultimately nothing wrong with Mein Kampf, it was only the "people" who were at fault, it was essentially Hitler's fault, Germany lost because, he himself did not adhere to his own ideology and instead setup secret forces that contridicted his original principles.

This leaves me too believe that fascism is fine as long as you do it right, OR that there is no such thing as fascism, in the first place. He then begins to describe the eritrean secret police as if they are the african KGB of the 21st century, completley leaving out the fact that outside infulences even exist in africa by simpy dimissing the whole country as isolationists, there might not be "international headlines" but there are news reports, that your government chooses not too accept based on "legitamacy concerns" but of course if any child writes an article about "alqueada in eritrea" it will be front page news, but illegal fishing trawlers scraping the eritrean coast or illegally dumping nuclear waste, are completely left out of the discussion because the reports aren't "confirmed"

I hope there's a better argument for totalitarianism in Rwanda because this appears to be saying all mean people are totalitarian, or every leader who doesn't aspire to be like america is a totalitarian despot

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: John Hopkins University is a great school! They won't mind if you post the whole thing just use the hide tag

Regardless of what JHU's feelings in the matter might be, we aren't a mirror site and we have a policy against reprinting works in their entirety (even with permission or for works in public domain).

If it's online, linking to it is perfectly OK. Summarizing is OK. Quoting selected, limited portions is OK. Reprinting is not.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: John Hopkins University is a great school! They won't mind if you post the whole thing just use the hide tag

This was a paper given at the 2011 African Studies Association conference in Washington, DC. I haven't been able to find a link to it anywhere. This is actually me copying and pasting from the electronic copy my husband sent me from his office files :-) Lynne Reiner publishers has agreed to publish an expanded version of this as a book. Hopefully to be published in 2013.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: this defintion suggests that the ideology is only a farce, and the government uses this ideology to trick people, while behaving differently behind the scenes even setting up secret police, while this might be an appropriate defintion for totalitarianism when discussing Marxism, it doesn't account for the US constitution or Mein Kampf, it suggests there was ultimately nothing wrong with Mein Kampf, it was only the "people" who were at fault, it was essentially Hitler's fault, Germany lost because, he himself did not adhere to his own ideology and instead setup secret forces that contridicted his original principles.

Totalitarianism is an ideal type, there is no such thing as a purely totalitarian system, just as there is no such thing as a purely democratic system. There were, both in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, islands of dissent and autonomous social structures. However, that doesn't mean that these were not essentially totalitarian systems. There are many authoritarian regimes in the world that commit human rights abuses, that deny democratic rights, that are extremely repressive. A system is only totalitarian if it has these 3 key features, as accepted by most political scientists:
1: The overarching ideology
2: The convergence of party and state
3: Mass mobilization
and this is a simplification. There are other features that are commonly present in totalitarian regimes that may also be found in authoritarian regimes. Such as: the use of terror, extensive police apparatus, charismatic dictator, and repression of opposition political parties, independent press, and civil society.
By these guidelines and definition of totalitarianism, Eritrea is a totalitarian state, as is Rwanda and Ethiopia, North Korea and Cuba are also generally considered surviving totalitarian systems.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: This leaves me too believe that fascism is fine as long as you do it right, OR that there is no such thing as fascism, in the first place.

It is absurd that you should suggest this.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: He then begins to describe the eritrean secret police as if they are the african KGB of the 21st century,

Which they are.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: completley leaving out the fact that outside infulences even exist in africa by simpy dimissing the whole country as isolationists,

A state can be totalitarian without being isolationist. It is convenient to control information in a totalitarian system, and therefore many totalitarian systems are relatively isolated.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: there might not be "international headlines" but there are news reports, that your government chooses not too accept based on "legitamacy concerns"

Very few outsiders are allowed to travel to Eritrea. There is no independent press. Simply because North Korean press says something does not mean it is true, it is the same in the case of Eritrea, any press coming out of the country has been screened by the government.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: but of course if any child writes an article about "alqueada in eritrea" it will be front page news,

red herring

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: but illegal fishing trawlers scraping the eritrean coast or illegally dumping nuclear waste, are completely left out of the discussion because the reports aren't "confirmed"

These are private companies doing these things, not the government, and non sequiteurs.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: I hope there's a better argument for totalitarianism in Rwanda because this appears to be saying all mean people are totalitarian, or every leader who doesn't aspire to be like america is a totalitarian despot

Just the ones that meet the generally accepted criteria listed above. Not all mean people are totalitarian.

Here's the case for Rwanda:

Quote:a
Paul Kagame, Rwanda’s president, is proud of his country’s political achievements, the way it has healed “the deep-seated wounds of a shattered society in need of both justice and reconciliation.” Challenging outside critics advocating greater democracy, Kagame ripostes, “it was precisely a system of pluralistic politics that played a major role in the genocide, as newly formed parties with shared extremist ideology outperformed the former one-party state in mobilizing the population to commit mass murder.” Nevertheless, “Rwandans do have a voice in their own affairs,” and he claims the country has adopted a system of decentralization, imihigo, and that the high turnout in the 2010 elections proves the government’s popularity.20
Despite these democratic pretentions, Rwanda’s economic success and apparent “good governance,” the political system bears all the hallmarks of totalitarianism. President Kagame acknowledges the need for authoritarian measures, and the usual repressive apparatus is in place. Again, to cite Freedom House, this includes dominance by the ruling party, the RPF; control of the media and civil society; a lack of academic freedom and freedom of assembly; and a non-independent judiciary. Rwanda gets credit for its gacaca courts, its efforts against corruption, and the high percentage of women represented in the parliament. Rwanda scores a down-trending, but relatively respectable “5” in Freedom House’s ranking of civil liberties, and a “6” in the political freedom category, situating it in the same class as Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Djibouti, and Mauritania (as well as Russia).21
Perhaps this can be ascribed to the regime’s talent for packaging itself for international approval. Indeed, propaganda and indoctrination have been highly effective in legitimating the regime. As Rentjies concludes, “the use of the instruments of knowledge construction has an extraordinary impact on the relations of those in power with both their own citizens and the outside world.” He suggests this may be due to Kagame’s experience as head of military intelligence in Museveni’s NRA. This has been successful with the international community, but also “domestically, the RPF has decreed one single truth and devised instruments (legislation, intimidation, ‘re-education’, silencing alternative voices) to avoid its being challenged, at least publicly.”22
The Rwanda case may also be cited for the government’s mass mobilization techniques. The gacaca courts failed to achieve significant popular participation until this was made mandatory. The famous umuganda brigades require every Rwandan citizen to devote one day of the month to cleaning public spaces. The re-education centers for former genocidaires have also attained some notoriety. The government’s attempts at social engineering include rural transformation through villagization, crop regionalization, and the forced elimination of thatched huts.23 Although all these efforts have socially beneficial justifications, in practice they are often coercive and assert the control of the state over the individual.
If the perspective of a single dissident can shed light on a totalitarian regime, as sampled in the case of Ethiopia, then the experiences of a large group of poor farmers may provide another form of illumination. In October 2010, the author met with a group of about 300 local residents of a district some 100 kilometers outside of Kigali who were holding a workshop on reconciliation sponsored by an international donor. The group was almost evenly divided between survivors of the genocide and ex-prisoners or family of prisoners. In the course of the workshop, some participants seemed to express a willingness to make efforts to reconcile. Typically, one participant emphasized that, after being released from 15 years in prison, he was struggling to survive and support his family. But as far as his neighbors were concerned, they had said they forgave him for what he had done, and there was no longer a problem between them. It was apparent that one of the incentives for participants to attend the workshop was the 1500 RWF ($3) “transportation allowance” each of them collected at the end of the program. Yet at the conclusion, several relatively well-dressed police and local government officials intervened to make it clear that all participants were expected to donate $1 of their allowance to help build a new classroom for the local school. Virtually every participant dutifully did so, and they were each given proper receipts, but it was poignantly clear that most did so with some regret, even if uncomplaining, since even $1 is a lot of money in such a poor community. What was not clear, watching the officials handling the money after collecting it, was how much would actually go to build the classroom.
Such passive objections to the totalitarian regime have been more scientifically documented by Susan Thomson in her study, “Whispering truth to power: The everyday resistance of Rwandan peasants to post-genocide reconciliation.” As Thomson observes, the Rwandan government’s policy of national unity and reconciliation “structures the interaction of individual Rwandans with the state and with each other. On paper, it is a set of mechanisms that ‘aim to promote unity between Tutsi and Hutu in creating one Rwanda for all Rwandans’; in practice, it disguises the government’s efforts to control its population while working to consolidate the political power of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

Quote:Eritrea is a totalitarian state, as is Rwanda and Ethiopia, North Korea and Cuba are also generally considered surviving totalitarian systems.

This isn't about totalitarianism this is anti-communist propaganda, the exact same type that was used in the cold war, He blames totalitarianism yet does not include suadi arabia Iran but includes north korea and Cuba, what do they have to with africa????

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

Quote:This leaves me too believe that fascism is fine as long as you do it right, OR that there is no such thing as fascism, in the first place.

It is absurd that you should suggest this.

why? he makes no case against fascism and is also painting the Rwanda massacres as some kind of leftist revolt, this is hysteria, the genocide was caused by decades of european colonialism, they seperated the races by which looked the most WHITE, there is no such thing as hutu or tootsi these are foreign imagined races defined by the Germans, this has nothing to do with communism so WHAAAAT???? is this part about rwanda???? This the same old line, of communists and nazis are the same thing just one speaks russian, and one speaks german

Quote:

Quote:

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: He then begins to describe the eritrean secret police as if they are the african KGB of the 21st century,

Which they are.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: but of course if any child writes an article about "alqueada in eritrea" it will be front page news,

red herring

how can you say the eritrean secret police the EPRD (which he even admits was disbanded in 1989 wink) is the KGB, a bunch of half starved prisoners who can barely aim a gun are not the same as CIA of the Soviet Union. Yet you don't beleive that if FOX news did some shitty story about written by 14 year old about alqueada and showed a guy wearing a turban in the desert with a AK-47 with the caption reading Asmara, Eritrea a since most americans have never heard of this ocuntry before, everyone would beleive it? why?????

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: completley leaving out the fact that outside infulences even exist in africa by simpy dimissing the whole country as isolationists,

Quote:A state can be totalitarian without being isolationist. It is convenient to control information in a totalitarian system, and therefore many totalitarian systems are relatively isolated.

so by isolationist he's refering strictly to the media which i imagine is due to propganda laws in this country something many fascist dictatorships have. But changing this words defintion as well to make his point that communism is what's wrong with africa, and fascism isn't perfect but if those are the only to choices fascism is the better one

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: there might not be "international headlines" but there are news reports, that your government chooses not too accept based on "legitamacy concerns"

Quote:Very few outsiders are allowed to travel to Eritrea. There is no independent press. Simply because North Korean press says something does not mean it is true, it is the same in the case of Eritrea, any press coming out of the country has been screened by the government.

independent from whom?? there are about 5 US media companies?? how many exist in Eritrea? again this is an argument about media isolationism presented as Eritrea being somewhere that people aren't allowed into asi if, it's in a walled off castle ontop of a very steep mountain, this is on the red sea, next the damned Suez Canal............. one of the largest busiest shipping routes in the world, DID THEY BUILD A FUCKING FENCE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT?

Quote:

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: but illegal fishing trawlers scraping the eritrean coast or illegally dumping nuclear waste, are completely left out of the discussion because the reports aren't "confirmed"

These are private companies doing these things,not the government,

bullshit, you might wanna see things this way.......... but when Halliburton dumps toxic waste in your backkyard you blame America not the current CEO, you really wanna explain to me why america should not be held responsible for their "companies" dumping toxic waste all over Africa?

Quote:Just the ones that meet the generally accepted criteria listed above.

I dont accept that criteria, that's a typical fascist trait, redefining words, and rewriting history

Here's the case for Rwanda:


I would love to stick to rwanda and eritrea right now, because I imagine he's using Ethiopia more as an 'example' of a large scale widespread "slightly dilluted" version of what's happening in Eritrea. Do you have any more, maybe something more specific about Rwanda? does he mention their history at all or does the whole thing start at kagame's presidecy like nothing ever happened before, I have a secret for you Rwanda isn't proud of it's shitty heritage (not everyone is) norare they "proud" of it's shitty white man's name, for its shitty heavily poinoned land or it's people

the whole things reads like "the Cherokee's are so proud of the their American heritage".......sounds right! but ummmmmmm no the fuck it's not

(November 3, 2012 at 11:31 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

Quote:Eritrea is a totalitarian state, as is Rwanda and Ethiopia, North Korea and Cuba are also generally considered surviving totalitarian systems.

This isn't about totalitarianism this is anti-communist propaganda, the exact same type that was used in the cold war, He blames totalitarianism yet does not include suadi arabia Iran but includes north korea and Cuba, what do they have to with africa????

Absolutely nothing. This was intended to be examples of other totalitarian systems in the world, not an all inclusive list. Saudi Arabia and some other middle eastern and African regimes, such as Equatorial Guinea, correspond to Max Weber's definition of sultanistic regimes, which are a close cousin to totalitarian regimes. However, these systems are based on theocratic or nepotistic principles rather than an overarching political ideology. Iran is arguably a theocracy, and although repressive does contain some social autonomy and democratic elements, therefore, it is not totalitarian.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: It is absurd that you should suggest this.

why? he makes no case against fascism and is also painting the Rwanda massacres as some kind of leftist revolt, this is hysteria, the genocide was caused by decades of european colonialism, they seperated the races by which looked the most WHITE, there is no such thing as hutu or tootsi these are foreign imagined races defined by the Germans, this has nothing to do with communism so WHAAAAT???? is this part about rwanda???? This the same old line, of communists and nazis are the same thing just one speaks russian, and one speaks german
[/quote]
The colonial legacy was significant in the Rwandan conflict, however, the fundamental problem there was political. The problem is fundamentally a struggle for political power, not ethnic dominance.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: how can you say the eritrean secret police the EPRD (which he even admits was disbanded in 1989 wink) is the KGB, a bunch of half starved prisoners who can barely aim a gun are not the same as CIA of the Soviet Union. Yet you don't beleive that if FOX news did some shitty story about written by 14 year old about alqueada and showed a guy wearing a turban in the desert with a AK-47 with the caption reading Asmara, Eritrea a since most americans have never heard of this ocuntry before, everyone would beleive it? why?????

The police apparatus in Eritrea is still alive and well. The fact of the matter is, Eritrean prisons are filled with thousands of people who have been caught trying to flee the country or avoid military service, which is compulsory. There are more journalists imprisoned in Eritrea than anywhere else in the world, per Reporters without Borders. The entire population lives in fear.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: completley leaving out the fact that outside infulences even exist in africa by simpy dimissing the whole country as isolationists,

Quote:A state can be totalitarian without being isolationist. It is convenient to control information in a totalitarian system, and therefore many totalitarian systems are relatively isolated.

so by isolationist he's refering strictly to the media which i imagine is due to propganda laws in this country something many fascist dictatorships have. But changing this words defintion as well to make his point that communism is what's wrong with africa, and fascism isn't perfect but if those are the only to choices fascism is the better one
[/quote]
Not quite sure how you are getting a pro-fascist argument from this piece? Both communism and fascism are totalitarian ideologies, which very few people would assert are positive for those living under such systems of governance.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote: there might not be "international headlines" but there are news reports, that your government chooses not too accept based on "legitamacy concerns"

Quote:Very few outsiders are allowed to travel to Eritrea. There is no independent press. Simply because North Korean press says something does not mean it is true, it is the same in the case of Eritrea, any press coming out of the country has been screened by the government.

independent from whom?? there are about 5 US media companies?? how many exist in Eritrea? again this is an argument about media isolationism presented as Eritrea being somewhere that people aren't allowed into asi if, it's in a walled off castle ontop of a very steep mountain, this is on the red sea, next the damned Suez Canal............. one of the largest busiest shipping routes in the world, DID THEY BUILD A FUCKING FENCE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT?
[/quote]
Nope, no fence you don't know about. They still have more journalists imprisoned than anywhere else on the globe. This piece is about totalitarian systems in Africa, it is not intended to be a defense of the American media. The American media is not controlled by the US government, however much it may be dominated by a handful of companies.

(November 2, 2012 at 7:01 pm)cratehorus Wrote:

---

Quote:These are private companies doing these things,not the government,

bullshit, you might wanna see things this way.......... but when Halliburton dumps toxic waste in your backkyard you blame America not the current CEO, you really wanna explain to me why america should not be held responsible for their "companies" dumping toxic waste all over Africa?

Quote:Just the ones that meet the generally accepted criteria listed above.

I dont accept that criteria, that's a typical fascist trait, redefining words, and rewriting history

Here's the case for Rwanda:
[hide]
a
Paul Kagame, Rwanda’s president, is proud of his country’s political achievements, the way it has healed “the deep-seated wounds of a shattered society in need of both justice and reconciliation.” Challenging outside critics advocating greater democracy, Kagame ripostes, “it was precisely a system of pluralistic politics that played a major role in the genocide, as newly formed parties with shared extremist ideology outperformed the former one-party state in mobilizing the population to commit mass murder.” Nevertheless, “Rwandans do have a voice in their own affairs,” and he claims the country has adopted a system of decentralization, imihigo, and that the high turnout in the 2010 elections proves the government’s popularity.20
Despite these democratic pretentions, Rwanda’s economic success and apparent “good governance,” the political system bears all the hallmarks of totalitarianism. President Kagame acknowledges the need for authoritarian measures, and the usual repressive apparatus is in place. Again, to cite Freedom House, this includes dominance by the ruling party, the RPF; control of the media and civil society; a lack of academic freedom and freedom of assembly; and a non-independent judiciary. Rwanda gets credit for its gacaca courts, its efforts against corruption, and the high percentage of women represented in the parliament. Rwanda scores a down-trending, but relatively respectable “5” in Freedom House’s ranking of civil liberties, and a “6” in the political freedom category, situating it in the same class as Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Djibouti, and Mauritania (as well as Russia).21
Perhaps this can be ascribed to the regime’s talent for packaging itself for international approval. Indeed, propaganda and indoctrination have been highly effective in legitimating the regime. As Rentjies concludes, “the use of the instruments of knowledge construction has an extraordinary impact on the relations of those in power with both their own citizens and the outside world.” He suggests this may be due to Kagame’s experience as head of military intelligence in Museveni’s NRA. This has been successful with the international community, but also “domestically, the RPF has decreed one single truth and devised instruments (legislation, intimidation, ‘re-education’, silencing alternative voices) to avoid its being challenged, at least publicly.”22
The Rwanda case may also be cited for the government’s mass mobilization techniques. The gacaca courts failed to achieve significant popular participation until this was made mandatory. The famous umuganda brigades require every Rwandan citizen to devote one day of the month to cleaning public spaces. The re-education centers for former genocidaires have also attained some notoriety. The government’s attempts at social engineering include rural transformation through villagization, crop regionalization, and the forced elimination of thatched huts.23 Although all these efforts have socially beneficial justifications, in practice they are often coercive and assert the control of the state over the individual.
If the perspective of a single dissident can shed light on a totalitarian regime, as sampled in the case of Ethiopia, then the experiences of a large group of poor farmers may provide another form of illumination. In October 2010, the author met with a group of about 300 local residents of a district some 100 kilometers outside of Kigali who were holding a workshop on reconciliation sponsored by an international donor. The group was almost evenly divided between survivors of the genocide and ex-prisoners or family of prisoners. In the course of the workshop, some participants seemed to express a willingness to make efforts to reconcile. Typically, one participant emphasized that, after being released from 15 years in prison, he was struggling to survive and support his family. But as far as his neighbors were concerned, they had said they forgave him for what he had done, and there was no longer a problem between them. It was apparent that one of the incentives for participants to attend the workshop was the 1500 RWF ($3) “transportation allowance” each of them collected at the end of the program. Yet at the conclusion, several relatively well-dressed police and local government officials intervened to make it clear that all participants were expected to donate $1 of their allowance to help build a new classroom for the local school. Virtually every participant dutifully did so, and they were each given proper receipts, but it was poignantly clear that most did so with some regret, even if uncomplaining, since even $1 is a lot of money in such a poor community. What was not clear, watching the officials handling the money after collecting it, was how much would actually go to build the classroom.
Such passive objections to the totalitarian regime have been more scientifically documented by Susan Thomson in her study, “Whispering truth to power: The everyday resistance of Rwandan peasants to post-genocide reconciliation.” As Thomson observes, the Rwandan government’s policy of national unity and reconciliation “structures the interaction of individual Rwandans with the state and with each other. On paper, it is a set of mechanisms that ‘aim to promote unity between Tutsi and Hutu in creating one Rwanda for all Rwandans’; in practice, it disguises the government’s efforts to control its population while working to consolidate the political power of the ruling Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).

---

I would love to stick to rwanda and eritrea right now, because I imagine he's using Ethiopia more as an 'example' of a large scale widespread "slightly dilluted" version of what's happening in Eritrea. Do you have any more, maybe something more specific about Rwanda? does he mention their history at all or does the whole thing start at kagame's presidecy like nothing ever happened before, I have a secret for you Rwanda isn't proud of it's shitty heritage (not everyone is) norare they "proud" of it's shitty white man's name, for its shitty heavily poinoned land or it's people

the whole things reads like "the Cherokee's are so proud of the their American heritage".......sounds right! but ummmmmmm no the fuck it's not

And this is devolving... rapidly... The points you are making are making less and less sense. You have obviously never been to any of these places and it is unclear where you are getting your information. My husband last visited Eritrea in 1992, but has since been unable to get a visa. He last visited Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Equatorial Guinea in July 2012. Your objective seems to be to denounce the US government or dismiss this piece as a work of American propaganda. I'm bored with this. I feel I have made the case that totalitarian systems do exist, which was my original intent. I'm over my case of, "Someone is wrong on the internet." You can be wrong, it's fine by me.

(November 4, 2012 at 9:23 am)festive1 Wrote: Absolutely nothing. This was intended to be examples of other totalitarian systems in the world, not an all inclusive list. Saudi Arabia and some other middle eastern and African regimes, such as Equatorial Guinea, correspond to Max Weber's definition of sultanistic regimes, which are a close cousin to totalitarian regimes. However, these systems are based on theocratic or nepotistic principles rather than an overarching political ideology. Iran is arguably a theocracy, and although repressive does contain some social autonomy and democratic elements, therefore, it is not totalitarian.

No, it's a very specific list stating all communists are totalitarian, all political ideology's are cults, and everyone should just be religous, this is the same ilk that says atheism is a religion, im sure there's an argument or two against that logic on this website alone. Ask him who he thinks is a worse dictator (because of course all non-americans are dictators) Stalin or Hitler, he will say well of course there both bad....but here's several complicated versions of why Stalin was in fact worse.

Quote:The colonial legacy was significant in the Rwandan conflict, however, the fundamental problem there was political. The problem is fundamentally a struggle for political power, not ethnic dominance.

this is anti-communist propaganda next you'll be blaming jim crow laws on karl marx, suggesting that any...... ANY genocide had nothing to with race is FUCKING INSANE!!!

Quote:The police apparatus in Eritrea is still alive and well. The fact of the matter is, Eritrean prisons are filled with thousands of people who have been caught trying to flee the country or avoid military service, which is compulsory. There are more journalists imprisoned in Eritrea than anywhere else in the world, per Reporters without Borders. The entire population lives in fear.

This may or may not be true, but it still not "isolationism", youve changed the words definition to serve your goal you'll change it back the second it benefits your pre-conceived political motivations. So now we have the word totalitarian being changed to "max weber's" definition (a german politician from the 1920's.) who had barely anything to do with forming the defintion of the word totalitarianism. but since you brought him up here's what most "politcal scientists" think of max webner:

Quote:Weber's explanations are highly specific to the historical periods he analysed. This makes it more difficult to generalise from his analysis and modify his theories for other circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber#C...s_to_Weber
he's an anti communist propagandanist who supported the weimar republic...... not exactly the smartest fuckin guy in the world

Quote:A state can be totalitarian without being isolationist. It is convenient to control information in a totalitarian system, and therefore many totalitarian systems are relatively isolated

isolationism has little, to nothing to do with totalitarianism, your the one who added this criteria to the definition, and now your taking back? WOW!!! that was fast...........

Quote:Not quite sure how you are getting a pro-fascist argument from this piece? Both communism and fascism are totalitarian ideologies, which very few people would assert are positive for those living under such systems of governance.

he's not mentioning fascism, and hes describing all political ideologies as fascism, you leave out the monorchies and right wing theocracies that do 10x as worse damage to their own "country" and then rant about cuba and rwanda being the same, yeah that's pure anti-communsit pro-fascist propaganda, why are monarchies different? because they beleive in god maybe hmmm? That's old cold war era bullshit that hes probably been fed his whole entire life and he's just regurgitating

Quote:Nope, no fence you don't know about. They still have more journalists imprisoned than anywhere else on the globe.

YAY I JUST LEARNED SOMETHING!!! too bad its a fucking lie....... Turkey has the most followed by Iran, only 2 TWO have been killed in eritrea it's probably the worst left wing government.... I think that's what he means

Quote: This piece is about totalitarian systems in Africa, it is not intended to be a defense of the American media. The American media is not controlled by the US government, however much it may be dominated by a handful of companies.

where a fucking fascist aka corporatist nation.........hey!!! guess who owns most of rush limbaugh and glenn beck and all those assholes..........Mitt the shit Romney......so stop the whole "US has free media" bullshit

Quote:And this is devolving... rapidly...

devolving from what exactly? you telling im wrong? if that's devolving then I must be winning!

Quote:The points you are making are making less and less sense.

good if what I said made sense to someone like you right off the bat I'd be very upset

Quote: You have obviously never been to any of these places and it is unclear where you are getting your information.

for all you know im related to one of the people your husbands writing about.......

Quote:My husband last visited Eritrea in 1992, but has since been unable to get a visa. He last visited Rwanda, Ethiopia, and Equatorial Guinea in July 2012.

HOLY SHIT There's an American in Africa????? HE MUST BE THA SMARDEST MAN ALIIIIVE!!!!!!!!!

Quote:Your objective seems to be to denounce the US government or dismiss this piece as a work of American propaganda.

dismissing it as propganda would probably be closer to what I am doing but I didn't start out that way....if that helps????????

Quote:I'm bored with this. I feel I have made the case that totalitarian systems do exist, which was my original intent. I'm over my case of, "Someone is wrong on the internet." You can be wrong, it's fine by me.

YAAAAAAAAYYYYYY I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!! I WIN! I WIN! I WIN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLwFWc5gMU

Cratehorus, come back when you learn what "fascist" means.