The PKI.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Alright, so I was having a bit of a chat with my family about history today, and the topic somehow shifted into a conversation about United States intervention.

Now, my close family aren't communists (according to one, Lenin was a racist bastard who hated germans or something), but they're certainly very left-wing, and one of my parents started talking about 'the fascistic, American-backed overthrow of a giant Indonesian communist movement'.
Now I hadn't even heard of the Indonesian Communist party until then, letalone the fact that it was the largest in southern Asia, so I'm curious:

What was their political tendency? Where they 'maoists' like the socialist movement in China? How where they overthrown so easily? To what extent was the Australian and American involvement in this coup? What where their greatest flaws and gains, and how can we learn from them?

[el_chavista]

It was a holocaust: 500.000 communists killed.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Communist Party of Indonesia was said to value 'democracy' more than conventional communist parties. I don't whether this meant workers' democracy or implies reformism akin to Eurocommunism. They weren't particularly revolutionary given their willingness to collaborate with centre-left and nationalist right-wing forces, so presumably it mean the latter. While they did expropriate businesses, these were only of foreign capitalists.

Not only were they the largest communist party in South East Asia, they were the largest in the world outside of ruling communist parties such as in China and the USSR. They had millions of members and won the popular vote in local elections in the early 1960s (the last elections in Indonesia for decades).

The role of the United States was that of supplying information of (alleged) communists to the Indonesian government through the CIA, whom were subsequently arrested and often executed. I don't know the role of Australia. They weren't 'overthrown' since they did not have political power, the capitalist forces did. The ruling class had an army, police, and other repressive organs at its disposal, this made it easy for them to be rounded up and murdered. I suppose the communists weren't prepared for armed struggle to counter this suppression.

It's difficult to assess how they gained such immense popularity, given that little attention has been paid to them by far-leftists. Though I don't think we can learn much from them, they were the product of their time, anti-colonial and ostensibly reformist. There isn't much to parallel.


It was a holocaust: 500.000 communists killed.

"Holocaust" refers exclusively to the murder of six million Jews in World War II.

[The Cheshire Cat]

I don't know that much about them, but recently we discussed the colonial rule over Indonesia by my country (the Netherlands) and the PKI was shortly discussed too. So here is what I know about them:
They were the descendants of a Dutch Social-Democrat party. They started out as a faction of the SDAP, but they broke away in 1917 and then concentrated on Indonesia. The PKI (then called ISDV) was still Dutch because the founders were Dutch and there were some thousands Dutch sailors in Indonesia that supported them, but it was located in Indonesia as I said, so it was really Indonesian. They saw the octover revolution as their role model and they created Indonesian soviets. But those were quickly suppressed by the local Dutch authorities. After this, the Dutch leaders were sent home and the sailors were arrested and thrown in jail, so the PKI became mainly Indonesian. They made a pact with the Saraket Islam (an islamic anti-colonialist movement) to form an anti-colonial front.

They organised some strikes and demo's, they gained some support and their leaders even went to Moscow to attend party congresses etc.

In 1926 they tried to 'create' a revolution, but due to some sudden internal struggles and poorly organisation, it failed. There were revolts in some cities, but the party just decided that the revolution should be postponed. Like many times in history, the people were ready to revolt but the party decided it was to early and they did not support the revolts enough. Due to this, the revolution failed and thousands of communists were arrested or exiled and the PKI was now a forbidden party. This was pretty much the end of the PKI for quite some time. They went underground but did not get the support they had earlier.

During the Second World War, Indonesia was captured by the Japanese and the Dutch authorities fled from Indonisia. The Japanese openly supported the movement of Soekarno, the man who would later become the first president of an independend Indonesia, with things like training. His movement was a nationalist one, but I forgot the name. Yet the Japanese initially forbade many nationalist things like singing nationalist songs, waving the Indonesian flag, etc. and they wanted the Indonesians to basically adapt to the Japanese. Yet Soekarno told his followers to join the Japanese as 'workers soldiers', which were basically work slaves. But the nationalist became dissatisfied while the war continued and the Japanese were losing the war in the Pacific, so they gave the Nationalists more freedom. During this time, the PKI was still illegal and suppresed.

After the Japanese surrender, there was no one having any power in Indonesia. The Dutch all fled the country so they had no real power anymore. During this time, Soekarno claimed an independend nation of Indonesia. When the Dutch tried to reach Indonesia, the English stopped them (they got to Indonesia before the Dutch) and they basically told the Dutch that they were not allowed to enter Indonesia and they had to discuss with Soekarno.

The Dutch and Soekarno made a deal. Indonesia would become what was basically a union of federations, with their own free will. But the main lines of those federations were controlled by the Federate State of Indonesia, which was controlled by the Dutch. So there was no real independend Indonesia, like the Nationalists wanted, and Indonesia was no longer under official Dutch rule, like the Dutch wanted. So nobody was happy.

I can't recall exactly what happened now, but the Dutch invaded Indonesia with two small wars, called 'Police Actions' to make it sounds less scary. The first war was meant to reclaim the Dutch factories, and this war was called 'Operation Product'. It was a great succes, the Indonesian forces were non existing and the factories were reclaimed. But many countries were very unhappy about this and under international pressure the Dutch stopped this war. It lasted about a month. But then the Dutch were still not satisfied because Soekarno gained power again and he wanted an independend Indonesia now. So the Dutch started another war, against the the new Indonesian government. They captured Soekarno and other officials, but again, international pressure made the Dutch release everyone. This was basically the end of official colonial rule, and Indonesia became independend in 1949. It was still controlled by the Dutch in some ways and the industries in Indonesia were still Dutch but this became less and less.

During these 2 wars, the PKI sided with the other movements that fought for independence, like the nationalists (they were called the PHI, now I remember!). They fought a guerilla war against the Dutch and they were one of the most succesfull groups I heard. That does not say much though, because the Dutch had little problems with this resistence. This is where my lessons ended.

To answer your question about the US-backed coup, this is from wikipedia:
Before the election of 1955, PKI favoured Sukarno's plans for 'guided democracy' and was an active supporter of Sukarno.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Indonesia#cite_note-13) In the 1955 elections PKI came fourth with 16% of the votes. It won 39 seats (out of 257) and 80 out of 514 in the Constituent Assembly.
Opposition to the continued Dutch control over Irian Jaya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irian_Jaya) was an issue often raised by PKI during the 1950s.
In July 1957 there was a grenade attack on the PKI office in Jakarta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakarta). In the same month PKI made advances in municipal elections. In September the same year the Islamist Masyumi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masyumi) publicly demanded that PKI should be banned.[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Indonesia#cite_note-14)
On 3 December trade unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions), largely under control of PKI, started seizing control of Dutch-owned companies. These seizures paved the way for the nationalization of foreign-owned enterprises. The struggles against foreign capitalists gave the PKI the opportunity to profile itself as a national party.
In February 1958 a coup attempt was made by pro-U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) forces amongst the military and the political right-wing. The rebels, based in Sumatra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumatra) and Sulawesi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulawesi), proclaimed a Revolutionary Government of the Republic of Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Government_of_the_Republic_of_Indone sia) (Pemerintah Revolusioner Republik Indonesia) on 15 February. This so-called Revolutionary Government immediately began arresting thousands of PKI members in the areas under their control. PKI supported the efforts by Sukarno to quell the rebellion, including introduction of martial law. The rebellion was eventually defeated.
In August 1959 there was an attempt on behalf of the military to prevent the holding of the PKI congress. However the congress was held as scheduled, and was addressed by Sukarno himself. In 1960 Sukarno launched the slogan Nasakom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasakom), an abbreviation of Nasionalisme (Nationalism), Agama (Religion), Komunisme (Communism). Thus the role of PKI as a junior partner in the Sukarno polity was institutionalized. The PKI welcomed the launching of the Nasakom concept, seeing it in terms of a multiclass united front.

To answer your other questions: They were marxist-leninists and supported and received support from the USSR. They were no maoists.

Like I said, I know nearly nothing about them, but it seems like they made the same mistake many communist parties have made before. They wanted to postpone the revolution while the people did not. And seen the fact that they openly collaborated with nationalists, who collaborated with fascists, I doubt wether we can call them left.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Thanks for the really insightful stuff, guys! :thumbup1:


It was a holocaust: 500.000 communists killed.

I don't mean to sound like a monster, but was it really only 500'000? What happened to the other three million members?

[ind_com]

To answer your other questions: They were marxist-leninists and supported and received support from the USSR. They were no maoists.

They had a sizable number of members in China. In their self criticism in 1966, they denounced Soviet revisionism and upheld Mao Tsetung Thought.

[The Cheshire Cat]

They had a sizable number of members in China. In their self criticism in 1966, they denounced Soviet revisionism and upheld Mao Tsetung Thought.

Then they must have switched ideologies later. In my class, we only discussed things until about 1949.

[ind_com]

Then they must have switched ideologies later. In my class, we only discussed things until about 1949.

Okay. But the anti-revisionist camp emerged only after the intensification of the Sino-Soviet conflict. Before that, all supporters of China were supporting the then Soviet Union as well.

[hetz]

"Holocaust" refers exclusively to the murder of six million Jews in World War II.
No it doesn't, it also refers to the murder of many other.

[Zeus the Moose]

Then they must have switched ideologies later. In my class, we only discussed things until about 1949.


Okay. But the anti-revisionist camp emerged only after the intensification of the Sino-Soviet conflict. Before that, all supporters of China were supporting the then Soviet Union as well.

Pretty much what ind_com said, though a number of the Asian communist parties I think became "Maoist" more for realpolitik reasons than genuinely taking sides in the Sino-Soviet split. The Japanese Communist Party and the Workers Party of Korea, for example, both took semi-neutral positions on the issue, keeping lines of communication open with both the Soviet Union and the PRC. My guess is that it might have been similar with the PKI, though I know very little of that history and would welcome clarifications on this point.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Pretty much what ind_com said, though a number of the Asian communist parties I think became "Maoist" more for realpolitik reasons than genuinely taking sides in the Sino-Soviet split. The Japanese Communist Party and the Workers Party of Korea, for example, both took semi-neutral positions on the issue, keeping lines of communication open with both the Soviet Union and the PRC. My guess is that it might have been similar with the PKI, though I know very little of that history and would welcome clarifications on this point.

I did not mean that the PKI was anti-maoist or anything like that, like I said, I know very little about them. All I know is that they saw the october revolution as their big example, that their leaders made trips to Moscow and that they tried to implement a soviet-system.

[Rugged Collectivist]

"Holocaust" refers exclusively to the murder of six million Jews in World War II.


No it doesn't, it also refers to the murder of many other.

Yeah seriously, why does everyone forget about the five million non Jews that died. 11 million died during the holocaust, I can think of no reason to make the number appear smaller than it actually was.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

It was a holocaust: 500.000 communists killed.



"Holocaust" refers exclusively to the murder of six million Jews in World War II.


No it doesn't, it also refers to the murder of many other.

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory.


Holocaust on wikipedia (http://anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)

[hetz]

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory.
Yeah we've never heard of that before. :rolleyes:
What's your point?
If you read the article past the introduction you'll see that it also counts non-Jewish victims.

[erupt]

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory.


Holocaust on wikipedia (http://anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)

Yes, The Holocaust is what you are describing. But a holocaust can be something a little different. Think "nuclear holocaust." It's basically unprecedented death and destruction, so when the Nazi regime started systematically killing Jews, many call/called/are calling it The Holocaust. Note the capitalized "H" and the word "The."

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Yeah we've never heard of that before. :rolleyes:
What's your point?
If you read the article past the introduction you'll see that it also counts non-Jewish victims.


Yes, The Holocaust is what you are describing. But a holocaust can be something a little different. Think "nuclear holocaust." It's basically unprecedented death and destruction, so when the Nazi regime started systematically killing Jews, many call/called/are calling it The Holocaust. Note the capitalized "H" and the word "The."

Ok, whatever...what el_chavista was trying to say that that piece of earth turned into a down-right shithole.
Can we at least agree on that?

[erupt]

Ok, whatever...what el_chavista was trying to say that that piece of earth turned into a down-right shithole.
Can we at least agree on that?

Of course we can agree on that, we're socialists, aren't we?

All I tried stating was that the word "holocaust" was used beforehand, and it can be used to describe an unimaginable amount of death and destruction, anywhere. I've even heard some Native American historians refer to the genocidal aims of the U.S. government in the late-19th century as "a holocaust."

[The Cheshire Cat]

Not another holocaust thread please!? Does it really matter what the exact meaning of holocaust is? It is a word, words are variable, they are no laws of nature. Some use the word holocaust as a synonim for genocide, others preserve it for the Holocaust by the nazi's during WW2. All that matters is that you know what was meant with the word. He already explained he meant genocide in general and that is enough. If you want to pin down one meaning and one meaning only to the word, do it in a new thread as thrre is quite some discussion about this. But this thread is for something more important than bickering wether holocaust means a genocide or the genocide. El chavista made clear what he meant and that should be enough. Shall we discuss what was probably the greatest 'communist' movement of southern Asia now?

[erupt]

Not another holocaust thread please!? Does it really matter what the exact meaning of holocaust is? It is a word, words are variable, they are no laws of nature. Some use the word holocaust as a synonim for genocide, others preserve it for the Holocaust by the nazi's during WW2. All that matters is that you know what was meant with the word. He already explained he meant genocide in general and that is enough. If you want to pin down one meaning and one meaning only to the word, do it in a new thread as thrre is quite some discussion about this. But this thread is for something more important than bickering wether holocaust means a genocide or the genocide. El chavista made clear what he meant and that should be enough. Shall we discuss what was probably the greatest 'communist' movement of southern Asia now?

I'm not sure I'm the one you're talking to, because I had no intention on "bickering." I want no confrontation in any manner, I was simply stating there is more than one definition to the word. I won't speak of it any longer because it's both pointless to debate what I meant, or the meaning of the word, as you've said.

So, I agree that neither I, nor a separate subject should hijack this thread; sorry for any text to anyone that could be misinterpreted as inflammatory or sarcastic. I honestly am sorry, because I never meant for that to be interpreted in that manner.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Not another holocaust thread please!? Does it really matter what the exact meaning of holocaust is? It is a word, words are variable, they are no laws of nature. Some use the word holocaust as a synonim for genocide, others preserve it for the Holocaust by the nazi's during WW2. All that matters is that you know what was meant with the word. He already explained he meant genocide in general and that is enough. If you want to pin down one meaning and one meaning only to the word, do it in a new thread as thrre is quite some discussion about this. But this thread is for something more important than bickering wether holocaust means a genocide or the genocide. El chavista made clear what he meant and that should be enough. Shall we discuss what was probably the greatest 'communist' movement of southern Asia now?


I'm not sure I'm the one you're talking to, because I had no intention on "bickering." I want no confrontation in any manner, I was simply stating there is more than one definition to the word. I won't speak of it any longer because it's both pointless to debate what I meant, or the meaning of the word, as you've said.

So, I agree that neither I, nor a separate subject should hijack this thread; sorry for any text to anyone that could be misinterpreted as inflammatory or sarcastic. I honestly am sorry, because I never meant for that to be interpreted in that manner.

Lol, even though we all agree to drop the holocaust-side-topic, we are still discussing it!

Oh, the irony...

[The Cheshire Cat]

I'm not sure I'm the one you're talking to, because I had no intention on "bickering." I want no confrontation in any manner, I was simply stating there is more than one definition to the word. I won't speak of it any longer because it's both pointless to debate what I meant, or the meaning of the word, as you've said.

So, I agree that neither I, nor a separate subject should hijack this thread; sorry for any text to anyone that could be misinterpreted as inflammatory or sarcastic. I honestly am sorry, because I never meant for that to be interpreted in that manner.

Don't take it as a personal attack please, I was talking to everyone on this thread. I was just helping the OP to keep his thread clean and effective. So no need to apologize!