Nationalism, islam and marxism

39 Jean Charles Leonard de Sismondi (1773-1842), the liberal Cenevan historian and economist, was one of the founders of modern economic thought It is not dear which Thompson Sukarno has in mind.

================================

p. 35

know that “er ist was er isst’° They see at once that capitalism will certainly be destroyed in the end, that it will inevitably disappear and be replaced by a juster social order, and that what “the bourgeoisie” “are producing, above all, are their own grave-diggers.”41

These deep and difficult theories have penetrated the workers to the core, both in Europe and America. “Is it not miraculous indeed that this belief has now established itself in the hearts of millions, and that there is no power on earth which can eradicate it?” Like seeds scattered in all directions by the wind, which sprout wherever they fall, the seeds of Marxism have taken root and are sending up shoots; everywhere the bourgeoisie are preparing themselves and trying to crush the “proletarian threat,” a plant that grows stronger day by day. Some of the seeds scattered through Europe have been carried by the cyclone of our times towards the equator. .. and on to the East where they are dropping down and sprouting up among the hills and mountains which extend throughout the “emerald belt,” the archipelago whose name is Indonesia. Every day the air in the West quivers with the sound of the ‘Internationale” and the reverberations are so great that they echo and resound as far as the East. The Marxist movement in Jndonesia has been characterized by hostility towards movements with a Nationalist orientation and hostility towards movements based on Islamic principles. Indeed some years ago this hostility broke out in a quarrel over conflicting beliefs, a quarrel over conflicting attitudes, a quarrel between brothers, a quarrel, which, as I have previously explained, discouraged and disheartened all those who gave first priority to harmony, all those who understood that in this kind of conflict lies defeat. Bury nationalism, bury the politics of love of country, abolish the politics of religion! Such, more or less, was the battle cry one heard. They would say: Didn’t Marx and Engels state that “the workers have no fatherland”? Isn’t it written in The Communist Manifesto that “communism abolishes religion”?

Didn’t Bebel declare that “It was not God who created man, but rather man who created God”?~

On the other hand, the Nationalist and Moslem groups never tired of abusing the Marxists, denouncing their movement as being “in league” with foreigners, and as “denying” the existence of Cod. They poured scorn on the movement as taking its lead from Russia, which, in their view, was totally bankrupt and had proved incapable of putting its utopian ideals into effect. They ridiculed these ideals as the cause of the anarchy, famine, and disease which claimed the lives of approximately fifteen million people, a figure greater than the total number of persons killed in the recent world war

So the quarrel stood some years ago—with growing mutual recriminations between the leaders of these movements, growing mutual misunderstanding and growing mutual avoidance. But the new Marxist tactics do not reject cooperation with Moslems and Nationalists in Asia. As a matter of fact, they call for the support of genuine Nationalist and Islamic movements. Those Marxists who are still hostile to militant Nationalist and Islamic movements in Asia have not adjusted to the new times and do not understand that Marxist tactics have changed accordingly.

Again, however, those Nationalists and Moslems who denounce the “bankruptcy”  of Marxist concepts and point to anarchy and famine as the result of “applying” Marxist concepts,_______________ 
~ The Indonesian text has er 1st was er 1st (man is what he is); presumably this is a typographical error, since the sense of the previous sentence suggests that Sukamo is aware that Feuerbach’s famous axiom (Mann 1st was er isst) means ‘man is what he eats.’ 

 

 

 

41 The phrase is quoted from The Communist Manifesto.

42 August Behel (1840-1913), co-founder of the German Social Democratic Party and its most popuiar leader for forty years, was a close friend of Engels and Liebknecht and a strong opponent of Lassalle and Bismarck.

=====================

p36

show that they do not understand these concepts and that they have failed to grasp the real reasons for the setbacks in their “application:. Does not Marxism itself teach that socialism can only be fully realized when all the major states have been ‘socialized”? Doesn’t the present situation differ radically from the pre-conditions required for the fulfillment of Marxist goals? To be fair in judging the “application” of Marxist concepts, we must remember that “bankruptcy” and “anarchy” in Russia have been accelerated by the blockade imposed by her

enemies; that they have been aggravated by the attacks launched against her in fourteen places by hostile powers such as England and France, as well as by Generals Kolchak, Denikin, Yudenitch and Wrangel;~ and that the situation was further worsened by the venomous propaganda directed against her by aLmost every newspaper in the world.

In my opinion, her enemies must be held equally responsible for the death of fifteen million sick and starving people, since they supported the attacks of Koichak, Denikin, Yudenitch and Wrangel with money and supplies. The same England which spent millions to support attacks on her former ally “defiled the name of England before the whole world by refusing to give any assistance to relief-work” among the sick and hungry. At the time this catastrophe occurred, America, Rumania, and Hungary had wheat surpluses so great that the grain was used for fuel, while in Russia, in the district of Samara, people were eating the flesh of their own children to stave off famine.

One can only respect the impartial verdict of H. G. Wells, a distinguished British author and by no means a Communist, who wrote that if the Bolsheviks “had not been incessantly harassed, perhaps they would have been able to complete an experiment of the greatest value to mankind. .. . But they were incessantly harassed!”.

I am not a Communist, I favor no side! I only favor Unity—Indonesian Unity—and friendship between all our different movements. I mentioned earlier that contemporary Marxist tactics are different from those of the past. The old tactical stance, which was violently anti-nationalist and anti-religious, especially in Asia, has changed radically: what was once bitter hostility has become friendship and support. We can today see friendship between Marxists and Nationalists in China, and between Marxists and Moslems in Afghanistan”1~

Marxist theory has also changed, and so it should. Marx and Engels were not prophets who could establish systems applicable for all time. Their theories have to be modified with changing conditions; their concepts must be adapted to a changing world if they are not to become bankrupt. Marx and Engels themselves understood this very well. In their writings they often noted changes in their views in accordance with the objective changes taking place at the time they lived. Compare their views of 1847, compare, for example, their interpretations of the term Verelendung (increasing misery) in The Communist Manifesto and in Das Kapital! The change in conception, or the change in emphasis is immediately obvious. The social democrat Emile Vandervelde was perfectly correct when he stated that “revisionism did not begin with Bernstein, but with Marx and Engels themselves.”~’ 
_______________

43These men were the top military leaders of the Whites in the Russian Civil War.

~ It should perhaps be pointed out that the friendship between Marxists and Moslems in Afghanistan to which Sukarno here refers, was not internal political cooperation between Afghan Marxist and Islamic groups, but an external alliance between Kabul and Moscow which resulted from the anti-British and pro- Russian policies of the Afghan ruler Amanullah Khan after 1919.

45 Emile Vandervelde (1866-1938), one of the best known socialists of his day, led the Belgian Workers’ Party from 1890 onwards. He was notable for his genuine internationalism, humanitarianism, and anti-militarism

==============================================================================

p. 37

These changes in theory and tactics account for the support given to genuine nationalist movements, especially in Asia, by the newer Marxists, whether of the “moderate” or “militant” variety. They understand that in the countries of Asia, where no proletariat as yet exists in the European or American sense, their movement must be adapted to the characteristic features of Asian society. They understand that the Marxist movement in Asia must employ different tactics from those used by the Marxist movement in Europe or America(46), and must “cooperate with the ‘petty-bourgeois’ parties, because here the main objective is not power, but the struggle against feudalism.”

For the workers in Asian countries to be able to have the freedom to build true socialist movements, these countries must be free, must possess national autonomy. “National autonomy is an objective for which the proletarian struggle must aim, because it is an essential precondition for pursuing its ultimate goals,” says Otto Bauer. This is why national autonomy constitutes one of the very first priorities for the workers’ movements in Asia. This is why the workers of Asia must cooperate with and support all movements which are fighting for national autonomy, irrespective of the principles which they embrace. This is also why the Marxist movement in Indonesia must support our Nationalist and Islamic movements, which have made this autonomy their goal.

Marxists must remember that their movement cannot help but arouse feelings of Nationalism in the hearts of Indonesian workers, since most capital in Indonesia is foreign capital. Furthermore, the very nature of their movement—opposition to capital—stirs up feelings of discontent in the hearts of the workers, who are “at the bottom,” against the people “at the top,”  and stimulates support for a politics of national power of the people themselves. Marxists must bear in mind that the feeling of internationalism is certainly not as strong in Indonesia as it is in Europe. Indonesian workers have absorbed the concept of internationalism primarily as a matter of tactics. Moreover, the Indonesian people’s attachment to their native soil and their very limited financial resources have meant that only a few determined people have been willing to leave Indonesia in search of work in other countries, with the conviction that ubi bone, ubi patria (where conditions are good, there is my country)—unlike the worker in Europe who has become a man without a permanent home and without a permanent fatherland.

If they keep all this in mind, the Marxists will surely see the error of fighting the Nationalist

movements of thieir own people. They will surely recall the examples of Marxist leaders in other countries who have cooperated with the nationalists; they wilt surely think of the Marxist leaders in China who gladly support the efforts of the Nationalists because they are aware that China’s prime need is for national unity and national independence.

Along this same line, it is a mistake for Marxists to be at loggerheads with a genuine Islamic movement. It is quite inappropriate for them to attack a movement which, as I have already pointed out, takes an openly anti-capitalist position. It is incorrect for them to attack a movement which clearly condemns usury, interest, and surplus value. It is misguided of them to attack a movement which explicitly pursues the goals of liberty, equality and fraternity, which explicitly pursues national autonomy. And the reason why it is a mistake to take such position is that the new marxist tactics towards religion are quite different from the old. The  new marxism is quite different from the marxism of 1847; which through the comunist manifesto declared that religion must be abolished.

We must distinguish historical materialism from philosophical materialism; and we must remind ourself that the purpose of the former is different from that of the latter. philosopical materialism addresses the question: what is the relationship between thought and the  matter, how does thought arise? Historical Materialism answers the question of why thought in any given period has such and such characteristics. Philosophical Materialism poses questions about the existence of thought; Historical Materialism asks why thought changes. Philosophical Materialism seeks the origin of thought; Historical Materialism studies its development.

Philosophical Materialism is philosophical; Historical Materialism is historical. These two concepts are constantly being confused and confounded with each other by the enemies of Marxism in Europe, especially by the churches. In their anti-Marxist propaganda, they assiduously mix up these two perspectives and accuse Marxists of teaching that thought is simply the product of the brain, just as spittle is the product of the mouth, and bile is the product of the spleen. They never stop calling Marxists worshippers of things, or people whose God is Matter. c

This is the origin of the European Marxists’ hatred for the churches, the origin of their hostility to religious groups. Their hostility has become alithe more bitter, their hatred has become all the more violent as the religious groups have used their religion for the protection of capitalism, have exploited their religion to defend the interests of the ruling class, and have manipulated their religion to pursue ultra-reactionary policies.

This hatred for religious groups, which has its origins in the reactionary attitude of the churches, has been turned by the Marxists against the Moslems, who have a very different attitude and completely different characteristics from the religious groups in Europe! Here Islam is the religion of the enslaved, here Islam is the religion of the masses “at the bottom.” By contrast, there the Christians are the free, there the Christians are the people “on top.” inevitably a religion that is anti-capitalist, a religion of the enslaved, a religion of the masses “at the bottom,” a religion that demands the quest for freedom, a religion that forbids the existence of people “at the bottom”—a religion of this kind will unquestionably create attitudes which are not reactionary, and will undoubtedly generate a struggle which in several respects is identical with the struggle of the Marxists.

Therefore, if Marxists will remind themselves of the differences between the churches in Europe and Islam in Indonesia, they will surely stretch out their hands and say: “Brother, let us be one.” If they value the examples of their comrades who are cooperating with Moslems in other countries, they will surely follow these examples. And if they also cooperate with the Nationalists, they can declare in all serenity: “We have done our duty.” By fulfilling the duties imposed by the new Marxism, by taking into account all the necessary changes in basic theory, and by carrying out all the necessary changes in tactics, they can call themselves true and sincere defenders of the people—they can really call themselves the salt of the earth.

But as for the Marxists who oppose unity, the Marxists who are conservative in theft theory and out of date in their tactics, the Marxists who oppose genuine Nationalist and Islamic movements, such Marxists should not feel insulted if they are called the bane of the people.

This article is now almost at an end. I have tried to show, in however imperfect a manner, that, in the colonized countries, the concepts of Nationalism, Islam and Marxism coincide in several respects. However inadequately, I have tried to point to examples of leaders in other countries. But I am convinced that I have demonstrated very clearly my desire for unity. I am certain that all Indonesian leaders are aware that only Unity will lead us to Greatness and Independence. I am further persuaded that although my thoughts may not meet all the wishes of every group, they do show that Unity can be attained. It only remains now to create an organization which can realize this Unity; it only remains to look for an organizer who can make himself the Mahatma of this Unity. Does not Mother Indonesia, who has such sons as Umar Said Tjokroaminoto,  Tjipto Mangunkusumo and Semaun(47)—-does not Mother Indonesia also have a son who can become the Champion of this Unity?

We must be prepared to receive, but we must also be ready to give. This is the secret of Unity. Unity cannot exist if each group does not give a little, If we keep in mind that the strength of life lies not in receiving, but in giving; if we keep in mind that in discord lies the seed of our enslavement; if we keep in mind that mutual hostility is the origin of our ‘via dolorosa’; if we keep in mind that the Spirit of Our People is still strong enough to lift itself up towards the One ray of Light shining in the midst of the darkness that surrounds us—then surely Unity will be achieved, surely the ray of Light will be reached. For the Light is near.

Suluh Indonesia Muda, 1926

Soekarno 
_____________

~‘ Dr. Tjipto Mangunkusumo (1889-1943) was among the most eminent and respected nationalists of the pre-Sukarno generation. He had helped found the Indische Partij in 1912, together with Douwes Dekker and ki Hadjar Dewantoro. He was Sukarno’s chief political mentor during the latter’s student days in Bandung (1921-1926). Semaun (1899- ), an exact contemporary of Sukarno, was the most prominent member of the earliest group of Indonesian Marxists and was the first chairman of the Indonesian Communist Party, when it was formed in May 1920.