home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!auvm!CLEMSON.BITNET!DGPAZ
- Message-ID: <HISTORY%92072211011639@RUTVM1.BITNET>
- Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 11:00:00 EDT
- Sender: History <HISTORY@RUTVM1.BITNET>
- From: DGPAZ@CLEMSON.BITNET
- Subject: Re: Saint Jeanne
- Lines: 30
-
- On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 10:38:53 BST Christopher Currie
- <c.currie@CLUS1.ULCC.AC.UK> said:
-
- > My understanding of the authoritarian/totalitarian distinction as
- > expounded by Kirkpatrick was that authoritarian regimes were
- > 'temporary'; they would eventually collapse or be removed, so it
- > was worth putting up with them if the alternative was a 'Totalitarian'
- > regime, because totalitarian regimes led to a permanent
- > change of society in favour of tyranny. The Communists would never give up
- > power.
- >
- Kirkpatrick argued that authoritarian regimes could
- evolve from within in a peaceful way and be transformed
- into democratic ones.
-
- > That view of course seems nonsense since 1989. But it didn't seem quite so
- > silly at the time.
- >
- It seemed silly to me, and to lots of other people who
- did not have anything invested in the foreign
- policy of the Republican Party. Many of us thought
- that Kirkpatrick's view derived more from her
- prior political ideology than from what we understand
- to be "scholarship." Even at the time, many people
- couldn't quite figure out how reformist Communism in
- Czecholovakia could happen, since totalitarian systems
- could not reform themselves, in Kirkpatrick's hypothesis.
-
- Denis Paz
- dgpaz@clemson.bitnet
-