12 February 2008

OUR STANCE

PEMBEBASAN (Liberation) (published by KPRM-PRD)
January, 2008

[Editorial]


An (alternative) politics of the poor has been the political position of the Peoples Democratic Party (PRD) since it was established. This was a politics with the perspective that any changes and any victory to be won by the poor must be based on the people's own strength, on the strength of the movement. This perspective has been abandoned by a section of the leadership of the PRD – those calling themselves the majority in the PRD – in accord with their interest in liquidating themselves (ideologically, politically, organizationally) into an electoral unity with a fake reformist party, an ally of the government, a government which is the agent of imperialism. All this in order have the opportunity to get into parliament.

Because of this, those of us who refuse to abandon this politics of the poor, and who reject the path of parliamentarist opportunism have taken the name the Political Committee of the Poor-PRD (KPRM-PRD). The formation of the KPRM-PRD began as a result of coercion when, using the position/authority of a majority, which then became the internal position of the PRD, forced a division/split of the party: either supporting parliamentarist opportunism or to build a peoples movement.

We now understand this undemocratic decision to split the party as the destructive consequence of their opportunist political perspective. For the KPRM-PRD the more important pressing need is to play a concrete role in the development of a politics of the poor together with other forces in the movement, building that kind of unity.

Yet, even so, this does not mean that the KPRM-PRD is washing its hands of the problem of the destruction of the politics of the poor perspective inside the PRD. While helping to build the peoples movement, we will continue the internal struggle to win back the PRD as an instrument of struggle for the politics of the poor.

In the current economic and political situation, the movement faces the challenge of evaluating the situation and taking responsibility [to lead]. The people day by day become clearer on the accumulating problems that they face. So the responsibility increases for the movement to show the links between these problems and the role of imperialist oppression. We must be able to go beyond and pierce through the thousands of illusions, that are always being strengthened, and which disguise the subservience of our rulers to imperialist interests.

Hopes for genuine change for the people will grow if the peoples own strength (with activists from the movement among them) are capable of creating a network of resistance among the people that is broad and united.

The concrete manifestation of the politics of the poor is the broadening and unifying of the peoples resistance, a unifying of the peoples mobilizations raising up demands and solutions to the socio-economic problems of the people. These mobilizations must grow and enter into every political arena of the poor, and the elections are just one of these. And indeed no matter whatever the political movement of the poor may expre3ss itself in, the primary thing that cannot be compromised is the refusal to suffer any interference, to suffer any subordination (so to remain free of the influence) and the refusal to fuse with the pro-imperialist government, the army, remnants of the New Order or fake reformists.

Yes, the politics of the poor is an alternative, a rival perspective based on the strength of the peoples own resistance, based non the principles of non-cooperation and non-cooptation with the enemies of the people. No matter how difficult, the building of the peoples own strength to resist must be carried out, the problems must be overcome; this task cannot be avoided. The method of three monthly mobilizations is just one method which we are putting forward, and can still be further developed, to extend the resistance of the people, to awaken political consciousness, while concretizing it in the struggle method of the people; to make their demands through mass mobilization.

In the name of an easy path to power (with the justification that revolution can be carried out from above). Including through parliamentarist opportunism, is truly an abandonment of the tru struggle of the people, is truly cutting oneself away from a politics in solidarity with the people.***

11 February 2008

Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left

· To: lnp3@panix.com
· Subject: Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left
· From: "Tom O'Lincoln"
· Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:35:13 +1100
· Delivered-to: lnp3@panix.com
· Reply-to: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
· Sender: marxism-bounces+lnp3=panix.com@lists.econ.utah.edu

A few thoughts.

Firstly thanks to Max for filling us in, though of course this is not a
philanthropic exercise, he is writing on behalf of the side he supports, and
I suppose we have to read this against the background of differences inside
the DSP.

It is interesting that Danial Indrakusuma is taking such a prominent role
among the minority. He has usually kept a low profile, but I have long
thought him more influential than, say, Dita Sari. So this split seems
rather historic, and the new group may not be like earlier breakaways which
have rapidly disintegrated.

I think Peter's statement is entirely reasonable. Without it many readers
might imagine the whole DSP agreed with Max.

Bob is quite right, Max is the undoubted Australian left expert (his account
of 1997 is accurate) and I suspect I will lend up sympathising with the
group he supports against the other lot. But like Nick I'm in no hurry to
take sides. Not only have we only seen documents from one side, but
theoretical correctness isn't the only consideration. Back around 2000 when
some leading figures led the first split (forming the PDS) I agreed with
them on many theoretical points, but refused point blank to support them
against the PRD. (I just continued to support all the revolutionaries.) One
reason was that their plans for building an organisation struck me as
seriously flawed; on which point I think subsequent experience has proven me
right. Another reason is that, like Peter, I didn't think someone should
casually take sides from long-distance.

I agree with Phil that the main issue is relations with bourgeois parties;
religion can be a major problem at times but at other junctures it can be of
negligeable importance. In practice virtually the whole Indonesian left is
religious.

The underlying question is why a far left group finds itself so close to
bourgeois forces. And here I will argue, contrary to Nick, that there is a
pattern in the PRD's history. Around 1996 I remember quite clear the
flattering language they used to describe the utterly bourgeois Democratic
party led by Megawati. PRD leader Budiman Sudjatmiko described her (quoting
from memory) as combining the "wisdom of a statesman and the gentleness of
a mother." By the way, Budiman ultimately defected to Megawati's party.

I'm probably one source of what Nick calls "unfair accusations of
opportunism" by the PRD towards what he calls the "very mildly liberalising"
Wahid government. This government was elected by a rotten bloc of Islamic
and other right wing parties to stop Megawati getting in despite her big
vote. Partly this was motivated by sexist arguments against women taking
office, mainly it was an attempt to slow the democratic momentum of the
time. In 2001, shortly before the Sawangan conference where we were
arrested, I watched as PRD representatives led chants calling for President
Wahid to issue a decree dissolving parliament, something that was only
possible with the connivance of the mililtary. The PRD leaders later
disavowed those actions (acknowledging confusion) and I accept the
disavowals were honest; but I don't think it was accidental that the actions
happened.

The problem is that the PRD was and is very small, but has always tried to
present itself as bigger than it is, and wield to influence beyond its
capacity. Lacking its own troops, it tries to use someone else's mass
forces. In 1996 it was trying to surf to greater influence on the back of
Megawati's party, then later it tried to do the same with Wahid's party. But
the tail cannot wag the dog.

I suspect the new problems reflect the same syndrome. An unrealistic attempt
to form some kind of mass electoral force was a flop, resulting in nothing
but a somewhat wider network of activists sustained by the PRD (sounds like
Socialist Alliance?), and the resulting frustrations led to yet another
unreal manoeuvre, which brought on a split.

But these are just surmises. It would be good to see some documents on both
sides. As a start, can someone post the Indonesian documents or provide
links? I believe the DSP has the translators to provide the key ones in
English, but if necessary I would be happy to translate a document or two.

Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left

· To: lnp3@panix.com
· Subject: Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left
· From: Nick Fredman
· Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 08:30:30 +1100
· Delivered-to: lnp3@panix.com
· Reply-to: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
· Sender: marxism-bounces+lnp3=panix.com@lists.econ.utah.edu
· Thread-index: AchqmdQJElOe29aNEdygmwAZ4zahlA==
· Thread-topic: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left
· User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618

Yes I was mixing up the Wahid and Rais liberal Islamic forces which were
critical of Suharto, and the PPP, it's been a while. But that doesn't change
the essence of my point, which was while Max could be quite correct, all the
PRD's varied tactics towards varied bourgeois forces, including how they
approached the very mildly liberalising Wahid government, have been the
occasion of unfair accusations of opportunism, so a certain benefit of the
doubt seems in order. The little indication I have of what's going on
suggests there's two sides to the political and organisational questions,
details of which don't seem to be available in English to the extent
necessary for non-specialists to make the sort of objective appraisal I
think necessary before definitive characterisations can or should be made.

Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left

· To: lnp3@panix.com
· Subject: Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left
· From: Ozleft
· Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:22:41 +1100
· Delivered-to: lnp3@panix.com
· Reply-to: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
· Sender: marxism-bounces+lnp3=panix.com@lists.econ.utah.edu
· User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)

Peter Boyle’s curious intervention on Marxmail

Bob Gould

Over the past week or so Max Lane has put on his own longstanding blog
at Sydney University, and more recently on Marxmail, one of his periodic
accounts of developments on the left in Indonesia.

Max is no ordinary observer of Indonesia, but the major translator of
the novelist Pramoedya Ananta Toer, and an important promoter of Toer’s
works in the English-speaking world.

In the course of his work as an academic specialising in Indonesia he
has spent long periods in Indonesia and some time in East Timor. To sum
up, he’s the Australian left expert on Indonesia.

Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left

· To: lnp3@panix.com
· Subject: Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left
· From: "Max Lane"
· Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 22:45:58 +1100
· Delivered-to: lnp3@panix.com
· Reply-to: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
· Sender: marxism-bounces+lnp3=panix.com@lists.econ.utah.edu

Nick Fredman includes in his posting in response to my article on
developments in the Indonesian Left, the following:

"the charges [against the PRD] including 'opportunist' orientations to the
mass base of the mildly liberal Islamic bourgeois PPP (one of the three
legal parties under Suharto) when underground around 1996, at the same time
as its orientation to the mass base of the Megawati wing of the secular
mildly liberal bourgeois PDI."

Making this comment in the discussion of the developments I outlined in my
article, may tend to obscure differences with the current situation.

In the 1990s, the PRD never had any sustained orientation to the mass base
of PPP involving any kind of merger, or coalition with the PPP, and not even
critical support for the PPP. Neither was the PPP a "mildly liberal
bourgeois" party but housed the most reactionary of the Islamic parties. The
main liberal bourgeois wing of political Islam, represented by Abdurahman
Wahid (Gus Dur) left the PPP in the 1980s, precisely because of its
reactionary and pro-Suharto character. Another liberal, though less so than
Abdurrahman Wahid, Amien Rais, was also never in the PPP. The PPP included
some of the most reactionary and craven elements.

In 1997, the PRD intervened very effectively in general elections that took
place as the movement against Suharto escalated. During the nine day
election campaign each of the three permitted parties were allowed to
campaign, although they were actually not supposed to campaign outside, only
in buildings.

On the days that GOLKAR, the most pro government party, campaigned - very
few people were on the streets.

On the days that the PDI campaigned, very few people mobilised because by
that time the government had withdrawn electoral registration from the real
PDI lead by Megawati Sukarnoputri, which did have a mass following, and had
given it to a puppet PDI.

On the days that the PPP was scheduled to mobilise there were huge and
militant anti-government mobilisations. On the last day estimates are that 1
million plus people mobilised in Jakarta, defying police, military and
government instructions and barricades not to mobilise and defying PPP
leadership instructions cancelling all campaign activities. This was not so
much a mobilisation of the PPP mass base, but a mobilisation of hundreds of
thousands of anti-Suharto urban poor, irrespective of which, if any, of the
bourgeoius parties they looked to. This was eveidenced by, among other
things, the fact that many people brought their own photos of Sukarno or of
Megawati on those so-called PPP campaign days.

The PRD intervened by distributing hundreds of thousands of leaflets calling
for the end of the role in the army in politics, for Suharto to resign and
for a 100% increase in wages and it demanded that the political forces
represented by Megawati and political Islam unite with all other forces to
win these demands.

Never did it adopt a policy of campaigning in critical support of the PPP.

The PPP leadership moved immediately to condemn the leaflets that the PRD
had been distributing.

For more on this see my book UNFINISHED NATION: before and after the Suharto
dictatorship, to be published in May, 2008 by Verso books

In the current case, of course, there are no anti-goverment mobilisations by
the PRD, no anti-government dynamic (the PBR has supported the current
President), and the PRD was seeking to merge with the PBR, suggesting they
would take 5 seats on the PBR national committee.

There are many aspects to the current developments, some representing
setbacks for the Left, some - insofar as a regeneration has begun after ten
years of difficulties - are very positive. I will try to post more articles
on my blog in coming weeks as well as translate more interesting material
from Indonesia. For those interested in the record of the PRD during the
1990s and early 2000s, this is a significant part of UNFINISHED NATION,
hopefully available soon.

Max Lane

[Marxism] Indonesian split

· To: lnp3@panix.com
· Subject: [Marxism] Indonesian split
· From: Philip Ferguson
· Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 18:53:35 +1300
· Delivered-to: lnp3@panix.com
· Reply-to: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
· Sender: marxism-bounces+lnp3=panix.com@lists.econ.utah.edu
· Thread-index: AchqFvG8G0qWLbeVQISk+cQJuiymPA==
· Thread-topic: Indonesian split

Nick, were you at the Asia-pacific-Latin America solidarity conference
in Melbourne in October?

One of the workshops I went to was about working with, or in the context
of, substantial Islamist organisations and the speakers were Dita Sari
on Indonesia and Farooq Tariq on Pakistan.

There was quite a strong disagreement between the two speakers. Farooq
seemed quite appalled at the idea of the PRD merging with an Islamic
party for electoral purposes in Indonesia and generally more critical of
the idea of working with Islamists although he certainly wasn't against
it in principle.

I was quite shocked by what Dita Sari was saying because it seemed that
the PRD would basically merge with a bourgeois party - it was the fact
that it was a capitalist party that I found disturbing, the Islamism was
just an extra layer of disturbing. It was rather redolent of the
Chinese CP getting hooked in behind the KMT, but even more so.

I certainly realise that in those Third World countries where religion
is especially strong, as in the Islamic case, a lot of sensitivity to
such feelings of the masses is important.

But I also know a lot about another oppressed country where religion
was/is very strong, namely Ireland, and kowtowing to Catholicism has
never done revolutionaries there any good. In order not to antagonise
the Catholic Church too much, Irish republicans made far too many
concessions - especially in the south where they should have led the
fight for a secular society.

The fact that republicans far too often abstained from that fight meant
the (partial) secularisation of southern society was carried out to a
large extent by pro-imperialist middle class liberals. It strengthened
their hand in associating Irish republicanism with social conservatism
while at the same time limiting the degree of social progress on very
basic issues like divorce, contraception, separation of church and state
not to mention women's right to abortion.

Phil

[Marxism] Re: An important development on the Indonesian left

· To: lnp3@panix.com
· Subject: Re: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left
· From: Nick Fredman
· Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 15:53:02 +1100
· Delivered-to: lnp3@panix.com
· Reply-to: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
· Sender: marxism-bounces+lnp3=panix.com@lists.econ.utah.edu
· Thread-index: AchqDnvZup0kZNYBEdygmwAZ4zahlA==
· Thread-topic: [Marxism] An important development on the Indonesian left
· User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.6.070618

I have a lot of respect for Max Lane but also have a lot of respect for Dita
Sari. Even when she came to our town in 1999 and said the food we prepared
for the public meeting was "disgusting" (this I should add was just to me
and my partner, who'd made friends with Dita in Indo in 1996, rather than
the crowd of 100, and she had just been banged up for 3 years and was maybe
still a bit cranky, so I didn't mind deep-frying to death some eggs and
tempeh for her after which seemed to help mend inter-party relations).

The characterisations of the PRD majority made by Max could be quite correct
for all I know (I don't follow Indo politics as I did fairly closely around
1994-2000 and have always sadly found learning other languages too much like
hard work). But on the other hand the PRD has been regularly accused of
reformism, opportunism, Stalinist two-stage-ism and all the rest since it's
formation around 1994 - the charges including 'opportunist' orientations to
the mass base of the mildly liberal Islamic bourgeois PPP (one of the three
legal parties under Suharto) when underground around 1996, at the same time
as its orientation to the mass base of the Megawati wing of the secular
mildly liberal bourgeois PDI.

I don't know how anyone could possibly expect to present a credible account
of a split in such a formation (a small but impressive Marxist organisation
which has negotiated complex and changing terrain, in both illegal and legal
but repressive contexts, with a major economic crisis thrown in), without
carefully presenting the actual views of both sides in their own words,
rather than one side and that side's representation of the views of the
other side.

[Marxism] Re: An important development on the Indonesian left

To: lnp3@panix.com
· Subject: [Marxism] Re An important development on the Indonesian left
· From: Peter Boyle
· Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 14:23:53 +1100
· Delivered-to: lnp3@panix.com
· Reply-to: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition
· Sender: marxism-bounces+lnp3=panix.com@lists.econ.utah.edu
· User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)

For the information of readers of the Marxism list, the opinions on the
split in the PRD in Indonesia expressed in this blog by Max Lane

do not represent the positions of the DSP or Green Left Weekly. We are
cautious about taking positions on tactical judgements that comrades in
Indonesia make and we hold to the principles of mutual non-interference
in our relations with socialist parties we collaborate with. We are
following and studying developments in the Indonesian left to the best
of our ability. The article "Indonesia: Reject Parliamentarism and
Opportunism" submitted by Sam King has not been published in Green Left
Weekly.

Peter

An important Development on the Indonesian Left

By Max Lane
In this article, I want to report and analyze on one of the most important developments on the Indonesian Left. These developments began in Indonesia in July 2007, seven months ago now. I apologize to all those readers who have been reading my English language articles as a means of following the Indonesian left. I have been unfortunately constrained over the last seven months, and even now

In July, 2007 a majority of the current leadership of the PRD voted on a leadership body that a small number of leaders, who disagreed with current political perspectives should exercise their "democratic rights" to "go their own way" to test out their own line. Members of the PRD were to be informed of this decision and all those who did not support the perspective of the current majority would be invited to join those "going their own way". In other words, all those with differences were being de facto expelled. Formal expulsions of Jakarta based members and the freezing of branches whose membership's rejected the current leadership's perspectives took place later in the year.

Indonesia: Reject Parliamentarism and Opportunism

By Sam King

Jakarta: On January 31 the Struggle Committee of the Poor (KPRM) wing of the People's Democratic Party (PRD) today made its public launch under the banner of "Reject Co-option and Co-operation with remnants of the New Order [military dictatorship of General Suharto], the military and the fake reformists; unite and stand up for an alternative politics of the poor."

The launch was organised to promote the KPRM-PRD's view that meaningful social change in Indonesia can only be achieved through political struggle by the mass of the Indonesia's 236 million, mostly poor people.

According to KPRM-PRD leader Danial Indrakusuma relating to the rising movement of localised, spontaneous struggles throughout Indonesia is the key to building such popular struggle.

Indrakusuma told Green Left Weekly "economic" struggle like workers strikes, peasant land claims or pricing disputes and struggles by urban poor communities such as against housing demolitions continue to rise and have done so since 1998. "That is the prize for having overthrown [the] Suharto" Military dictatorship in 1998.

5 February 2008

Protests to cancel debt, support development

INDONESIA

Sam King
1 February 2008

Hundreds of people took protest action in North Sumatra, East Kalimantan, Central Sulewesi, East and West Java and Jogjakarta on January 15-17 to demand cancellation of Indonesia’s foreign debt, nationalisation of the mining industries and for strengthening the economy through a nationwide industrialisation. 
 
The actions were organised by over 20 trade unions, student and urban poor organisations in alliance with the People’s Democratic Party-Struggle Committee of the Poor (KPRM–PRD). The KPRM-PRD is the result of a minority split from the People’s Democratic Party (PRD) — by far the most well known and influential element of the Indonesian left as a result of its crucial leadership role in the movement that overthrew Suharto in 1998.

The split has occurred over tactics relating to elections, which the PRD sees as a way to reach the population with its political program. The PRD is building the National Liberation Party of Unity (Papernas), and is advocating Papernas seek electoral alliances with other parties on the basis of agreement on a joint platform.

The KPRM–PRD, on the other hand, is against participation in the 2009 elections if the tough registration laws make participation in its own name and with its own program too difficult, counter-posing to the elections the need to rebuild from the grass roots.

From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #738 6 February 2008.