Source: Problems of the Indonesia Revolution, D.N. Aidit. Published by DEMOS - 1963
We are celebrating this evening three important historic events. Firstly, the 45th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution (November 7, 1917); secondly, the 17th anniversary of Heroes’ Day (November 10, 1945); and thirdly, the 36th anniversary of the first national Uprising (November 12, 1926).
I feel very happy indeed that we can celebrate these three events simultaneously now, since breathing these three historic events atone and the same time means that we absorb as deeply as possible and rejuvenate our patriotic feelings and feelings of internationalism. As revolutionary fighters we are in equal need of both, just as we need our hands and feet. Is it not so that we can be then only complete patriots if we are at the same time internationalists, and is it not so that we will be only then true internationalists if we are also patriots? Patriotism without internationalism can deteriorate into stale chauvinism and therefore be condemnable; whereas internationalism without patriotism can deteriorate into cosmopolitanism or national nihilism which is no less stale and condemnable.
Strangely enough, there are some people who think that they are born onto this world only as an inhabitant of one particular country and not as an inhabitant of the world. And reversely, there are also some who think that they were born as world inhabitants without becoming an inhabitant of one of the world's countries. We Communists and other progressive people however, are realists, we were born with two qualities at one and the same time, as inhabitants of a particular country and as inhabitants of the world, because our country is after all situated on our globe. As grown-up people we have a responsibility toward the people and the world in which we live. We are patriots and internationalists at one and the same time. We are not cosmopolitans or national nihilists who have no fatherland, and we are neither chauvinist whom Bung Karno calls "narrow-minded" people.
True, there are two types of patriots and two types of internationalists. There are patriots who love their homeland but who do not like and do not fight for the Interests of the majority of the people, nay even oppress them and who help the imperialists and other exploiters. These are bourgeois patriots. We Communists and other progressives, we love our homeland and above all we love our people and defend their interests against the exploiters. This is proletarian patriotism, Socialist patriotism, or progressive patriotism.
Communists can support the nationalism of the peoples of colonial countries and dependent countries since the nationalism of each nation still oppressed contains a general democratic contents aimed at fighting against exploitation. This attitude is not in the least contradictory to the principle of proletarian internationalism. On the contrary, Communists cannot possibly have sympathy for nationalism utilised for reactionary purposes, as an instrument of national egoism and to subjugate other people, to fan racialism or to oppose the just demands of the masses.
As I said before, there are also two types of internationalism. The capitalists have their own type of internationalism, they have a kind of "solidarity" among the capitalists of the world, with their network of international organisations aimed at dominating and grabbing the entire natural wealth of the world and at enslaving the working people of all countries. This is the internationalism of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat, too, has its own internationalism, its own solidarity and its own international co-operation organisations. The internationalism of the Communists is proletarian Internationalism or socialist Internationalism, i.e. internationalism that has “abolition of exploitation of man by man in all countries" inscribed in its banners. Thus to weaken the struggle against international capitalism, the imperialists and other reactionaries are doing their best to break the spirit of the proletarian internationalism of the working class, among other things by resorting to the poison of chauvinism, modern revisionism and cosmopolitanism.
Proletarian internationalism supports and is taking an active part in strengthening progressive internationalism which has unfolded banners in which "independence and peace” are inscribed, in the form of Asian-African-Latin American solidarity, in the form of movements for the defense of world peace, etc.
With the aim of weakening the anti-imperialist struggle, the imperialists try to fan up chauvinism, or narrow nationalism. The imperialists and other reactionaries have tried and are still trying to do so in Indonesia. That is why the Indonesian working class must not cease struggling against the policy of the imperialists fanning up chauvinism which often takes on the form of racialism. The imperialists have to a certain extent now succeeded in stirring up chauvinism in India. We deplore it very much that part of the Indian working class has been affected by this imperialist poison. This will mean a set-back of tens of years for the Indian working class movement and will have a damaging influence on the development of the revolutionary movement in Asia, if we bear in mind that India is a big country with hundreds of millions of inhabitants. It pains the Communists and working class of Indonesia and they feel sad to see this, while at the same time they vehemently condemn the actions of the Indian reactionaries who are insolently suppressing the progressive movement in India, attack and burn the office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of India and arrest Indian Communists.
The Indonesian Communists and working class should draw lessons from these events now being faced by the Indian working class, i.e. that chauvinism is an extremely great danger for the working class and may paralyse the working class movement, making it loose its prestige and guide. We have become more convinced that dialectics should be valid in the national front with the bourgeoisie, i.e. the necessity of carrying out the policy of uniting and struggling with them. To unite only without struggling in the united front means weakening our own ranks, making the working class into an appendix of the bourgeoisie, making the working class a captive of the bourgeoisie, and even being turned into a bait to angle for credits and imperialist weapons and as a shield in the war against Socialism.
I have received expressions of Indonesian Communists stating their concern and fear over the present state of affairs of the Indian working class. I have replied to these expressions. Concern, indeed, is proper, but too much fear, which becomes, down-heartedness is not necessary. The Indian working class is an experienced working class, with revolutionary traditions and militant, it will certainly succeed in ridding itself of being captives of Mr. Nehru and his accomplices.
The Indonesian Communists have come to deeper realise the necessity of unfurling two banners at the same time, the banner of patriotism and internationalism. Indonesian Communists should be more patriotic than all patriots, and simultaneously be not less consistent and enthusiastic in upholding and defending proletarian internationalism. To this end education of Marxist-Leninist and proletarian internationalism must be carried out intensively within the ranks of the Indonesian Communists. Modesty and courage must be given pride of place by every Indonesian Communists.
In commemorating three historic events this evening simultaneously we renew our resolve to always better and more harmoniously weld our patriotism with our Internationalism. November 10, 1945 and November 12, 1926 are two peaks of the many patriotic outbursts. In the history of our independence struggle, whereas upholding the banners of the Great October Socialist Revolution is the most representative, loftiest and most beautiful manifestation of our Internationalism. At this occasion I will put the accent of my speech on the October Revolution because Comrade Anwar Sanusi and Comrade Nursuhud have dealt with November 10 and November 12, respectively.
There are some people who doubt the patriotism of Communists because Communists are very fond of the October Revolution and very fond of the Soviet Union. The Indonesian Communists have never hidden and will never hide their liking of the October Revolution and the Soviet Union. This not only does not lessen the patriotism of Indonesian Communists, but moreover reinforce it, since the October Revolution and the Soviet Union teach them that by taking guidance of Marxism-Leninism, the strongest despotism can be overthrown, that Socialism is no longer something to read about in books but has become a living reality, that with the outbreak of the October Revolution and the founding of the Soviet Union the death knell for capitalism had been sounded, that the Soviet Union since its very foundation up till the present day has faithfully and consistently helped the independence struggle of the peoples and the struggle of the working class in the capitalist countries, that the Soviet Union is fighting for world peace, etc., etc.
The October Socialist Revolution has unparalled consequences on the fate of mankind. The October Revolution has driven capitalism to its grave, has taken mankind to a new era without capitalism, has given clear proof of the truth of Marxism-Leninism which teaches that capitalism is the last system of exploitation in the history of human society. With the victory of Socialism in the Soviet Union, which was followed by other Socialist countries, it was proven with facts that it is possible to realise a society without exploitation of man by man.
The October Revolution has changed the course of development of human history, not as "a deviator of history" as the "wise" men of the bourgeoisie are want of saying, but as something that "has straightened" the course of history.
Mr. Winston Churchill once led the interventionist armies of 14 imperialist states to crush the Soviet power born out of the October Revolution. Churchill failed. The Soviet Union not only could survive but has even now left Great Britain far behind in all spheres of progress. Mr. Churchill once stated that the Bolsheviks should abandon their Communism, if not, he said, total destruction of all forms of life in Russia would ensue. The facts are quite the contrary, it is not Russia that fell into total ruin, but it is British imperialism that is decaying and falling to pieces like the body of one heavily afflicted by leprosy. Whereas the Soviet Union, of which Russia is the most important component, is experiencing an unparalleled development in the fields of economy, culture and science.
It is no longer a strange thing for the entire world that the ideas of Marx and Lenin not only have brought victory to the October Revolution, but that also thanks to the victory of this great Revolution and the existence of the Soviet Union admirable successes have been scored in outer space exploration by the Soviet sputniks, space rockets and its cosmonauts.
The October Revolution constitutes a telling blow against imperialism. This event was the commencement of the first stage of the world Socialist revolution. Another telling blow, which made us enter the second phase of the world Socialist revolution was the establishment of Socialist states in Europe and Asia, and in the first place the establishment of the People's Republic of China. With this Socialism became a world system.
Now more than one third of the world population lives in the camp of Socialism, it produces one third of world industry and almost half of the world production of grain. The economy of the Socialist countries develops at a pace 4 or 5 times quicker than the economy of the capitalist countries. The Socialist world system has become the decisive factor in the development of world society. The construction of Communism in the Soviet Union has further strengthened the position of the Socialist camp and is of great international significance.
In brief, too much can be mentioned as to why Indonesian Communists like the October Revolution and the Soviet Union. Also the economic assistance and assistance of military equipment essential in the framework of industrialising our country and to return West Irian to the sovereign territory of the Republic of Indonesia we could only receive thanks to the existence of the Soviet Union which was created by the October Revolution. This only adds to why the Indonesian Communists like the October Revolution and the Soviet Union.
It would be a great error, however, to think that only Indonesian Communists like the October Revolution and the Soviet Union. One need not necessarily be a Communist and it is not necessary to loose a hairbreadth of patriotism to like and to attach great importance to the October Revolution and the Soviet Union. It is enough to be a progressive, honest man and to use one's brain a little in order to be able to adopt such a correct attitude.
It was none other than Bung Karno himself who in his article "The October Revolution and the Awakening of the Asian Peoples” quite clearly stated: “In the October Revolution the Russian people showed the Asian peoples fighting against colonialism that the working class was able to overthrow such a strong power as the feudal autocracy of the Czar and to build the new society they had been dreaming of. Notwithstanding the fact that this big and historic, event happened outside Asia it greatly inspired the Asian peoples struggling for their national independence. And the victory of the October Revolution caused them to struggle even harder for national independence.” (“The October Revolution and the Awakening of the Asian Peoples", Jajasan "Pembaruan", 1957, pages 9-10).
Bung Karno further said:
"The experiences gained by the Soviet Union in destroying a feudal agrarian society and constructing a new society with up-to-date technical instruments is of invaluable significance. Much of these Soviet experiences can be taken as an example. After having been analysed and adapted to the conditions of our respective countries, these experiences of the Soviet Union in construction can be useful for construction work in Asia.” (Page 11).
What Bung Karno has stated is fully correct. The October Revolution not only did force open the door to enter the epoch of proletarian revolutions, but it also created a crisis in the colonial system of imperialism, opened up a new era in the history of the national independence of oppressed nations in the East.
Bung Karno did not only speak about the October Revolution in terms of "a great and historic event” and about the experience of the Soviet Union as "worthy of taking as example” but he also spoke with warmth about the concrete aid of the Soviet Union and its vanguard role in the anti-imperialist struggle. Listen to what he said in his speech in Moscow on June 10, 1961:
"The imperialists soy to us: Why are you friends with the Soviet Union?"
"I answered them: why should not we be friends with the Soviet Union? Is it not the Soviet Union that helps us, is it not the Soviet Union that struggles against imperialism and is the vanguard of this struggle? And is it not the Soviet Union that helps us in the UNO and is it not the Soviet Union that helps us in building our industry, our armed forces? This is the reason why we are friends of the Soviet Union!” (“Pravda", June 11, 1961).
This warmth of Bung Karnos’s friendship towards the Soviet Union, this progressive internationalism of Bung Karno's does not only not lessen one carat of his patriotism, but even fortifies it since via this friendship with the Soviet Union Bung Karno is able to better serve his homeland and his people.
Also Sékou Touré, President of the Guinea Republic, has stated that the October Revolution "in the space of some decades has brought about radical changes in the standard of living of the Soviet people” and that "the Soviet people have always fought for the independence of the colonised nations, have supported our national aspirations our demands. The Soviet Union has always stood on our side, has defended our legal rights”. Sékou Touré further said also that the Soviet people "have realised in practice their desire to earnestly and fully co-operate with the young states in the form of giving selfless help which enables these countries to strengthen their independence, normalise material conditions and their economic development improve social conditions and adorn their culture”.(“Pravda", June 14, 1961.)
One of the prominent personalities of the Arab countries, President Nasser, of the United Arab Republic stated: “In our relations with the Soviet Union we always greatly appreciate the help given to us by the Soviet Union in all our battles against imperialism. We also greatly appreciate the help of the Soviet Union and its people in developing our economy and industrialization. We also greatly appreciate the attitude of the Soviet Union who stood by us in the period of economic boycott and economic war launched against us”. (M. Lavrinchenko In "Ekonomicheskoye Sotrudnichestvo", 1961.)
We should not look too far, for recently in his message greeting the 45th Anniversary of the October Revolution, Deputy First Minister and Chairman of the Provisional People's Consultative Assembly, Chaerul Saleh, said among other things: "It cannot be denied that the Great October Revolution has principal repercussions on the growth and development of world society in general and the awakening and development of the Indonesian people as can be also seen from the course of Indonesia’s national revolution.” He also said that, "the Indonesian people who are still in the midst of their national revolution look with admiration at the achievements scored by the Soviet people in implementing their revolution. Looking back to the period before 1917 and taking account of the progress they have obtained up till now, then we, the Indonesian people, cannot do otherwise but pay our highest respect to the Soviet people mho under the leadership of their government have succeeded in pulling down and changing the entire social structure and their country to such an extent as to command the respect of the world”. (Antara, November 6, 1962).
Also the Islam personality, Minister and General Secretary of the National Front, Sudibjo, in his message greeting the 45th Anniversary of the October Revolution stated clearly: "The victory of the October Revolution echoed into all corners of the world. Its salvos found everywhere response, especially in the colonised countries where the people were still languishing under the boots of the colonialists. The victory of the revolutions, in European and Asian countries after World War II, the emergence of people’s democratic powers as a result of these revolutions, show that the salvos of the October Revolution really inspired and gave spirit to the movements and upsurge of the people in the colonial countries both in the West and in the East."
All the people whose words in praise of the Soviet Union I quoted before are not Communists, but I think that these words of praise are genuine. All this is additional proof and therefore further deepens the conviction of the Indonesian Communists that the attitude they have always had towards the October Revolution and the Soviet Union is correct, i.e. that the October Revolution is a lighthouse for the colonised peoples and for the working people of all countries in their struggle for independence and freedom, that the Soviet Union is the vanguard or the anti-imperialist struggle, the trusted friend in the struggle for true national independence, ie. the struggle for real social progress, and that the only correct attitude is: to be in genuine friendship with the Soviet Union. The Indonesian Communists will always and everywhere defend this attitude.
Of course there will be some people inflicted with communist-phobia who will interject: but you are a Communist, your attitude of friendship with the Soviet Union is that of an "agent", that is why you must have a different attitude than that of non-communists who are friends with the Soviet Union. Good gracious, where are their common sense and their feelings? Proletarians may not be friends with proletarians, Communists may not be friends with Communists? It is precisely these incomprehensible and arbitrary acts of the reactionaries that become a stimulant for the Indonesian Communists to further deepen their friendship feelings for the Soviet Union, because they are convinced that such a friendship will increase their service to the Indonesian fatherland and people. What the reactionaries dislike is, as a rule, good for the people and for the revolution.
The communist-phobs, however, do not want to stop at this and say: yes, but Marxist-Leninist ideology is not "native", but is "imported", and that is why your patriotism is doubtful. Ah, this is the way if importers and exporters talk about ideology, for them ideology is something like raw material and small wares.
However, let us talk in a more serious way about ideology, not in the fashion of importers and exporters of raw material and small wares, and not in an atmosphere of general elections, an atmosphere of feverish haste of obtaining the greatest possible amount of votes.
Since the beginning of this present century there have grown in the political life here in Indonesia three main ideologies and three main political trends: Nationalism, Religion and Communism. Bung Karno has analysed these three ideologies and three political trends in his article "Nationalism, Islamism and Marxism" and since the birth of this article, in 1926, the concept of Nasakom was in fact born, the concept of the co-operation among the Nationalists, Religious people and the Communists. Co-operation and not merging. This was clearly explained by Bung Karno as follows: “We do not expect that the Nationalist would change his outlook and become Islamic or Marxist, it is not our aim to order a Marxist and Moslem to become a Nationalist, it is, however, our dream to have Harmony with among these three groups," ("Under the Banners of the Revolution", page 5.) One cannot possibly understand the Panca Sila (which came into being on June 1, 1945), the I945 Constitution, the President Concept (February 20, 1957) and the Political Manifesto (1959) if one falls to grasp the real contents of Bung Karno’s article about "Nationalism, Islamism and Marxism".
Which of these three ideologies and political trends is "native", is really inherited from our ancestors, is the heritage of our fore-fathers?
In my opinion, Indonesian nationalism is much more influenced by Ernest Renan, Karl Kautsky, Karl Radek, Otto Bauer, Sun Yat Sen, Tilak, Kemai Ataturk, and others, than by the thoughts of our ancestors, who began to set foot in our archipelago 3,000 or 4,000 years ago and who at that time still lived in a society of primitive communism. To speak specifically of Marhaenism, that is Nationalism according to Bung Karno's ideas, the progressiveness of which is beyond doubt, I am convinced that it is influenced also by Marxism. All this makes sense, since Nationalism is not something abstract, but concrete, it grew in the struggle against colonialism and imperialism. At the time of our ancestors some 3,000 or 4,000 years ago such a struggle was not known.
But what is wrong in Indonesian Nationalism taking many ideas of champions of social science and independence fighters from abroad? Why should it be looked upon as taboo to take up the universal ideas of anti-imperialist Nationalism? I think it equally correct if Indonesia takes weapons from the Soviet Union and other countries to expel Dutch colonialism or for Indonesia to import penicillin to combat various diseases. That is why it is not a question of rejecting universal progressive ideas, but of integrating these ideas into the struggle of the Indonesian people, with the Indonesian revolution, as was done so well by Bung Karno when he created his progressive system of Nationalism, Marhaenism.
I think I need not say much about religion, since of all religions living and having a great influence in Indonesia there is not one "native”. That is the reason why one can say that religious people do not attack Marxism-Leninism from the angle of "not being native". I think that, also as far as religion is concerned, it is also not a question of "native" or "not native", but tio what extent these religions, or rather their followers, participate in the struggle against imperialism and colonialism, in the struggle to realise the Political Manifesto and the guides for its implementation.
Would it be really necessary to raise the problem of "being native", then the Indonesian Communist think that scientifically speaking it is Communism that is most “native", since our ancestors lived formerly in a communist society, that is the same society the Communists are at present striving for. Of course with this difference that it formerly was primitive and what we are now striving for is modem Communism. The situation was indeed so, 3,000 or 4,000 years ago our ancestors lived in a society in which the instruments of production were common property, where exploitation of man by man was non existent and where all inhabitants had a right on the natural riches, they elected their heads, and did not know of heads appointed from above and did not know state power. Indeed, it is such a society in which these principles are in force that the Communists at present are striving for. One should not forget, however, that Marxism-Leninism is a weapon to put an end to capitalist society, to build Socialism and Communism with science and modern technique, something utterly unknown to our ancestors thousands of years ago.
Now then, how do Indonesian Communists stand in the question of "native” and "not native", in the question of "import-export" of ideology? Communists should approach this problem as they approach all social phenomena, from the angle of concrete history, from the angle of the interests of social progress, and not from abstract formulations, and in the very first place from the angle whether the political trend which bases itself on Nationalism and Religion promotes progress or not. Without involving ourselves in the problem "native" or "not native" or "import-export" of ideology, the Indonesian Communists should co-operate with the Nationalist and Religious political trends within the framework of implementing Nasakom co-operation so as to promote the development of Indonesian society.
What counts for the Indonesian Communists is not to defend the truth that the Communist society they are fighting for is in harmony with the principles valid in the society of our ancestors some 3,000 or 4,000 years ago, but to struggle hard to indonesianise Marxism-Leninism, to fight for the realisation of a “total integration of the general truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Indonesian revolution, so as in this way to make Marxism-Leninism truly the property of the Indonesian working people, to make it the most effective fuel for the progress of Indonesian society".
In some circles of progressive Indonesian scientists the question was once raised why there were people who raised the problem of Marxism-Leninism being "import", but who did not raise the question of Islamism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism etc., etc., being not native. They drew this correct conclusion that the problem was not raised by virtue of Marxism-Leninism being "not native" or "imported", but because it desires the abolition of the exploitation of man by man through the class struggle and revolution. This is what made them raise the question of Marxism-Leninism, whereas they keep quiet about the other ideologies, because those who raise the question are exploiters and not working people. The exploiters do not raise the problem of "nativeness" of articles of import that do not touch the exploitation of man by man such as the foreign capital investments.
In unfolding the banners of proletarian internationalism as high as possible, the Indonesian Communists are resolved to constantly educate and form themselves as Socialist patriots, patriots who are more patriotic than any other patriot. Anything that may strengthen the unity of the nation and reinforce the anti-imperialist struggle is sure to meet the agreement and response of the Communists. It is in the framework of implementing their resolve that the Indonesian Communists accept the Pantja Sila as an instrument unifying the forces of the nation, an instrument of "getting together" all national potentials. People who are suffering from communist-phobia say, or rather whisper that the CPI accepts the Pantja Sila "because they are compelled to do so". I think it appropriate to answer here that Indonesian Communists have never felt themselves as being compelled to accept the Pantja Sila as long as they are correctly interpreted and practiced, that is as an instrument to unify all the revolutionary potentials of the Indonesian people. Since its very foundation, the CPI has taken upon itself the responsibility to unite the Indonesian people to make revolution.
But, says the communist-phob, the Pantja Sila contain the sila (principle) of One Divine Omnipotence, how can Communists who have a materialist philosophy accept this sila?
Messrs, communist-phobs, it seems that you have forgotten that next to the sila of One Divine Omnipotence there are also other silas, and we reject the idea of playing around with "the most principle sila", as Mr. Hamka is doing by saying that One Divine Omnipotence is the most basic of the five silas (Pantja Sila). Because if you recognise this way of thinking then the Nationalists may also say that the sila Nationalism is the most basic of all, and the Communists may say that the sila of Social Justice is the most basic of the Pantja Sila. If it comes that far, where then is the significance of Pantja Sila being an instrument of unity? Therefore the Communists oppose the taking to pieces of the Pantja Sila. If one accepts the Pantja Sila, one should accept them as one unit, and if one does so, then the Pantja Sila cannot be another thing than an instrument of unity or the Sole Principle of Gotong Royong.
Messrs communist-phobs are talking about Communists professing a materialist philosophy. In the first place I would like to ask, do you communist-phobs know what materialist philosophy is? It may be not, because what is important for the communist-phobs is not to try to understand the meaning of the words they utter, but what effect their words have in their attempts to attack the Communists. Therefore let me read out some sentences of the text-book for lower CPI cadres:
"The most basic problem of all problems of philosophy is that of the relation between being and thought. The relation between being and thought is in the first place a question of which is primary, which was first and which decides between, being and thought.”
"Concerning the most basic problem in philosophy, two basic outlooks are current, idealism and materialism.”
"The outlook or the basic idea and method of explaining or understanding everything that takes thought or the idea as the starting point is called idealism. Idealism holds that the idea is primary and decisive, and that matter is secondary or determined.”
“On the other hand, the outlook or basic idea and method of explaining or understanding everything that takes the concrete situation, matter as its starting point called materialism. Materialism is the world outlook that starts from objective facts." (Introduction to Marxist Philosophy, Depagitprop CC CPI, 1962, pp. 9—10).
I repeat, materialism is the world outlook that starts from objective
facts, it does not set out from thought or subjective ideas. So how is it then with the five principles of the Pantja Sila? Are these five silas objective facts which the Communists take as their starting point to carry out all their activities, next to there being other objective facts? I can say for certain that the five principles of the Pantja Sila are objective realities.
It is undeniable that if viewed from the situation obtaining in Indonesia and the process of development of Indonesian history, the influence of religion is great In Indonesia, and it is an objective fact that, viewed from the angle of religion, the majority of these professing a religion in Indonesia adhere to the belief of there being One Divine Omnipotence or monotheism (believing In one God) and not polytheism (believing In more than one God).
How then is it with the other silas, the sila of humanitarianism or Internationalism, the sila of nationalism, patriotism, the sila of the people or democracy and the sila of social justice or Socialism? The existence of these silas is an objective reality obtaining in the body of the Indonesian nation. It cannot be otherwise. Being a nation, colonised and oppressed, treated without humanitarianism, without justice and in a colonial autocratic and feudal way, it is objective that in this nation emerges a struggle to achieve a new society in which humanitarian norms are valid, in which the right of being a nation is respected, in which democracy and social justice do exist.
Hence, the five silas of the Pantja Sila are objective facts which Communists and any other persons who want to be successful in their work in Indonesia have to accept and respect. That is the reason why the Communists not only do not oppose the Pantja Sila, but moreover, precisely because they are materialists who set out from objective facts, Indonesian Communists can accept the Pantja Sila and fight for their realisation as an instrument to unify all revolutionary national potentials.
It is not the Pantja Sila the Communists oppose, but acts of those persons who want to take the Pantja Sila to pieces and want to turn them into an instrument to split national unity. The Communists recognise that accepting the Pantja Sila, one of the silas of which is One Divine Omnipotence includes the understanding of not being allowed to make anti-religious propaganda in Indonesia. This we do accept because we Communists have indeed no interest to carry out such a propaganda. But on the other hand, the Communists do also demand that because of the other silas, religion may not be imposed on people, since this is not in line with humanitarian feelings, nationalist feelings, not in harmony with democracy and justice.
At the time the Indonesian people did not yet have a common programme in the form of the Political Manifesto, many people were fond of talking about the Pantja Sila as being a "basin". The contents of this basin cannot be something else than the Political Manifesto, it cannot be otherwise than a progressive and revolutionary contents. This is in line with what Bung Karno stated in his speech "The Year of Triumph" that one of the nine teachings is the "Pantja Sila and progressiveness”. It becomes clear from this explanation that the Pantja Sila, next to constituting an instrument of uniting all national potentials, must also be progressive.
The 1917 Great Socialist October Revolution was a turning point in the history of mankind. Forty-five years after this Revolution the world has been divided into two great forces which Bung Karno calls the new emerging forces and the old established forces. The former are really growing and are daily becoming greater whereas the latter are withering and are becoming increasingly narrower and weaker.
Included in the new emerging forces are the Socialist camp, the anti-Imperialist and anti-colonial newly independent countries and the other progressive forces the world over. Included In the old established forces are all imperialist states, all forms of colonialism and neo-colonialism and all the reactionary forces of the world. Where Indonesia stands is clear, in the ranks of the new emerging forces. This has been repeatedly stated by Bung Karno and the last time he did so was but two days ago in Tokyo when he delivered a speech commemorating Heroes’ Day on November 10.
I think that Bung Karno's formulation to the effect that there are only two great forces in this world is extremely important. This outlook makes it easier for the people to grasp the essence of the international events now taking place in the world and it promotes the growth of the anti-colonial, anti-imperialist international front towards a new and peaceful world.
Once Bung Karno divided the world into three groups and contested the opinion of the British philosopher Bertrand Russell saying that mankind at present is divided into two groups. In his speech before the General Assembly of the UNO on September 30,1960, Bung Karno said amongst other things:
“It was the famous British philosopher Bertrand Russell who once stated that mankind at present is divided into two groups. The first being those who adhere to the teachings of the Declaration of American Independence of Thomas Jefferson, the second group adheres to the teachings of the Communist Manifesto.
"I ask excuse, Mr. Bertrand Russell, but I think that you have forgotten something. I think that you overlooked the existence of more than one thousand million people, the peoples of Asia and Africa, and possibly also the people of Latin America who neither adhere to the teachings of the Communist Manifesto nor to the Declaration of Independence. Mind you, we admire both teachings, and we have learned much of both and we have been inspired by both."
Bung Karno later on corrected this opinion as he did in his speech on Scholars’ Day, September 29, 1962, as follows:
"You might recall that I divided the world in 'the old established forces’ and the 'new emerging forces’. Previously, when I had not yet come out with this formulation, I alluded to the opinion of Bertrand Russell, the very great philosopher, as incorrect.
"Bertrand Russell said that the world was divided into two blocs, two groups of people, one group of people adhering to Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy as contained in the 'Declaration of Independence' which has as its basis the philosophy that man has the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. This is one, the group of people who follow the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson, say, the bloc of America and its followers.
"Another group of people are those who follow the philosophy of the Communist Manifesto. Say in a popular way that this is the Soviet Union and its followers, say that these are the two groups of people at present in the world.
"In my speech on August 17, four years ago, I tried to correct this statement of Bertrand Russell's saying, you are wrong Mr. Bertrand Russell, the world is not merely divided into two blocs, but there is a third bloc, the bloc of the nations of Asia and Africa who want to free themselves, the bloc of the countries who pursue an independent and active policy.
"Lately, my friends, in the Conference of Non Committed Nations in Belgrade, I came out with a new formulation, the formulation that people, that mankind at present is divided into two groups, the group of ‘the new emerging forces’, and the group of 'the old established forces'. And the ‘new emerging forces', friends, are the states, the people of Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Socialist states, in brief the group of people that comprises 3/4 of mankind who want justice, who want independence, who want a decent life. And now I think that my formulation or my analysis is the most correct, meaning more correct than my former analysis that the world was divided into three groups, two groups of Bertrand Russell, and the one group I slipped in between the two.
“I thought over it a while before the Belgrade Conference, that it was better I had made two groups, the 'old established forces' and ‘new emerging forces'."
In view of Bung Karno's own correction of his former view, which said that there are three groups of forces in the world, by putting forward his new opinion, that is the existence of two groups of forces, the new emerging forces and the old established forces, there are some people who think that Bung Karno's opinion is getting closer to that of Lord Bertrand Russell. They reason that both Bung Karno and Bertrand Russell are of the same opinion that, there are only two groups of forces in this world.
I do not share their opinion. Bung Karno’s last opinion saying that there are only two groups of forces in this world is indeed more correct than his original opinion saying that there are three groups. Because this last opinion is more correct, it of course leaves Russell's opinion far behind.
Bertrand Russell makes the problem too easy and views the problem too shallow. Russell's basic mistake is that he does not view things in their development. He does not see that the United States which, was revolutionary in the 18th century, which on July 4th, 1776 announced the really democratic and really revolutionary Declaration of Independence, is now, in the 20th century, no longer the same United States. The United States of the 20th century is playing the role Britain played against its colonies in America in the 18th century, a truly anti-democratic and truly reactionary role.
What did the Declaration of Independence say? Amongst other things as follows:
"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The political theory of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America as put down by Thomas Jefferson and proclaimed on July 4, 1776 is indeed democratic and revolutionary. If Copernicus has done great service by revolutionising astronomy then Thomas Jefferson has done great service in revolutionizing political science.
But how do matters stand today? The more thoroughly we study the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, the more convinced we become that the USA has now thrown the Declaration far away. US interference in the internal affairs of other countries so as to retard the movement of genuine independence as in the Congo, Laos, Cambodja, South Vietnam, South Korea, and others, the US war bases which litter all corners of the worlds their wanton acts against Cuba today, the arbitrary treatment by the US Government of the progressives, and Communists in the USA, the ever frenzied racialism in the USA, and many more things, not only do not resemble the Declaration of Independence but are linea recta in contravention with it.
The people of Cuba through the intermediary of their leader Fidel Castro have laid five demands before the USA:
1. To cease the economic, blockade and all acts of economic and trade pressure perpetrated against Cuba by the USA in all parts of the world.
2. The cessation of all subversive activities, droppings and landings of weapons and explosives from the air and sea, the organising of mercenary attacks, infiltration of spies and saboteurs—all actions launched from the territory of the USA and certain of its follower
3. Cessation of pirate actions launched from bases in the USA and in Puerto Rico.
4. Cessation of all intrusions by USA military piano and ships of the airspace and waters of Cuba.
5. Withdrawal of the naval base in Guantanamo and to return this Cuban territory occupied by the USA.
The fact that these minimum conditions for the independence of a nation must be demanded from the USA, is clearest proof that the USA does not at all any longer respect the contents of the Declaration of Independence which among other things includes the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” for all men and the Right of the People to establish a Government “laying its foundations on such principles and organising its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".
The demands put forward by Castro which are in accord with the contents of the Declaration of Independence receive the support of all the new, emerging forces, and are, on the other hand, rejected by the USA, the country that gave birth to the Declaration of Independence.
Thus, I think, the error in Lord Bertrand Russell's view becomes increasingly clear on the Declaration of Independence in its relation with the USA’s present position. Both the banners of the Communist Manifesto and the Declaration of Independence, both, are unfurled by the new emerging forces, whereas the old established forces, which are now being championed by the USA, have no revolutionary and democratic banners any longer. The old forces have no longer banners with which to attract the masses of the people and they try to substitute the vacuum with dollars, but even dollars are accepted by many people with fear and suspicion.
Many pessimistic and ignorant people are alarmed at seeing the present world developments. They see only dark clouds without seeing the hope-bringing rays, they live in fear. Recently they were thrown into confusion when they saw the crisis created round Cuba and the border dispute between India and the People's Republic of China.
For the revolutionaries the situation is different. We know how our world looked like before the October Revolution 45 years ago, we know the extremely good influence this Revolution has brought about, we know that Socialism has become a world system now, we know that the position of the imperialists is becoming increasingly difficult and that, on the other hand, the position of the revolutionary movement and that of the revolutionaries is becoming better and better. For us, revolutionaries, the radiantly brilliant rays of the sun are piercing the dark clouds which cover the skies, our world is clear and is getting clearer and clearer, there is nothing that can scare us.
Indeed, the crisis around Cuba we must overcome by complying with the 5-point demand of Castro, and the border problem between, India and the People's Republic of China has still to be settled by having the two sides sit together at the negotiation table in accordance with the proposals made by Prime Minister Chou En-lai to the Government of India, proposals fully in accord with the sentiments and thoughts of all peoples belonging to the new emerging forces. It is possible that the crisis around Cuba, the Indian-Chinese border question, and other problems, will create many problems and difficulties. We know, however, that these difficulties are created by the old forces, especially by the USA which is scared to death seeing the revolutionary progress in Cuba and other countries. Had there not been a successful revolution In Cuba, no crisis around Cuba would have been created as we are experiencing now. For us it is better to have the Cuban crisis as we have it now than to have had no revolution in Cuba. Mr. Nehru and the Indian reactionaries are sharpening their swords because they are afraid of the progress of the Chinese revolution, especially the revsolution in the district bordering on India, the revolution in Tibet. For us, revolutionaries, it is better to see Mr. Nehru, and the Indian reactionaries sharpening their swords and creating disturbances at the Indian-Chinese border than there having not occurred a revolution in Tibet.
Internationally and nationally, the peoples are increasingly clearly seeing the reactionaries as their enemy, and they get to know their features and behaviour better and better. The peoples in all countries are becoming increasingly aware that the reactionaries are infinitely fouler than the excrements of a dog. The Indonesian people are becoming increasingly aware of this. The consciousness of the Indonesian people is rising at a very rapid speed and they hate the reactionaries more and more. This is very good and should be warmly acclaimed. I once again express the hope that the Indonesian people earnestly realise that the reactionaries are really fouler than the excrements of a dog. Sneer at them and spit at them! They have been sneering and spitting at the people much too long, they have acted wantonly against the people, they have made the people live in destitution whereas they themselves live in luxury because they rob the wealth of the state.
Let us continue the struggle with the courage and enthusiasm as shown by the Great October Socialist Revolution, by Heroes' Day and by the 1926 Uprising.
Let us continue to march forward with a burning spirit of patriotism implementing our Tri-Tasks, consolidation of the victories that have been achieved in the field of security, the struggle to liberate West Irian, etc, overcoming the economic problems by uprooting mismanagement in all fields, and the fight against neo-colonialism in the form of foreign capital investments, imperialist infiltration in the political, military, cultural and other fields.
Let us go forward in the spirit of strengthening our national unity with Nasakom as its nucleus!
Let us continue to march forward more courageously, with the spirit of "vivere pericoloso" as has been repeatedly suggested by Bung Karno! I want to add to this, let us fight on in the spirit of the French revolutionaries: de l'audace, de l'audace, encore de l'audace, courage, courage, once more courage! Truth in standpoint and policy alone is not enough! In order to defeat the imperialists and their agents, in order to destroy the reactionaries, the bureaucrat capitalists, the corrupters, and the landlords, more than truth of standpoint or policy alone is demanded from us. They have to be fought, against with truth, unity and courage!
Let us continue to march forward with the spirit of the revolutionaries of the Great October Revolution, strengthen the ranks of the Communists of the world based on the sacred and famous Statement of the 81 Communist and Workers’ Parties. We know that history moves
in the direction aimed at by the Communists of the world, we are convinced of our final victory, but the monolithic unity of the Communists of the world bases on Marxism-Leninism and the Statement of the 81 Parties will accelerate the already rapid steps of history!
Long live the Great October Socialist Revolution!
Long live the Heroes' Day of the Indonesian People!
Long live the 1926 Uprising!
Long live Socialist Patriotism!
Long live Socialist Internationalism!