Ship of Fools: Salazar and the Estado Novo

Thread: Salazar and the Estado Novo Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029268

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

Over on one of the 'Hell' threads (with my name on it lol). A rather heated discussion has started about Salazar and the Estado Novo. I thought I move the discussion here to make it a little more calm. What were the pros and cons of Salazar's government.

On the one hand he was a dictator who forbade freedom of speech an freedom of assembly. He banned all opposition political activity and ended political freedom.

On the other hand he helped to bring stability to Portugal which allowed healthy economic growth and social development. Yes there was repression but it was not that harsh in comparison to some other dictators. For example in 1937 there was an assassination attempt against him

quote:
Emídio Santana, founder of the Sindicato Nacional dos Metalúrgicos ("Metallurgists National Union") and an anarcho-syndicalist who was involved in clandestine activities against the dictatorship, attempted to assassinate Salazar on 4 July 1937. Salazar was on his way to Mass at a private chapel in a friend's house, in the Barbosa du Bocage Avenue in Lisbon. As he stepped out of his Buick limousine, a bomb hidden in an iron case exploded only 3 metres (10 ft) away. The blast left Salazar untouched, but his chauffeur was rendered deaf.

and what dreadful, blood curdling punishment was there for the assassin?

quote:
Sought by the PIDE, Emídio Santana fled to Britain, where he was arrested by British police and returned to Portugal. He was then sentenced to 16 years in prison.[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar

Hmmm, 16 years. That's not really a fantastically long sentence for attempted murder of a head of state. Lets compare this to the actions of another dictator Samora Machel of Mozambique, who Salazar's forces had previously fought against. What was he doing when he wasn't wrecking Mozambique's economy?

quote:
As part of the repressive measures accompanying the new Frelimo government, Machel introduced "reeducation centers" in which petty criminals, political opponents, and alleged anti-social elements such as prostitutes were imprisoned, often without trial. These were later described by foreign observers as "infamous centers of torture and death."[16] It is estimated that 30,000 inmates died in these camps.[17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samora_Machel

Another controversial area was his colonial policy. As Portugal's economy grew you saw the start of economic development in Portugal's African colonies. Marxist revolts broke out in places like Angola and Mozambique. Salazar refused to give an inch. This is something he has been criticised for but I would think that it should be considered praiseworthy that he refused to given any ground to criminals like the MPLA, UNITA and FRELIMO.

Then there is the accusation that he was a fascist. Well he was certainly a right wing anti-communist dictator but I don't think that that by itself justifies the label 'fascist'. He certainly did not identify as such. He did not join the Axis side in World War II and after the war he became a firm ally of NATO.

Salazar was also famous for striving to balance the governments books and unlike many other dictators did not lead and extravagant or expensive lifestyle and public expense. Contrast this with dictators like José Eduardo dos Santos of Angola who is estimated to have a net worth of around $30 billion, which staggeringly is nearly a quarter of Angola's GDP.

None of this makes Salazar a hero or a moral giant. He was clearly implicated in some terrible crimes. However to suggest that he compares unfavourably to worse dictators like Machel of Mozambique, Neto of Angola or Castro of Cuba is clearly not correct.

Posted by Below the Lansker (# 17297) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

On the other hand he helped to bring stability to Portugal which allowed healthy economic growth and social development. Yes there was repression but it was not that harsh in comparison to some other dictators.

"Healthy economic growth" very much on his own terms. His first target was to balance the books, which he managed to do within a few years of taking over the Ministry of Finance. His aim once he got a real grip on power was to make Portugal 'self-sufficient' (for which he depended on the Colonies, or Overseas Provinces as they became known when the rest of Europe turned against colonialism, and the remittances of money sent back from Portuguese emigrant communities). He was fiercely protectionist of the Portuguese oligarchy and their financial and business interests - for example, he forbade the entry of Coca Cola into Portugal to protect the local soft drinks manufacturers. What he proposed may well have been right for the late 20s and early 30s, especially in Portugal's volatile political state after the failure of the 1st Republic, but it left the country ill prepared for the future. Even in comparison with Franco's Spain, Portugal fared badly throughout the 60s and 70s.

"Social development" was conspicuous by its absence. His ideal was a backward-looking rural idyll, where everyone knew their place and was in Mass on Sunday morning without fail. You only have to look at the appalling literacy statistics for Portugal throughout his regime to see that education came very low on his list of priorities, as did health or any kind of social provision. Hundreds of thousands of people fled rural areas of Northern and Central Portugal to seek their fortunes elsewhere, which must say something about the levels of social and economic development of the rural interior.

Politically, he was a wise old fox, keeping both sides happy during WW2 - he only came unstuck in the 50s and 60s, when the 'winds of change' in Africa came up against his obdurate belief in the white man's burden and Portugal's unique civilising and Catholicising mission in the world. As a political figure and as a person, he is fascinating, largely because he gave nothing away - even the accident that incapacitated him and the legends surrounding subsequent Cabinet meetings are bizarre in the extreme but somehow make sense in the context of the Portugal of that time.

There were distinct Fascistic tendencies in the early years of the regime, but rather like Franco, when he saw that Germany and Italy were on the way out, he dropped all the stiff-armed salute nonsense pretty sharpish. Had the Axis powers been successful, he might have been more open in his sympathies (and there is little doubt that his sympathies lay in that direction).

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've only been to Portugal once, for 5 days in 1980. I enjoyed my visit and was fascinated by the country, its history and its people. I found them very warm, welcoming and friendly - if very difficult to comprehend when speaking. I could follow basic Spanish but could hardly make out anything in Portuguese beyond 'yes', 'no' and 'thank you'.

The impression I got was that the RC Church had lost credibility in the eyes of many people on account of its association with Salazar. This was some time after the end of the Salazar regime but people still spoke about it as a regime they were glad to see the back of. But that was more of an impression than anything else ... conversations in broken English with a smidgeon of my poor Spanish and French were hard work ...

I don't know what it's like today but Portugal then seemed economically and agriculturally very backward compared with Spain. Poverty is only picturesque in the eye of the beholder. Medieval farm methods look fascinating, but I'm sure they're back-breaking ...

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Salazar ran a right-wing repressive dictatorship. Like most such régimes, it had some features in common with Fascism, but I would not count it as one. The Estado Nuovo name might sound fascist, but what ideology it had did not glorify the state. While it was repressive, it was less so than Italy or Spain. AIUI, it was about as much so as Austria under Dollfüss or Schüschnigg, or Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria and the Baltic states in the 30's. Some people did go to gaol for expressing their thoughts, but not many and not for long sentences. Very, very few if any were executed for political crimes.

My memory is that Portugal was the source of a valuable mineral, one in demand for strengthening steel to form the heads of shells, or something like that. It could have been tungsten. Both the Germans and the Allies sought secure supplies during WW II and placed pressure on Salazar. He, with some dexterity, played them against each other, and did send a small amount to Germany. Enough to reduce the pressure to a sufficiently low level while Hitler's power waned. Salazar benefitted from the buffer of Spanish territory, but appears to have realised from the bombing of Pearl Harbour onwards what the eventual outcome would be. He did not want to offend the victors.

My parents, the younger of my sisters, and I drove through Spain and Portugal in '64 or '65. Both were poor countries, few private cars, little mechanisation ion farm properties and so forth. The romantics would have called it very picturesque, but life must have been hard for the peasants and what working-class people there were in the cities.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I gather Salazar's social vision for Portugal was not too far from -

....the home of a people who valued material wealth only as a basis for right living, of a people who, satisfied with frugal comfort, devoted their leisure to the things of the spirit – a land whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens, whose firesides would be forums for the wisdom of serene old age. The home, in short, of a people living the life that God desires that men should live.

The above is, of course, Eamonn De Valera - head of another small, agrarian, Catholic and neutral state. I think the reality of such a policy was also similar in both countries - poverty, ignorance, parochialism, narrowness, a punitive sexual
morality, a limitation of opportunities.

I have been to Portugal a number of times and am very fond of it - not least, I think, because it feels to me so much like
Ireland. Ironically, the last time I was in Lisbon a couple of years ago, my morning tram would take me past the long queues outside the Angolan consulate of men desperately seeking a future not currently available in their homeland...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
My parents, the younger of my sisters, and I drove through Spain and Portugal in '64 or '65. Both were poor countries, few private cars, little mechanisation ion farm properties and so forth. The romantics would have called it very picturesque, but life must have been hard for the peasants and what working-class people there were in the cities.

Things have changed markedly in the last 30 years, of course. Lisbon is now surrounded by miles of high-rise flats.

But you're right: when I first went in 1978, the main road south from the Spanish border at Vigo was still cobbled!

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The impression I got was that the RC Church had lost credibility in the eyes of many people on account of its association with Salazar. This was some time after the end of the Salazar regime but people still spoke about it as a regime they were glad to see the back of.

Certainly true in Guinea, where the priests were believed to pass on anything political they heard in confession to the PIDE.

The Alentejo of course was still basically feudal in 1974, with landowners, schools and priests ruling the roost. No wonder it turned virulently Communist and anti-clerical. Sadly, though, the "Reforma Agraria" didn't work, as once the "latifundios" (landowners) fled, the remaining farmworkers didn't have the technical and administrative expertise to run the farms. Does that sound familiar?

I knew an elderly Presbyterian layman who, c.1930, had been an itinerant evangelist in that area. In some villages, when he and his colleague got up to speak in the square, they were subjected to organised barracking and stone-throwing by the "powers-that-be".

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
... I knew an elderly Presbyterian layman who, c.1930, had been an itinerant evangelist in that area. In some villages, when he and his colleague got up to speak in the square, they were subjected to organised barracking and stone-throwing by the "powers-that-be".

I can't imagine that a foreign Catholic priest standing up on the green of a village in Norfolk in the 1930s would have got an enthusiastic reception.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

No, the gentlemen concerned with both Portuguese, not foreigners.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Protestant itinerant evangelists faced a certain amount of harassment in Ireland in the 1950s and '60s - and still do in parts of Greece and the Balkans.

I'm not defending that, but I've heard accounts from 'both sides' as it were of how Protestants can be harassed or intimidated in traditionally RC or Orthodox countries - as well as accounts of how crass some of these Protestant evangelists can be when dealing insensitively with local customs, culture and aspects of RC or Orthodox devotion.

As with everything else, there are two sides to this particular coin ...

I'm not suggesting that your elderly Presbyterian friend was guilty of cultural insensitivity - I'm sure he was doing his best under very difficult circumstances.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Oh he was.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I was in Lisbon last week. I love the city although I do feel that my beloved Alfama has become a lot more touristy over the last couple of years.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

True, but there's so much besides - the tiled houses, the wooden boxes crawling up perpendicular streets, sitting in the Mosteiro dos Jerónimos listening to the Mozart Requiem three rows behind the President of the Republic (OK, that was just the once). And don't get me started on Tomar, or the early morning mists drifting from the vine-clad slopes above the Douro.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I guess this is where I say again that I had a short conversation with Amália Rodrigues, three years before she passed away. It still feels like a great honour.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

That's amazing! My wife and I love Fado.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I don't have much direct experience of Salazarist Portugal but had IRL occasion to work with Portuguese community representatives in Montreal, Toronto, and Ottawa in the 1980s. Most came from the Azores in the 1950s and 1960s, either to escape the draft and be sent to Angola and Mozambique (or perhaps just to escape the fairly harsh and penurious military training-- a Canadian officer who saw Portuguese troops on NATO exercises in the 1960s told me that officers directed food and clothing funds for their own needs) and to find jobs. By and large, few had more than elementary education.

Although the Estado Novo was history by then, I heard some fairly credible accounts (since verified in the general by Interested Agencies in the Canadian government) of secret police activity in Canada in the 1960s, partly to get information on dissidents, but also to disrupt their activities. Post-Salazarist politicians interfered shamelessly in Canadian community life, but they weren't alone-- I once heard a rumour that Portuguese decorations were not allowed in Canada for a period on account of their generous and directed distribution, but I can't get that verified.

There was a wave of nigh-universally manifestly unfounded refugee claims in the 1980s, based on persecution of JWs in Portugal, facilitated by a small group of what are called immigration consultants. Reading through many of the claims, one gained a picture of a closed society marked by poverty and repression-- perhaps like de Valera's Ireland, but with better wine. I wonder if we cannot fairly ascribe Portugal's relative backwardness to Salazar's vision of that society.

That his rule was less oppressive than that of other dictators reminds me of a Madrid Nationalist friend pleading on behalf of Franco's relative mildness, compared with Antonescu, Hitler, and Stalin. Perhaps true, but not really what one wants to boast about.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
I gather Salazar's social vision for Portugal was not too far from -

....the home of a people who valued material wealth only as a basis for right living, of a people who, satisfied with frugal comfort, devoted their leisure to the things of the spirit – a land whose countryside would be bright with cosy homesteads, whose fields and villages would be joyous with the sounds of industry, with the romping of sturdy children, the contest of athletic youths and the laughter of happy maidens, whose firesides would be forums for the wisdom of serene old age. The home, in short, of a people living the life that God desires that men should live.

The above is, of course, Eamonn De Valera - head of another small, agrarian, Catholic and neutral state. I think the reality of such a policy was also similar in both countries - poverty, ignorance, parochialism, narrowness, a punitive sexual
morality, a limitation of opportunities.

I have been to Portugal a number of times and am very fond of it - not least, I think, because it feels to me so much like
Ireland. Ironically, the last time I was in Lisbon a couple of years ago, my morning tram would take me past the long queues outside the Angolan consulate of men desperately seeking a future not currently available in their homeland...

Ha! I was going to mention Dev but you beat me to it!
It sounds like if you were going to live in a non-democratic European state in the mid-C20, Salazar's Portugal would be about your best bet: not all that repressive by contemporary standards, and at least you avoided war, both civil and international.
That said, 'you could have done a lot worse at the time' is not really a ringing endorsement.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

This vision was aptly summed up in Amalia Rodrigues' most famous song Uma Casa Portuguesa. She was often accused of having links with the Estado Novo but this may well not have been the case - indeed there are suggestions that she hid or protected political prisoner. However, like Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" which so touched a chord in the US as the military went off to war in the 1940s, so Amalia's song may have provided a similar trophe for soldiers going off to the Overseas Territories twenty years later.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
That his rule was less oppressive than that of other dictators reminds me of a Madrid Nationalist friend pleading on behalf of Franco's relative mildness, compared with Antonescu, Hitler, and Stalin. Perhaps true, but not really what one wants to boast about.

I think that's fair point. The reason why I brought up the relative 'mildness'of Salazar's dictatorship is that in the other thread there was a discussion of the rights and wrongs of Portugal's war in Angola and Mozambique and I made the comment that

quote:
I don't think that António Salazar was a saint but neither was he a devil. Like Mandela he did some good things and he did some bad things. If you want to make comparisons of character I think he was clearly a better political leader and a morally better human being than either Agostinho Neto or Jonas Savimbi or Samora Machel. That is not a particularly high point of praise but nevertheless its true.

I was then told that

quote:
If you think that Salazar was a better man than Machel, then you're clearly disturbed.

So I've made the above point in part to explain why I think he was 'milder' not only than Stalin, Franco and Hitler but also than Samora Machel.

Also I have to agree that Portugal is a beautiful place.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Augustine wrote:

quote:
There was a wave of nigh-universally manifestly unfounded refugee claims in the 1980s, based on persecution of JWs in Portugal, facilitated by a small group of what are called immigration consultants. Reading through many of the claims, one gained a picture of a closed society marked by poverty and repression-- perhaps like de Valera's Ireland, but with better wine. I wonder if we cannot fairly ascribe Portugal's relative backwardness to Salazar's vision of that society.

I remember that being mentioned in the news at the time.

I wonder why the immigration-hucksters chose JW persecution to front their fake claims. Was it just because JWs are a group that gets persecuted in a lot of authoritarian countries, so it would sound plausible if they were being kicked around in Portugal as well? Or was there some actual basis in fact, however slight, and JWs in Portugal had been subject to some persecution at one time?

I guess if you want to fake a refugee claim, JWs would probably be a good group to announce membership in. The theology would be easy enough to memorize, and they don't have any significant sartorial or dietary preferences that you'd need to adopt. Though I guess you might have to be up on whatever has been recently published in the Watchtower.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

I would also mention that another criticism that is often made of Salazar was his support for Franco in The Spanish Civil War. Of course what started that was the formation of a government in Spain in which communists were prominent and indeed which also had the support of the CNT anarchists. Now Franco was not a good man, he did some terrible things to establish and support his dictatorship. However between Francoism on the one hand and Communism and anarchism on the other Francoism was the lesser of two evils. Given the enormous threat that a communist dominated Spain would have posed to Portugal I think it was entirely reasonable for him to aid Franco as a way of defending Portugal.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Augustine wrote:

quote:
There was a wave of nigh-universally manifestly unfounded refugee claims in the 1980s, based on persecution of JWs in Portugal, facilitated by a small group of what are called immigration consultants. Reading through many of the claims, one gained a picture of a closed society marked by poverty and repression-- perhaps like de Valera's Ireland, but with better wine. I wonder if we cannot fairly ascribe Portugal's relative backwardness to Salazar's vision of that society.

I remember that being mentioned in the news at the time.

I wonder why the immigration-hucksters chose JW persecution to front their fake claims. Was it just because JWs are a group that gets persecuted in a lot of authoritarian countries, so it would sound plausible if they were being kicked around in Portugal as well? Or was there some actual basis in fact, however slight, and JWs in Portugal had been subject to some persecution at one time?

I guess if you want to fake a refugee claim, JWs would probably be a good group to announce membership in. The theology would be easy enough to memorize, and they don't have any significant sartorial or dietary preferences that you'd need to adopt. Though I guess you might have to be up on whatever has been recently published in the Watchtower.

Plus you can save money on Christmas and birthday presents.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Augustine wrote:

quote:
There was a wave of nigh-universally manifestly unfounded refugee claims in the 1980s, based on persecution of JWs in Portugal, facilitated by a small group of what are called immigration consultants. Reading through many of the claims, one gained a picture of a closed society marked by poverty and repression-- perhaps like de Valera's Ireland, but with better wine. I wonder if we cannot fairly ascribe Portugal's relative backwardness to Salazar's vision of that society.

I remember that being mentioned in the news at the time.

I wonder why the immigration-hucksters chose JW persecution to front their fake claims. Was it just because JWs are a group that gets persecuted in a lot of authoritarian countries, so it would sound plausible if they were being kicked around in Portugal as well? Or was there some actual basis in fact, however slight, and JWs in Portugal had been subject to some persecution at one time?

I guess if you want to fake a refugee claim, JWs would probably be a good group to announce membership in. The theology would be easy enough to memorize, and they don't have any significant sartorial or dietary preferences that you'd need to adopt. Though I guess you might have to be up on whatever has been recently published in the Watchtower.

Having assessed about 200 of these claims, I think that under a half-dozen were actually JWs. They suffered some social discrimination and were not invited to weddings. Family members were annoyed with them. Unfortunate, perhaps, but this does not amount to persecution under the Geneva Convention with the possible exception of one claimant who had lost his job on account of his new religion.

Most of the claims were the same narrative, with names whited out (this was just as word processing came into use) and other ones typed in. Under the old refugee determination system, claimants submitted an examination under oath before a Senior Immigration Officer, which was then assessed by members of a tribunal, former NGO types, sprinkled with a few lawyers and an occasional confused Conservative appointee.

There had been some Victorian-era persecution of colporteurs, as in Spain. And there was (and still is) a substantial number of Portuguese Canadian JWs-- at one point a half-dozen congregations-- I do not know the current situation. A priest told me that much was a combination of puritanism and rebellion against the RCC, with some revulsion at the RCC alliance with the Estado Novo, divorcé(e)s looking for a new church home, and internal community issues (when suburban churches were assigned to be quasi-parishes for the Portuguese and they wanted another one, as happened in Ottawa). And, of course, some charismatic individuals drew people to them.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

For those that may be doubting that Portugal was in the right when it fought against the marxists in Angola and Mozambique compare and contrast the per Capita GDP of Malaysia, where the British succeeded in putting down a marxist rebellion, with that of Vietnam, where the French failed to put down a marxist rebellion. I strongly suspect that Angola and Mozambique would be far better off today if the Portuguese had succeeded in defeating the MPLA, UNITA and FRELIMO.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
For those that may be doubting that Portugal was in the right when it fought against the marxists in Angola and Mozambique compare and contrast the per Capita GDP of Malaysia, where the British succeeded in putting down a marxist rebellion, with that of Vietnam, where the French failed to put down a marxist rebellion. I strongly suspect that Angola and Mozambique would be far better off today if the Portuguese had succeeded in defeating the MPLA, UNITA and FRELIMO.

Portugal wasn't bothered about the ideological stance of those who opposed its rule in Africa; it was trying prop up its own economy which depended on systematically plundering the African colonies, and it was trying to keep a hold on those.

What are your "strong suspicions" based on, apart from a pathological dislike of Marxism?

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:

There are [at least] 3 things to consider with that, though
a) are there any oddities with the gdp calculation that make it [unreliable] in the case.

b) are there any external differences between the two countries (e.g. is it more that Malaysia has massive rubber resources, especially if things like this have compound effects)

c)Is the metric associated with 'in the right', e.g. if I extort from two people, one resists and loses his shop, one gives in and pays protection.
Then by the logic above because the one who surrendered is clearly in the better position, so clearly I was right to extort?!? (note the analogy isn't exact, so it may not apply, but again it suggest to me that we need to show some care)

[ 23. August 2015, 22:58: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Bibliophile posts:

quote:
So I've made the above point in part to explain why I think he was 'milder' not only than Stalin, Franco and Hitler but also than Samora Machel.

This is, perhaps so, and there is an interesting discussion to be had on why many first-worlders (I am not pointing fingers at shipmates, but am looking much more widely) seem not to be as focussed on second-world and third-world oppressors and their victims as they are on first-world oppressors and their victims.

But a point I made in an off-ship discussion about South American potentates some years ago still convinces me (if not necessarily anyone else): that there be no difference in the sentiments of a person tortured and imprisoned in (say) Setubal, and one in Maputo. It cannot but be terrible for them. I do not think that the perceptions of a statistic of one of a thousand or a statistic of one of ten thousand differ much. Solzhenitsyn has written on this and, more recently, Karen Connelly in the Lizard Cage brings us into the life of a political prisoner in an extraordinary way.

I am not inclined to let either Machel or Salazar off the hook. Were tribunals in order, they would be sharing the same cell, even if for different terms. As it is, they are likely now making each other's acquaintance in one of the circles of hell omitted from Dante's work. Should I have any say in the matter, their diet would consist of week-old sushi from convenience stores on the autobahn-- with no wasabi.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

One underlying question - what is the precise utility of this game of Who Was the Greater Bastard in History? Is it a proxy war for our own beliefs and ideology? An attempt to understand the world that Figure X left us? What?

I think the knowledge and study of history is of the first importance, but it has to move beyond 'so's your mom' if it is to be of value.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Bibliophile posts:

quote:
So I've made the above point in part to explain why I think he was 'milder' not only than Stalin, Franco and Hitler but also than Samora Machel.
This is, perhaps so, and there is an interesting discussion to be had on why many first-worlders (I am not pointing fingers at shipmates, but am looking much more widely) seem not to be as focussed on second-world and third-world oppressors and their victims as they are on first-world oppressors and their victims.

This is indeed a very interesting point. I have wondered whether in some cases it is not a peculiar form of racism: frankly, we do not expect people from poorer countries and/or those with different coloured skins to behave as well as we expect 'people like us to'. Another example might be the difference between the cultural/ historical impact of the Holocaust and that of the Armenian genocide. Without wishing to open up that particular can of worms, isn't there a sense that we find the Holocaust especially shocking because we see Germany as a highly cultured and civilised country, whereas anywhere east of Vienna massacring each other is just one of those things that they do from time to time?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It's also very reductionist in that it boils any conflict down to 'right and wrong' - good guys and bad guys.

Who was 'right' and who was 'wrong' in the English Civil War for instance?

Was Parliament wrong for taking a stand against the King? Or was the King wrong, as Parliament eventually charged him, for taking up arms against his own people (as they saw it)?

Why does it all have to be so binary?

Cavaliers wrong but romantic, Roundheads right but repulsive ... as it were.

Portuguese colonialism was pretty despicable by anyone's standards and the Salazar regime used the colonies to prop up an ailing economy at home.

Meanwhile, some of the Marxist anti-colonial rebels were also pretty nasty pieces of work and one doesn't have to be a raving conservative to consider Communism as an ideology to be fundamentally flawed. I certainly believe that to be the case and I'm on the centre-left politically.

I'm not carrying a candle for Communism but it seems pretty axiomatic that it doesn't generally arise in a vacuum but generally as a reaction against colonial or capitalist excesses of one form or other.

That's not to defend Castro or any other Marxist demagogue - but one can certainly understand how strongly leftist regimes can develop in reaction to real or perceived exploitation.

Just as one can understand a lurch to the right in countries that were formerly Communist.

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibliophile:
For those that may be doubting that Portugal was in the right when it fought against the marxists in Angola and Mozambique compare and contrast the per Capita GDP of Malaysia, where the British succeeded in putting down a marxist rebellion, with that of Vietnam, where the French failed to put down a marxist rebellion. I strongly suspect that Angola and Mozambique would be far better off today if the Portuguese had succeeded in defeating the MPLA, UNITA and FRELIMO.
Portugal wasn't bothered about the ideological stance of those who opposed its rule in Africa; it was trying prop up its own economy which depended on systematically plundering the African colonies, and it was trying to keep a hold on those.

Wouldn't you then expect the Portuguese economy to crash after it lost those colonies whilst the colonies themselves would have healthy growth when relived of the burden of supporting Portugal. As you know that's the exact opposite of what happened. It was the Angola and Mozambique economies that crashed when marxist parties 'liberated' those countries from the Portuguese.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
What are your "strong suspicions" based on, apart from a pathological dislike of Marxism?

Just look at the economic performance of Marxist countries. If you don't think the comparison of Malaysia and Vietnam is a fair one compare East Germany to West Germany, North Korea to South Korea. Look at the economic performance of the the oil rich Soviet Union in the 70s and 80s. Marxist economics has consistently been shown to be a disaster. Seeing what an economic disaster it was for Angola and Mozambique when marxists took over in 1975 its difficult to conclude that it would have been better for those countries if the Portuguese had won its wars against the MPLA and FRELIMO.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I agree that Marxist regimes generally end up as economic basket-cases - look at Albania, for instance.

One might argue, in the case of African nations, that they were hardly getting off the ground on a level playing field.

I've done a wee bit of research into the development of African universities in the immediate post-colonial period and the remarkable thing is how they were able to survive at all - given the odds stacked against them - both in terms of globalisation, disadvantages in the face of stiff international competition and internal political turmoil.

Gradually, things are changing. Ethiopia is emerging as a powerful economy, for instance.

The odds are stacked against African countries but they're pulling through.

No thanks to people like Salazar or Apartheid era South Africa.

So, who do we thank? China? The Chinese are investing in Africa big time.

They were Communist (of sorts) last time I looked ... in theory if not in practice.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I suspect that China's involvement today is more to do with economics, when in the 70s it was about spreading political influence and "goodwill".

But to what extent is "investment" by China and others simply a neo-colonialism which largely exploits African countries, taking out far more than it puts in? After all, these countries are not usually in a good position for hard bargaining with outsiders.

[ 24. August 2015, 08:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

It is a hard thing to argue that overall Marxism is worse for the poorest people than hyper-capitalism. In fact, free market economics have consistently bankrupted countries with Structural Adjustment and the like.

As Gam says, China is currently a very large investor in infrastructure projects in Africa.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Rigid Marxism, ISTM, was largely predicated on an urban and industrialised society rather than on a rural one. It also proposes a "command" economy which takes little notice of economic reality.

But would something like Nyerere's African "socialism" have worked successfully if given more opportunity? Or was it fatally flawed at its heart?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:

But would something like Nyerere's African "socialism" have worked successfully if given more opportunity? Or was it fatally flawed at its heart?

Not sure it is possible to say with certainty. Certainly, socialism would have to go a very long way to do a worse job than capitalism in parts of Africa.

All of that said, it will be interesting to see if the Chinese economic slow-down has any effect on their investment in infrastructure in Africa. As you said above, it isn't entirely clear what the objective is/was.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

It is very difficult to get numbers on Chinese investment in Africa. Any 'official' numbers I get on this I would definitely be weary of.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Host Hat On

Bibliophile.

Following this latest OP and the pattern of your responses on this and other threads you have started, I'm reporting you to Admin for consideration of offences under the 8th Commandment - don't crusade.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Host Hat Off

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Just to clarify. We are looking for evidence that you can contribute something to the various discussions here that is not a variation on "Communism is evil".

If you wish to discuss our 8th Commandment in general, or specifically as raised here, feel free to start a thread in the Styx.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Augustine wrote:

quote:
A priest told me that much was a combination of puritanism and rebellion against the RCC, with some revulsion at the RCC alliance with the Estado Novo, divorcé(e)s looking for a new church home, and internal community issues (when suburban churches were assigned to be quasi-parishes for the Portuguese and they wanted another one, as happened in Ottawa).

I'm not sure what you mean by that bit in parentheses. Suburban churches were supposed to become parishes for Portuguese, but the Portuguese didn't want those churches?

And, how did any of that make people want to become JWs?

[ 24. August 2015, 15:22: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
One underlying question - what is the precise utility of this game of Who Was the Greater Bastard in History? Is it a proxy war for our own beliefs and ideology? An attempt to understand the world that Figure X left us? What?

This isn't about who is the greatest bastard in history, but what makes the greatest bastard. And the answer is communism.
Communism is Teh Evilz no matter what.
Fascism isn't that bad unless it gets too crazy with the white peoples.
Colonialism is fine because it prevents Communism.
Communism is truly horrible, bad, nasty, rotten and not nice full stop. Even if it is a reaction to theft, murder, rape, slavery, torture, oppression and kicking puppies.
Kicking puppies is a positive good, if those puppies are communist.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Ah, but do you mean Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, libertarian Marxism, anarcho-Communism ...? Precision is all important.

Might as well lump them all together, I s'pose ...

[ 24. August 2015, 16:37: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Riiiiight. So what did we do for evil before 1848?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Riiiiight. So what did we do for evil before 1848?

Well, back in Cromwell day there were the Levellers (not the 1980's rock band) and before that the Peasant's Revolt (Wat Tyler etc). Then the Tolpuddle Martyrs and Luddites. In 1819 the Peterloo Massacre, then Chartism and between 1839 and 1843 the Rebecca riots. It is thought that the Red Flag was first used then.

Marx and Engels were probably eye witnesses to some of those, and they were just in Britain.

[ 24. August 2015, 17:03: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
One underlying question - what is the precise utility of this game of Who Was the Greater Bastard in History? Is it a proxy war for our own beliefs and ideology? An attempt to understand the world that Figure X left us? What?
This isn't about who is the greatest bastard in history, but what makes the greatest bastard. And the answer is communism.
Communism is Teh Evilz no matter what.
Fascism isn't that bad unless it gets too crazy with the white peoples.
Colonialism is fine because it prevents Communism.
Communism is truly horrible, bad, nasty, rotten and not nice full stop. Even if it is a reaction to theft, murder, rape, slavery, torture, oppression and kicking puppies.
Kicking puppies is a positive good, if those puppies are communist.

I think this comment and replies to it belong in the 'Hell' section of the forum so I've put my reply to this post in the 'Bibliophile evil little worm' thread in that section.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
ilBuddha
Communism ...
Fascism ...
Colonialism ...

You left out consumerism and cronyism and several other isms.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
Riiiiight. So what did we do for evil before 1848?

Marx was the Communist Jesus, come to reveal the Manifesto. The OC (Original Communism) was a series of revelations (Plato, Sparticus, the Diggers) all leading up to that. Marx believed that man was naturally communist until he archived surplus. (Agriculture?) Kind of the Original Communism. orginal communism......orginal Sin?
OMGWDNETOTB!!!* Marx was the antichrist! Thatcher/Reagan were the Second Coming and we are living in the post-rapture.

Oh My God Who Does Not Exist and is a Tool Of The Bourgeoisie.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

Without wanting to be involved in stupid pro-/anti-communist discussions, I do have doubts of the number of 30,000 deaths in the re-education camps. I don't deny that these camps have existed and that at least some executions have taken place there. That is well documented.

Don't get me wrong, every execution is one too many. But I've looked at a number of sources in Portuguese on the topic, including some rabid anti-Frelimo ones, and I haven't found the number of 30,000. It even seems that the total number of people who have been in these camps was considerably less than that, probably below 10,000.

As a source for this number, the Wikipedia article in English refers to an article by Geoff Hill in the South African newspaper The Star. I don't have access to this article, and it's difficult to ascertain how reliable it is. The article on Machel in the Portuguese Wikipedia, which seems to have a slight anti-Frelimo bias in parts, doesn't mention the number.

I'm willing to reconsider if someone gives me a better source for this number, but at the moment I'm sceptical.

[ 24. August 2015, 17:37: Message edited by: LeRoc ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

^ Casualty numbers for massacres often seem pretty dodgy. For example, wikipedia gives the number of dead in the Zimbabwean Gukurahundi as betwen 3 750 and 30 000.

Obviously, one is too many, however, if there IS any point to listing numbers, then you should at least get it down to a reasonable range, or not bother at all.

And, yes, wikipedia is a notorious battleground of competing viewpoints. But I've seen similarly stretched-out estimations for that particular conflict in the mainstream press.

[ 24. August 2015, 17:59: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Bibliophile (# 18418) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

Don't get me wrong, every execution is one too many. But I've looked at a number of sources in Portuguese on the topic, including some rabid anti-Frelimo ones, and I haven't found the number of 30,000. It even seems that the total number of people who have been in these camps was considerably less than that, probably below 10,000.

Oh well that's alright then.

You still haven't come up with any justification for your view that Machel was a better man than Salazar.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
In 1819 the Peterloo Massacre, then Chartism and between 1839 and 1843 the Rebecca riots. It is thought that the Red Flag was first used then.

Thanks for mentioning the Rebecca riots. I'd never heard of them so I Googled. Fascinating stuff.

Huia

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Augustine wrote:

quote:
A priest told me that much was a combination of puritanism and rebellion against the RCC, with some revulsion at the RCC alliance with the Estado Novo, divorcé(e)s looking for a new church home, and internal community issues (when suburban churches were assigned to be quasi-parishes for the Portuguese and they wanted another one, as happened in Ottawa).
I'm not sure what you mean by that bit in parentheses. Suburban churches were supposed to become parishes for Portuguese, but the Portuguese didn't want those churches?

And, how did any of that make people want to become JWs?

Perhaps I tried to compress too much into a paragraph. First, most of the Portuguese did not want suburban churches, as they would require pretty well all parishioners to drive there, and public transit on Sundays was generally minimal at best. Attendance was thereby made much more difficult for senior citizens, many of whom did not have drivers' permits.

As there were a number of community divisions with some fairly nasty little fights, JWs visited parishioners, telling them that they could have a church home without fighting and without the archbishop's interference- my source here is a series of conversations with community members over the years.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Augustine wrote:

quote:
As there were a number of community divisions with some fairly nasty little fights, JWs visited parishioners, telling them that they could have a church home without fighting and without the archbishop's interference- my source here is a series of conversations with community members over the years.

I believe you. But, Holy Cow, those parishoners must have been pretty alienated from their RC communities(or from mainstream Christianity in general, really) to just up and join the JWs. I mean, you're signing up for No Christmas, No Birthdays, Jesus Was An Angel, and Everyone Besides JWs Will Disappear For Eternity. Just for starters.

I'm guessing it takes a little bit more than a personality clash to get someone to go THAT far away from their previous spritual turf. But I've always been curious about the sociological profile of JW converts. I think I read somewhere that they're mostly Catholic, so maybe it appeals to people who are put off by the pomp and hierarchy of the RCC. Plus, as you say, in places like Portugal, political collusion might be a strong source of disillusionment.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Here in the UK the JWs tend to have a similar demographic profile to white Pentecostals.

I'm told that in predominently RC countries like Spain, Portugal and Poland they exert an appeal by coming along and telling people that they can explain what the Bible REALLY teaches.

I met an RC priest recently - a former Anglican vicar who told me that many of his parishioners don't own Bibles because the nuns told them as kids that it was sinful to do so - because it's what Protestants do - even though it's never been official RC teaching to discourage personal Bible reading.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
I met an RC priest recently - a former Anglican vicar who told me that many of his parishioners don't own Bibles because the nuns told them as kids that it was sinful to do so - because it's what Protestants do - even though it's never been official RC teaching to discourage personal Bible reading.

From talking to my convent-educated mother, born in the 1930s, I definitely get the impression that nuns in those days took a relatively dim view of personal Bible reading. At the very least they wanted RC Bible study to take place under strict clerical guidance, and provided anecdotal evidence to the students about individual study leading to disaster(eg. people cutting their hands off after reading Jesus' figurative command to do so).

[ 28. August 2015, 06:18: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Huia!

I stood on this bridge, THE bridge, two weeks ago.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0