on the characterization of authoritarian regimes in latin america, fernando cardoso

(33): puzzle is authoritarianism in 'modernizing' societies (caudillismo in haciendo/export-agriculture economies could be understood), contrary to expectations of modernization theory

(35): importance of 'bureaucratic-authoritarian', indicating the fact that military domination is institutional, and not individual (which was 'caudillismo')

(36): authoritarianism is distinct from fascism because the former aspires to induce apathy in the masses [perhaps, another way of putting it is that it is not coming to terms with the arrival of masses on the political stage, a la fascism, but rather pre-empting that arrival; though this is not exactly right, since 'bureaucratic-authoritarian' regimes do react to leftist movements]

(37): different 'ideological' content, too -- more hierarchial/conservative content, than 'racial' nationalism

(38): thesis--a form of regime that guarantees the continued advance of capitalist industrial development (rather than a new form of state)--in other words the basic alliance/pact of domination that exists among social classes remains unchanged

(39): form of State in Latin America is 'dependent' and 'capitalist'

(40): simple economic determination is clearly not useful--but we do need to think about how economic accumulation (which demands, in a 'dependent' and 'capitalist' country, increasing inequality) is managed in a political regime, and how the military option addresses this source of tension

(41): the metastasization of the 'executive' at the expense of the legislature [this clearly fits the Pakistan example, quite well]

(41): importance, also, of thinking through possible tension between the executive and military [stepan's reminders fit here]

(44): discussion of degree of liquidiation of representative mechanisms [Ayub's BD fits here well, of course] as corresponding to degree of distrust amongst dominant classes, for masses

(44): Thermidor in LA as a response, also, to threat of socialism (cold war, cuban revolution, etc.) [in Pakistan not so clear, one thinks--but E. Pakistan, clearly, as 'threat']

(47): different 'control capacity' of authoritarian regimes, re: public opnion [Peru vs. Uruguay/Argentina]

(50): clearly not in the service of landed elites; this is an outdated thesis, he is stressing

(50): moreover, argument, harkening back to State/regime, which is that military regimes have not pursued policies particularly distinct from those pursued by democratic regimes--it is the fact that the latter cannot stem social pressures that accounts for the turn to repression, really [this makes eminent sense in Ayub--but Zia, Musharraf, how to think through this?]

(51-52): noting the autonomous economic interests of the State -- that, otherwise, it is difficult to suggest that particular social classes benefit more under authoritarian rule than under democratic (Mexico and Brazil). and certainly, there is no one-to-one correspondence between military regime and economic policy (Peru vs. Chile)