Why don't totalitarian communist states have insurgencies?

Off topic.

You too gardener. We've all heard you whine about gas prices a million times.

 

No, why isn't there a right wing resistance movement, on that wants freedom and democracy and capitalism, springing up in these countries? Is is that the right just doesn't do insurgency or is it that the left is so much better at totalitarian control than the right is?

 

Because nobody wants to rebel, kill and fight for values like capitalism, laced into freedom and democracy.

 

I disagree, you asked if there were any sustained resistance against left wing governments. The Contras were an anti communist resistance group fighting against Nicaragua's FSLN government, which was decidedly left wing. I would also point out the USSR was driven out of Afghanistan by the Mujahideen Resistance, also with heavy backing from the USA. Osama Bin Laden got his start as a CIA lackey in the Mujahideen Resistance and we all know how that turned out.

 

Sorry my mistake, the Contras count. They had a lot of foreign support but still I think you have a valid example.

The USSR was really more about throwing out an invading and occupying army than resistance to communism.

And Osama never worked for the CIA, that is a myth.

 

What about bio-pirates and pharmaceutical companies? Do those expeditioners count as right wing insurgents?

 

No.

Now take your meds.

 

Lets not forget that right wing hero of truth and justice, Augusto Pinochet who over threw the socialist president Salvador Allende. His revolution didn't last long, but his government sure did.

 

Oh yes and the Mujahideen was a VERY right wing organization regardless of the reason they wanted the USSR out.

 

Communist dictatorships have insurgencies from time to time. Tiananmen Square, Hungry, Czechoslovakia. Those where crushed by tanks and machine guns. Romania and Bulgaria had uprisings that ended their leaders reigns of terror.

 

And don't forget we never ever sold weapons to Saddam either.

 

I didn't forget that. Saddam bought nearly all his arms from the USSR, France, and China.

 

Perhaps this could be a reason for the above nations seeking to extend the life of Saddam Inc. in the hopes of collecting payments on the arms contracts.

 

I'll take a throw ( part 2 )

Perhaps its the revolutionary narrative and its reception in The West by the dominant media culture. How the narrative gets framed and sculpted by the media and its reception by the American public.

Does anybody rember the Beltway agonies over the Haitian coup which prevented President Aristide from taking office? It was the Clinton years.

One never heard such cries for military intervention from Democrats.

If a persons farm in Zimbabwie is confiscated by Mugabee and his thugs the story has trouble gaining traction.

Media interest seems more intense, more sympathetic if the Nation under revolutionary pressure has ties to the US and US armanment industries

 

I agree, but why would that prevent a resistance movement from forming in Cuba or North Korea?

 

Perhaps it's too controlled. Right wing dictatorships/ect states generally have a moderately to slightly more free market. Perhaps this makes it easier to smuggle in weapons and to receive/trade the hard currency needed to sustain a fight.

 

That's what I thought - leftist regimes are better at complete totalitarian control. Also, complete control of the economy only gives the government that much more control over peoples lives.

 

Unless the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

 

Either that or right wing insurgencies tend to be incompetent.

 

Or not ruthless enough?