[The following article is re-printed from Class Struggle, the LCMRCI journal in New Zealand]

The demise of Suharto has sparked off claims that the Indonesian 'revolution' has begun. We reported on the causes of the latest crisis and political upheaval in the last issue of Class Struggle. After several weeks of mass struggles which brought the downfall of Suharto, we take a hard look at the way forward. We should all remember that the mass murder of around 500,000 dissidents in 1965 was the direct result of a Stalinist policy of class collaboration which disarmed the working class. Are we about to go down the same road today? We look at the analyses and programme the main left tendencies inside and outside Indonesia. We conclude that the legacy of Stalinism and of degenerate Trotskyism means that none offers a convincing analysis or a revolutionary programme so desperately needed to win the struggle for socialism. Worse, the default of the left primes the brave and militant Indonesian masses for another historic defeat. We cannot analyse the current situation without some background on the Indonesian political scene. The ruling bloc of Golkah and its "New Order" was forged in the years after 1965 when Suharto put down the failed coup and killed up to 500,000 communists and dissidents. The 'democratic opposition' around Megawate Sukarnoputri and the Democratic Party of Indonesia (PDI) is a weak force which is prevented from playing any serious role by the constitution and by political repression. Under the 1945 Constitution, the President is able to usurp power provided he controls the army. Though nominally elected by the Supreme Advisory Council (MPR) which meets every five years, the President can appoint over half its members, and in practice influence the rest. The Parliament (or the Peoples' Representative Council DPR) has little authority. Formally, it too can pass legislation. But the grip of Golkar is such that only opposition candidates which are acceptable to Golkar have been allowed to enter parliament. Therefore while the President is not exactly a military dictator, by establishing a network of personal patronage around Golkar – the "crony capitalist faction" - and his control of the army, he is a near-dictator, i.e. a form of bonapartist dictator. The student led uprisings of recent weeks have shaken Golkar but it has not challenged its grip on power. The military (ABRI) remains the backbone of Golkah. Although the ruling bloc has its splits, none have emerged so far to suggest that it cannot rule. The replacement of Suharto by his deputy Habibie shows that the ruling bloc is capable of making concessions so long as they are cosmetic.

The popular extra-parliamentary left consists of mainly 'communist' and 'nationalist' groupings. Most see the way forward as one of a 'democratic' revolution based on 'people power'. The students who mobilised for the recent demonstrations largely share these 'democratic' aspirations. Many, influenced by Maoist ideas see the 'democratic' revolution as a stage toward a socialist revolution in the future. There is a widespread belief that the causes of all Indonesia's problems, are not so much Chinese entrepreneurs, but the Golkar regime and the "orang kaya baru" (OKB – the new rich) with its massive corruption and wealth. This is the view of the Western economic experts as well. The solution is to mobilise the popular masses and demand democratic or constitutional reform to clean up the cronyism and the corruption. But who is going to reform the constitution and how?

The Peoples' Democratic Party (PRD) is the only mass party of the Indonesian left and has a number of workers and peasant affiliates. The PRD is allied to the bourgeois opposition parties: the Islamic PPP (United Democratic Party) and the PDI of Sukarnoputri. It is therefore in the best position to guide workers in the weeks ahead. Its programmatic document "The New Order and Capitalism" puts forward its basic positions on the struggle for democracy. These state clearly what the political 'tasks' are:

"The political program is a program to develop people's power that will lead to an economic, political and cultural democracy. To consolidate people's power and institute a genuine democracy in Indonesia, the people's basic rights must first of all be fully protected...All this can be realised only through free and independent people's organisations...Only a democratic structure will guarantee the consolidation of people's power. This democratic structure can only be institutionalised through a People's Coalition Government, that is a coalition of progressive classes, sectors and groups in Indonesia that consistently struggles for democracy and social justice, holding to principles of democratic pluralism."

It is obvious that this is a programme for a radical bourgeois democracy. 'Peoples power' is the legacy of Stalinism and Menshevism, which holds that it is necessary to first complete the bourgeois revolution before a socialist revolution is possible. It is also essentially reformist. It argues that if the majority were free from the tyranny of the army, the judiciary and the other powers of the elite, it would be able to institute a genuine democracy. In other words this is the Stalinist or Menshevik 'minimum programme' of democratic rights associated with completing the bourgeois revolution. However, as a separate stage, the bourgeois democratic revolution is a dangerous utopia, because it is not realisable under capitalism. What's more, workers would be leaving themselves open to repression by the national bourgeoisie and imperialists. For the Bolsheviks, such democratic demands, while necessary in a backward semi-colony in the epoch of imperialism, could not be completed without going on to a socialist revolution. Rather than arguing that a democratic stage is possible, the Bolsheviks argued for soviet power and socialist revolution. However to overcome the illusions that the masses had in bourgeois democracy, the Bolsheviks supported the demand for a Constituent Assembly at the same time as calling for soviets. As those who believed that a radical bourgeois democracy was enough found that this was opposed by the bourgeoisie, they would be won over to the soviets and be able to resist the bourgeois reaction and take power.

So it is clear that the largest mass force on the left in Indonesia, which acts as the main guide to the student and worker militants who are now engaged in struggle, is hardly better prepared to meet the forces of imperialism today than was the PKI in 1965. The difference is that the PKI 'powershared' with Sukarno, the PRD wants to 'powershare' with Sukarnoputri. If this is the legacy of Stalinism in Indonesia, what does the Trotskyist left offer commenting on Indonesia from the outside?

In an article titled "Indonesia: the Asian Revolution has Begun" by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, of Socialist Appeal (former wing of the Militant tendency), it is argued that Indonesia is ripe for revolution. What sort of revolution you may ask? They liken the events in Indonesia to Russia in 1905 and Madrid in 1931 which were bourgeois revolutions. They claim the pre-conditions for revolution are already present. They claim that "vacillations in the ruling class...are the first symptom of revolution". Moreover the "middle layers of society...are wavering between the status quo and revolution". Finally, "the third condition is that the working class should be prepared to fight for a radical change in society. The Indonesian working class as we shall show, has already entered the arena of class struggle".

But what arena is this? It seems clear from events that this is the arena of bourgeois revolution. If the ruling class is wavering, it is about the extent of democratic reform. If the middle class is wavering it is about whether to fear the army or the masses more. If the workers are ready for "radical change" in society – so far we have seen demands that Suharto goes and that the corrupt regime be reformed by 'people's power'. "If the Indonesian revolution is to succeed, it must be a genuinely national revolution – that is to say an anti-imperialist revolution. But the national revolution in present-day conditions can only succeed as an anti-capitalist revolution in which the peasantry and the rest of the exploited people unite under the leadership of the working class. The tasks of the national-democratic revolution lead directly to the socialist revolution. The bourgeoisie can offer no way out. The whole history of Indonesia since the second world war is proof of this."

The authors are conscious of the lack of revolutionary leadership and programme: "But the decisive factor that is missing is the subjective factor – a revolutionary party and leadership capable of providing the necessary organisation, programme and perspective to unite the movement and guide it to the seizure of power. The slogans of such a party are clear in advance: Factories to the Workers! Land to the Tillers! For a democratic and just solution to the national problem! For the repudiation of all foreign debts and the nationalisation of all property of the imperialists without compensation. For the confiscation of all the property of the corrupt Suharto clique and its hanger-on! For a revolutionary general strike to overthrow the regime! For the immediate formation of democratically elected committees of workers, peasants, soldiers and students to take into their hands the running of industry, the state and society! Only the democratic rule of the working class can cleanse Indonesian society of all the accumulated muck and corruption of the past and commence the movement in the direction of a socialist society. "

The problem with these slogans is that they do not immediately address the illusions on the left for democratic reform. Grant and Wood recognise that the current mood is one of "an unavoidable stage – the stage of universal rejoicing and democratic illusions – as in February 1917 in Russia and 1931 in Spain". But this will soon pass when the masses realise that the corrupt bourgeoisie retain power. Even Amien Rais, head of the Muslim Muhammadiyah movement, showed that he feared the consequences of the mass demonstration on the 20th of May by calling it off. "The first duty of any honest and consistent democrat in Indonesia is to unmask these false leaders before the people. No half-way solutions and rotten compromises! It is necessary to go to the end! For this purpose, the workers, peasants and students must put no faith in the rotten bourgeois liberals, but trust only in themselves, in their struggle, in the revolutionary movement of the masses." While this analysis correctly points to the need for workers to overcome their faith in false leaders, it does not specify the means whereby this can be done. Workers "putting trust in themselves" puts far too much weight on spontaneity - a hallmark of the centrist Trotskyist left. What is missing is the link between the current consciousness for democratic reform, and the socialist demands for general strike, the formation of soviets and the seizure of state power. For the 'revolutionary general strike' poses the question of power and presupposes that there is mass soviet support for a socialist revolution. How to unmask these false leaders before the people? Especially when the biggest left organisations under the burden of the Stalinist legacy are pushing for a bourgeois democratic revolution and exposing the masses to counter-revolution. There is a means to give expression to the need to expose the democratic pretensions of the 'democratic bourgeoisie' but also the Stalinist/Menshevik 'people's power' left which covers for the imperialist democrats. That is the demand for a Constituent Assembly. The demand for a Constituent Assembly, as long as it is not posed as the goal, and is raised along with the demand for soviets, will allow the communists to march alongside the democrats and prove in theory and practice that the bourgeoisie will repress any such movement. It will also allow the communists to expose the petty bourgeois utopians who expose the masses to repression at the hands of the bourgeois 'democrats'.

Spartacist Sectarianism

This in an important point overlooked by the degenerate Trotskyists of all shades. While Socialist Appeal ignores the role of the PRD left-reformists, or silently adapts to it in an opportunist way, the Spartacists simply abuse it as 'class collaborationist' without putting forward any tactics to break workers away from this 'popular front'. It is formally correct to say that the PRD are in a popular front, which means subordinating workers independence to the interests of the bourgeois partners in the front, including exposing workers to bloody repression. Yet having said "boo", this does not make the popular front go away. Simply declaring the necessity for a Bolshevik-Leninist vanguard is not sufficient to bring it about. Democrats do not take kindly to communist ultimatums, especially when scores of young militants are dying for the cause of democracy. Vanguardist ultimatums are a recipe for leaving all those workers with illusions in democracy prey to the bourgeois or the 'class collaborationist' left cover of the bourgeoisie.

This is the same problem facing Socialist Appeal. How do you break workers from democratic illusions which tie them to the reactionary popular front, and win them to the workers united front of soviets which makes the seizure of power possible? On the one hand, you have to build the embryo soviets in the form of strike committees and neighbourhood councils, yet on the other hand, revolutionaries have to go into the popular front to break workers from the bourgeoisie and bourgeois democracy. Again, the method is the same with the sectarians as with the opportunists. The opportunists do not confront the danger of democratic illusions head on, the sectarians turn their backs on it. The correct method is to adopt the transitional demand of the Constituent Assembly along with all the other transitional demands that cannot be realised by capitalism and which then force workers to go over the 'bridge' from fighting for democratic demands to fighting for socialist demands.

On this question as applied to backward semi-colonies such as Indonesia today, Trotsky writes: "On the basis of the revolutionary democratic programme, it is necessary to oppose the workers to the 'national' bourgeoisie. Then, at a certain stage in the mobilisation of the masses under the slogans of revolutionary democracy, soviets can and should arise. Their historical role in each given period, particularly their relation to the National Assembly, will be determined by the political level of the proletariat, the bond between them and the peasantry, and the character of the proletarian party policies. Sooner or later the soviets should overthrow bourgeois democracy. Only they are capable of bringing the democratic revolution to a conclusion and likewise an era of socialist revolution". And why is this so difficult for sectarians like the Spartacists to understand? As Trotsky says of sectarians: "At their base lies a refusal to struggle for partial and transitional demands, i.e. for the elementary interests and needs of the working masses, as they are today. Preparing for the revolution means to the sectarians, convincing themselves of the superiority of socialism. They propose turning their backs on the 'old' trades unions, i.e. to tens of millions of organised workers – as if the masses could somehow live outside of the conditions of the actual class struggle! They remain indifferent to the inner struggle within reformist organisations – as if one could win the masses without intervening in their daily life!"

Whatever the pretensions of the Stalinist reformists, and the Trotskyist centrists in Indonesia, their programmes are unable to address the crucial problem of the transition from democracy to socialism – the permanent revolution. The permanent revolution means going beyond bourgeois democracy. But this will not happen if the leadership of the masses is left in the hands of the popular front, or those who fail to break from the popular front through their opportunist passivity - like the Socialist Appeal, or through their fear of intervening in the daily life of the masses - like the Spartacists. Forward to the new Bolshevik-Leninist World Party of Revolution!