Zeynep Tufekcioglu zeynept at
Sun Aug 4 12:37:27 MDT 1996

>    The editorial begins, "Indonesian President Suharto, 75, has
>plenty to boast about. For the past three decades he has overseen
>unprecendented growth and prosperity in his nation of 200 million."
>No mention, of course, of any of the actualities of life in Indonesia
>or East Timor. The editorial merely suggests that now is the time
>to lighten up a bit on the oppression (not BW's word).
>    Carrol

While us here too have been trying to learn more about Indonesia, hence I'd
appreciate any analysis and information I would like to take this
opportunity to point out to the imperialist method "reshaping" of the world
which I think is setting the agenda. From what I learn, Indonesia was never
a quite country and this is not the first riot that would deserve
international attention.

The current attention by imperialist press paid to Indonesia seems to follow
a pattern. Dictators as Suharto have served imperialism well in the "cold
war" era, but the level of corruption and oppression has a great potential
for backfiring. Integration into the "New World Order" and the "Low
Intensity Warfare" strategy of selective violence instead of overall war on
the population requires that the likes of Suharto be replaced by regimes
that are less crude. A Marcos -> Aquino changeover (Fujimori also comes to
mind as an example) is now due, hence the current interest. *They* want to
control the change before the pressure cooker explodes, as suggested by BW
editorial. (I noticed similar interest on Indonesia beginning a few months
earlier, prompted partially by the death of Suharto's wife).

In many instances such a change of guard seems best served by the blood of
revolutionaries who will then be discarded. The left's hope for a more
"democratic" society, misplacing such aspirations on Aquino-like leaders,
allows such a transformation to be manipulated by imperialism. The left that
can't be unwillingly fooled/co-opted is then crushed by violence and brutality.

May I take this opportunity to ask if any list member has any views about
"Low Intensity Warfare" strategy? Quispe posted some PCP documents about the
subject, which although short, seemed pretty similar to the results we had
arrived at here regarding the question. The analysis of the role of the
state in 1990s I think deserves (cries for) being developed taking into
consideration the new methods. The state, in our opinion, has taken on a new
role of "orienting" the left, at unprecented levels using new methods. Some
doors are literally opened for NGOs, left political parties, communist and
revolutionary organisations. Selective violence, sophisticated
misinformation and direct/indirect manipulation are applied while carrying
out a medium term strategy.

Btw, I think, that theoretically, the last decade has made obsolete and
proven wrong the previous structralist debate about the role of the state
(Poulantzas/Milliband et al.) and the communists need to develop their
analysis of the state if they hope to avoid being drowned, (usually in their
own blood).


     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list