Re: Saddam and history

[Craig Brozefsky <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Tom O'Lincoln" <suarsos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 3. And if I were to tell them that freedom and democracy is a "divide and
> rule strategy", they would find it eerily familiar. It's the rhetoric
> ("Asian values" etc) of the Suharto dictatorship which they fought against.
> They fought for democracy. I am not prepared to disown that, any more than
> I am prepared to forget what my Lebanese comrades told me about Saddam.

We must recognize that the struggle for control of the state, for
control of the standing bodies of men, for control over resources, is
a violent one.  This struggle unfolds differently in every historical
situation.  It is here that we have to evaluate democracy.

You could tell them that in Iraq, freedom and democracy are a "divide
and rule" strategy.  The political conditions for democracy do not
exist, having been blotted out by the imperialist armies sacking and
starving it for the last 10 years.  This would not invalidate their
struggle for democracy against Suharto, wether he used the same
rhetoric or not.  Their struggle must be evaluated in its historic
context, not by ahistorical comparisons of the rhetoric its opponents
used.

--
Sincerely, Craig Brozefsky <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
No war! No racist scapegoating! No attacks on civil liberties!
Chicago Coalition Against War & Racism: www.chicagoantiwar.org
Free Scheme/Lisp Software:  http://www.red-bean.com/~craig