Lenin and Indonesia

Speech at a meeting commemorating the 90th anniversary of the birth of Lenin, April 21st, 1960

D.N. Aidit (1960)

Source: Problems of the Indonesia Revolution, D.N. Aidit. Published by DEMOS - 1963

Transcribed to HTML by Ted Sprague (22 December 2011)

We are meeting together this evening to celebrate the 90th anniversary of Lenin's birthday. The birthday of this great leader is celebrated by progressive mankind throughout the world in a spirit of deep respect and gratitude, in a spirit of determination to learn more from him, from his writings and from his outstanding characteristics as a man and as a leader.

I think it would be no mistake to say that there still are ignoramuses in our country who will say: "Just look at the Communists, celebrating the birthday of a foreign leader." Yes, we can be certain that some people will say that if we take into account that, as part of the cold war, the, imperialists have, within limits, succeeded in spread­ing chauvinism and racialism among certain sections of our people.

But does the fact that these ignoramuses say such things that they spread such insinuations, does the fact that there has been an increase in chauvinism and racialism among certain sections of our people, mean that we progressives must retreat, that we must stand by and allow this spirit to grow into fascist banditism? No, not at all! We must resist it, and we must be conscious of the fact that the awakening of a spirit of chauvinism and racialism is a sign of the further bankruptcy of the reactionaries. They are no longer capable of concealing their bankruptcy with sweet words, such as "broad nationalism" and “humanitarian nationalism".

The racialism now running riot in the Union of South Africa is not proof of the strength of the reactionaries in that country. The hounding down and massacre of coloured people in that country is a demonstration, of the shaky position in which the reactionaries there are placed in view of the upsurge of the revolutionary demo­cratic movement in South Africa. Chauvinism and racialism are the weapons of a reactionary political clique that is desperate, that is beside itself with rage and thrown into complete confusion by the advances achieved by the revolutionary masses of the people.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, just like the Prophet Mohammed, Jesus Christ, Confucius and Buddha Gautama, was not an Indonesian. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was not a prophet; he was a Marxist who resolutely and militantly took forward the work of Marx in his own era. Like Marx, Lenin not only tried to understand the world and society, but he also tried to change it. In one-sixth of the world's surface, the Soviet Union as we know it today, Lenin succeeded in changing a ruinous feudal and capitalist society into a Socialist society. By so doing, Lenin succeeded at the same time in proving that it was possible to change a capitalist society into a Socialist society. This strengthened the belief in the possibility of changing the Eastern world, where the people still live in mediaeval conditions, into an East that is free of a cruel and vicious Europe that is marching towards a new, happy life.

Vladimir Ilyich was born on April 22nd, 1870 in the town of Simbirsk, now called Ulyanovsk. His father, Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, was a school-master and later became director of a public school. After competing his studies at high school, Lenin continued his studies at the Faculty of Law, and in 1891 he obtained his law degree with honours. From the time of his student days, Lenin was active in political affairs. In view of his profound knowledge of Marxism, he was recognised by the Russian Marxists as their leader and he won great sympathy from the politically advanced workers.

Lenin was the great organiser and leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the founder of the Soviet Socialist State, a state of a new type which came into existence as the result of the success of the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917. But this does not mean that the ideological heritage of Lenin, his writings, are only useful for the people of the Soviet Union. No, Leninism is not something special for Russia or for the Soviet Union; it is as universal as Marxism.

Leninism is simply Marxism in the era of imperialism and the proletarian revolution. Leninism is the theory and tactics of the proletarian revolution in general, the theory and tactics of the dictatorship of the proletariat in particular.

Marx and Engels carried out their activities at a time before imperialism had developed, at a time before the proletarian revolu­tion had become an immediate, practical necessity. But Lenin, the pupil of Marx and Engels, carried out his activities at a time when imperialism had already developed, in the period of the proletarian revolution, when the proletarian revolution was victorious in one country, when it smashed bourgeois democracy, and entered the era of proletarian democracy. Lenin is the Marx of this period. Leninism is the Marxism of this period.

This clearly reveals the falseness and deception of those who speak about "outmoded Marxism". Because of his creativeness, Lenin suc­ceeded in keeping Marxism fresh even though Marx himself did not live in a period in which imperialism had already developed and in which the proletarian revolution had become a pressing need and a reality. History has already proved, and continues to prove, that it is not Marxism that is outmoded; what is outmoded is the idea that Marxism is outmoded.

Today, we Communists, and the other progressive people now have the broadest opportunity to know Lenin from his writings, which are now easily available in the book-shops and libraries. We Communists are not persons who think that, in defining policies, it is enough for us to read the progressive, middle-of-the-road and right-wing press. We have a sense of great responsibility compelling us to arm ourselves with revolutionary theories and with a profound knowledge of the situation which we are facing, as the indispensable condition if we want to work out correct policies which are beneficial to the people, to our motherland and to mankind. The writings of Lenin are the most important source enabling us to draw upon revolutionary theories which we can use creatively to win victory for the Indo­nesian revolution, so as to serve our people and to serve mankind better.

Let us become acquainted with some of Lenin's writings.

In his book, “Who Are the Friends of the People", and “How They Oppose the Social-Democrats", written in 1894, he clearly exposed who are the enemies of the people. In this work Lenin also set forth his idea on the revolutionary alliance of the working class and the peasants as the basic weapon to overthrow the power of the tsar, the land­lords and the bourgeoisie.

In his book, “What Is To Be Done" written in 1902, Lenin drew up a concrete organisational plan for building a Marxist Party of the working class. In this book, Lenin ruthlessly exposed the 'economism' theory and the ideology of opportunism, tailism and spontaneity. He stresses the paramount importance of theory, of consciousness and of the Party as the leading force of the working class. The Marxist Party, Lenin wrote, is the unification of the working class and, Socialism. In this book, Lenin clearly explains, the ideological foundations of the Marxist Party.

In the book, "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back", which was writ­ten in 1904, Lenin for the first time in the history of Marxism, developed teachings about the Party as the leading organisation of the proletariat, as the most important weapon of the proletariat without which victory cannot be achieved. In this book, Lenin set forth the organisational foundations of the Marxist Party.

In “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution", written in 1905, Lenin presented a new line on the question of the relationship between the bourgeois democratic revolution and the Socialist revolution, he set forth a new theory on mobilising forces around the proletariat, on concluding the bourgeois revolution and passing over directly to 'the Socialist revolution, the theory of the bourgeois democratic revolution passing over to the Socialist revolution. This book already contains the fundamental elements, of Lenin’s theory on the possibility of Socialist victory in one country, with capitalism in power in all other countries. This book enriches Marxism with a new theory about the revolution and lays the foundation for the revolutionary tactics of the Bolshevik Party which, with the assistance of the Russian proletariat, achieved victory over capitalism in 1917.

In “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", written in 1916, Lenin made a Marxist analysis, backed up by facts on imperialism, and showed that imperialism is the last stage of capitalism, that imperialism, is capitalism advancing towards its destruction, mori­bund capitalism, that imperialism is the eve of the Socialist revolution. In this book, Lenin developed and completed his theory on the possibility of the victory of Socialism in one single country. This puts an end forever to the theory that Socialism can only be victorious if revolutions take place simultaneously in all countries.

In the "April Theses”, which were written in 1917, Lenin draws up a brilliant programme of struggle of the Bolshevik Party for passing over from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the Socialist revo­lution. With this programme of struggle, the Russian working class, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party and Lenin, succeeded in winning victory for the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917.

In his book, "State and Resolution", written in 1917, Lenin laid bare the bourgeois core of the standpoints taken by the opportunists and anarchists on the question of the state and revolution. Lenin revived and further developed Marxist theory concerning the state, the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and concerning Socialism and Communism.

In his book, "Urgent Tasks of the Soviet Government", written in 1918, Lenin dealt with the basic problems of socialist construction, calculation and control in the national economy, the new socialist relations of production, strengthening work discipline, developing socialist competition, the consolidation and development of proletarian power, the alliance of the working class and the peasants, and the development of proletarian democracy.

In his book, “Left wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" writ­ten in 1920, Lenin clearly established the international significance of the Russian Revolution, he dealt with the questions of powerful centralisation and extremely strict discipline of the proletariat as one of the most basic of all conditions for victory over the bourgeoisie, of the importance of learning from evolutionary experiences, of the importance of opposing revolutionarism of the petty bourgeoisie. In this book, Lenin concentrated his attack upon the ‘left wing’ in the world Communist movement. In popular style, he described the strategy and tactics of the Marxists. In my opinion, this book stands out as one that has helped the most in turning many Communist Parties into genuine Marxist-Leninist Parties.

This brief review has helped to become acquainted with some of the works of Lenin written prior to and immediately after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1917. From the books I have mentioned just now, we can study Lenin’s theory about the revolutionary alliance of the working class and the peasants. We can know what the ideological and organisational foundations of the Marxist Party are, the theory about, the direct transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the Socialist revolution, about the possibility of victory of Socialism in one country, about the state, about the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, about the construction of Socialism, the consolidation and development of the proletariat, as well as the development of prole­tarian democracy.

But we should also be aware of the fact that Lenin’s works have not only greatly enriched the treasury of the social sciences, phi­losophy, political economy, sociology and others. Lenin has also, made many contributions to the development of the natural sciences.

In his book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism”. written in 1908, as a criticism of reactionary philosophy, Lenin gave a philosophical interpretation of the natural sciences and outlined all aspects of its future. He wrote this book after the failure of the 1905—7 Revolu­tion in Russia, in a situation when the reactionaries were launching violent attacks upon the working class and were at the same time carrying out ideological attacks against Marxism, saying that Marx­ism was "out of date". Some intellectuals in the Party were influenced by the ideological propaganda of the reactionaries. "Materialism and Empirio-Critcism” was written by Lenin to oppose those persons both inside and outside the Party who said that Marxism was "out of date".

Lenin showed that the theory of these persons who declared Marxism to be "out of date" was in fact copied from George Berkeley (1684—1753), the Irish philosopher, who taught that material things did not in fact exist and that nothing existed except the sensations in our minds; it was copied, from the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724—1804) who taught that we could not have any knowledge of "things in themselves", unknown and mysterious things; and it was copied from the Austrian scholar and philosopher, Ernst Mach (1838—1916), who taught that bodies were nothing but "combinations of sensations". Lenin maintained that only a materialist philo­sopher was capable of taking science rapidly forward. The truth of this conclusion of Lenin's has been, is being and will continue to be corroborated by events.

The secret of advances achieved by science in the Soviet Union lies first and foremost in the fact that Soviet scholars are inspired by the ideas of Lenin. The sputniks, the multi-stage rockets, the photos taken of the invisible side of the moon, and other advances achieved by the Soviet Union in the field of science and technology, have been inspired by Lenin. Lenin has played an extremely impor­tant part not only in transforming the old society into a new society but also transforming nature into being useful, into being more and more useful to mankind.

This in brief is something about Lenin, the transformer of society and the transformer of nature.

N. Gorbunev a close acquaintance of Lenin’s wrote that "the most striking thing about Lenin's all-round mind was his ability to follow closely, even without leaving his office, the living heartbeats not only in Russia but throughout the whole world. He had the ability, to grasp things that other people did not see, and correctly and quickly to know about the minutest changes in the balance of class forces". Lenin could do all this not because he was a "fortune-teller" but because he always maintained relations with many organisations and individuals, because he had a correct world outlook and a strong will.

There must surely be persons among the audience who will ask: what, then, did Lenin know about Indonesia, about us. Yes, this is what I would like to talk about for the remainder of my speech.

Lenin was well-informed about Indonesia. Many people do not realise this. In order to know something about the practices of colo­nialism in Indonesia, he read among other things Multatuli's “Max Havelaar", a book which does indeed very sharply and in great detail expose the barbarism of colonial life in Indonesia. When he was preparing his book "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism", which was written in 1916, Lenin re-read Multatuli’s book. But do not run away with the idea that Lenin first got to know about Indonesia in 1916. In 1918, Lenin not only knew Indonesia but he also sharply condemned the Dutch social-democrats for not agreeing to the principle of the self-determination of nations, and he demanded that Indonesia be freed from the Dutch.

Lenin was well-acquainted with Indonesia in 1913, at a time when many of us living now had not yet been born, or if we had already been born, we did not yet understand about what we now call the "struggle for national independence", something which Lenin understood very well already at that time.

A short article by Lenin published in the "Pravda" of May 7th 1913 entitled “The Awakening of Asia" has revealed a very important thing, the close relations existing between this great leader and Indonesia and Asia. In this article, only two pages of a book, Lenin explained that after the 1905 movement in Russia, the democratic movement had spread to the whole of Asia.

"A significant development", Lenin wrote, "is the spread of the revolutionary democratic movement to the Dutch Indies, to Java and the other Dutch colonies with their population of some 40 million."

The revolutionary democratic movement, in Indonesia, according to Lenin, was carried forward firstly by the popular masses among whom had arisen an Islamic nationalist movement; secondly, by an intelligentsia brought into being by the development of capitalism, and thirdly by the fairly large Chinese population in Java and the other islands, which had brought over the revolutionary movement from China.

What Lenin wrote is absolutely correct. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th century the Indonesian people began to organise them­selves in trade unions, among which was the VSTP (Union of Railway and Tram Employees, founded in 1908), and in a political organisa­tion, the Serikat Islam (Islamic Union, founded in 1912) which was joined by broad revolutionary masses down to the villages. The VSTP and the Serikat Islam, in their further development, became the foremost centres of activity of the Marxists who were affiliated to the ISDF (Indies Social Democratic Union, founded in 1914). The VSTP and the left wing of the Serikat Islam subsequently grew into an organised mass that stood solidly behind the Marxists, behind the ISDV which in 1920 changed its name in the Indies Communist Union and which later on became the Communist Party of Indonesia. Hence, Lenin was absolutely correct when he wrote in 1913 that in Indonesia the popular masses had begun to take an active part in the revolutionary democratic movement.

The development of imperialist capitalism in Indonesia, especially towards the end of the century, necessitated the existence of a number of intellectuals from among the Indonesians to work in the offices of the colonial government, and in commercial foreign plantation offices at wages lower than the wages that had to be paid to the personnel imported from Europe. A part of this intelligentsia studied the struggle for independence of other nations. They began to be conscious of the lot of their people which was not on par with the other peoples, humiliated and downtrodden by the colonialists. These conscious intellectuals were represented, amongst others, by national figures such as Dr. Wahidin Sudirohusodo, Dr. Abdul Rivai, Raden Adjeng Kartini, Dr. Tjipto Mangunkusumo, Dr. G.S.S. I. Ratulangi, Ki Hadjar Dewantoro, Douwes Dekker. Because of this awareness and the desire to live on an equal footing with other nations, they organism themselves, at first into organisations with vague political goals like the Budi Utomo (founded in 1908), and later on in organisations with increasingly clear aims for an independent Indonesia, such as, the Indische Party (Indies Party) which was founded in 1913 under the leadership of Ki Hadjar Dewantoro, Tjipto Mangunkusumo and Douwes Dekker. Most progressives from among the Indonesian intelligentsia joined the ISDV, the first orga­nisation of Marxists in Indonesia in which Dutch and Indonesian Marxist intellectuals were organised. Thus Lenin was absolutely cor­rect when he wrote in his article of 1913 that the intelligentsia in Indonesia, too, took part in the struggle of the revolutionary demo­cratic movement.

It is an undeniable fact that the Chinese democratic revolution, under the leadership of Dr. Sun Yat Sen in 1911, influenced a section of the Chinese living in Indonesia and changed their attitude from one of passivity to one of active concern for political problems, and had convinced them of the correctness of the Indonesian liberation movement. It is not by accident that a not inconsiderable number of Chinese helped the nationalist movement and progressive move­ment, some secretly, others openly. It is not by accident that many leaders of the liberation movement, including the late Dr. Tjipto Mangunkusumo, had many faithful friends among the Chinese. It is not accidental that at the time the Japanese militarists were mak­ing preparations to occupy Indonesia, the "Indonesian Chinese Party" closely linked hands with the Gerindo party (Movement of the Indo­nesian people) and other democratic parties in carrying out a campaign against Japanese militarism and in defence of democracy. It is only the chauvinists and those who do not seriously study the history of the struggle of the Indonesian people, who have the aud­acity to say that the Chinese in Indonesia never played a positive role in the independence struggle of the Indonesian people. Hence, what Lenin wrote about the role of the Chinese in the revolutionary democratic movement in Indonesia is absolutely correct.

One of the typical developments of the pre-revolutionary period in Indonesia, Lenin wrote, was the amazing speed with which political parties and unions were being founded. Indeed the beginning of the 20th century in Indonesia is marked by the rapid emergence of parties and mass organisations, and the Indonesian people became familiar with mass rallies where they heard speeches opposing colonialism. This fact exerted great influence on subsequent develop­ments. Carrying out party and organisational life along revolutionary lines has long standing traditions in Indonesia and this fact helped to frustrate the efforts of the Japanese militarists to suppress the activities of parties and popular organisations during their occupation of Indonesia in the Second World War; this fact also made it impos­sible for any reactionary force to destroy the democratic movement in Indonesia.

Lenin arrived at the conclusion that "World capitalism and the 1905 movement in Russia ham finally awakened Asia. Hundreds of millions of the downtrodden and benighted have awakened from mediaeval stagnation to a new life and are rising to fight for elementary human rights and democracy”. Indonesia not only constituted one of the proofs of the truth of Lenin’s conclusion, but also contributed material which led Lenin to arrive at this conclusion.

Lenin also said that the powerful growth of the liberation move­ment was followed with interest and inspiration by the workers of the advanced countries. And the bourgeoisie of Europe, fearing the might of the labour movement, looked for assistance from the forces of reaction, militarism, clericalism and obscurantism. "But” Lenin said, “the proletariat of the European countries and the young democracy of Asia, fully confident of its strength and with abiding faith in the masses, are advancing to take the place of this decadent and moribund bourgeoisie”.

It was extremely correct and very inspiring that Lenin concluded his article with the sentence: "The awakening of Asia and the beginning of the struggle for power by the advanced proletariat of Europe are a symbol of the new phase in world history that began early this century.”

Eleven days later, on May 18th, 1913, another article by Lenin appeared in the "Pravda" entitled "Backward Europe and Advanced Asia. In this article Lenin wrote, amongst other things, that "advanced Europe is commanded by a bourgeoisie which supports everything that is backward" and “In advanced Europe, the sole advanced class is the prole­tariat. The living bourgeoisie, on the other hand, is prepared to go to any length of savagery, brutality and crime in order to preserve perishing capitalist slavery”. Concluding this article, Lenin stated the conviction that the hundreds of millions of toilers in Asia have a reliable ally in the proletariat of all the civilized countries. “No force on earth can prevent its victory, which will liberate both the peoples of Europe and the peoples of Asia."

If Lenin in 1913 wrote some articles about Indonesia and Asia then this is not something accidental but is a result of a thorough study on imperialism and the national question. In the years 1913—1914 Lenin finished a Marxist programme on the national question which he expounded in, his writings "Critical Remarks on the National Question” (1913) and "On the right of nations to self-determination” (1914).

Lenin is the champion of the liberation of colonial countries and all peoples treated unequally. To Lenin, the liberation of colonial countries is the action of nations to self-determination. Lenin is a strong adversary of the social-democrats who oppose the right of self-determination. In one of his articles written in 1916 Lenin clearly states: "We agree to the Indies becoming free from Holland and the Dutch Social-Democrats should do so as well."

Lenin had a clear conception of and a consistent view about what is called "the right to self-determination". On this subject he wrote among other things: "If we want to grasp the meaning of self-deter­mination of nations not by juggling with legal definitions, or ‘inventing’ abstract definitions, but by examining the historical and economic conditions of the national movements, we shall be bound to conclude that self-determination of nations means their political separation from alien national bodies, the for­mation of independent national states." (Lenin: "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”). Lenin furthermore said that "Full equality of rights for all nations, the right of nations to self-determination; the union of all nations, this is the national experience taught by Marxism, the experience of the whole world … (Lenin: "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination).

The above brief analysis reveals how deep was Lenin's understanding of the development of the revolutionary movement in Asia, Indonesia included. All Lenin's prophecies at the beginning of the 20th century have now become reality. More than one-third of mankind, spread over Europe and Asia have liberated themselves from the conservative, savage, brutal and criminal European bourgeoisie. The Soviet Union which was non-existent in 1913, now stands in the front ranks of the young and mighty camp of Socialism.

The liberation of Indonesia from the Netherlands, which was also demanded by Lenin, became a reality since 1945.

Now Asia has not only awakened but has also awakened others. Approximately half of the people of Asia live in Socialist countries i.e. the People's Republic of China, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of Mongolia. To these should be added the peoples that live in the Asian Republics of the Soviet Union. The revolutions in Asia are having a profound influence on the national independence struggles in Africa and Latin America. Today, not only do the Asian peoples and other Eastern peoples have a trusted ally in the proletariat of the European countries, but the proletariat of the European countries has a no less trusted ally in the working people in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and both these forces have their most reliable ally in the Socialist camp of which the Soviet Union is the vanguard. The alliance of these three progressive forces is invincible. That is why the bastion of the bourgeoisie which stubbornly defends everything obsolete and which still clings to savagery, brutality and crime is not powerful. It will definitely crumple down at the general attack of all progressive forces from all comers of the world that is now taking place.

From the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin has devoted attention to and displayed a deep understanding of the revolutionary struggle of the Indonesian people. Now the question arises whether the Indonesian revolutionaries, the Communists in the first place, have a sufficient interest in and understanding of the teachings of Lenin.

Before the 1945 August Revolution the Indonesian Communists were practically unacquainted with Lenin’s works. There were perhaps some people who, during the time Indonesia was still colonialised by the Dutch colonialists had some writings of Lenin in Dutch or in German. These writings, however, were not translated and they were hidden away so that they were of practically no use to the revolutionary movement.

In the library, of the Djakarta museum it is registered that Lenin's book ''State and Revolution” (in German) was entered into this library in 1919, whereas “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” (in French) in 1925, and “Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder" (in German) in 1926. Borrowing these books was of course followed with particular attention from the Dutch secret police.

After the failure of the 1926-1927 revolt, that is after the CPI was considered an illegal Party and the more so during the Japanese occu­pation in the Second World War, the entry of books of Lenin's from ab­road to Indonesia became even more difficult or impossible altogether.

It was only after the foundation of the Republic of Indonesia in August 1945 that some Comrades, former Dutch political prisoners, returning home from Australia, brought writings of Lenin's in English with them to Indonesia. Comrades who had studied in Holland, too, brought home Lenin's writings in the Dutch language. During the Revolution of 1945-1948 Lenin's writing such as "The State”, "State and Revolution”, “Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder”, "What Is To Be Done?” etc, were only read by those Party leaders who understood English or Dutch. Thus in general, only the intellectuals among the Comrades could read these works whereas those Comrades coming from the working people in general did not understand these two languages or understood them only badly.

The Party leadership of that time did not pay attention to the problem of translating Lenin’s writings. Those Comrades who did have books by Lenin in a foreign language did not study them deeply, many of them were too lazy to do so, or said they had once "read them and understood them". On the other hand, cadres coming from among the working people who studied diligently and who earnestly needed "Lenin" did not master the language of the book so that they could not grasp its contents. In short, it was a “revolution without Lenin” notwithstanding the fact that his books were there. It is therefore not surprising that the 1945-1948 revolution met with failure and ended in the counter-revolution of the Hatta Government at the end of 1948.

Hatta did not succeed in smashing the CPI. The CPI regained its legality thanks to the fact that, as a result of its fight against the Dutch colonial army, its prestige had greatly risen, while that of Hatta's had fallen in the eyes of the people since he concluded the treacherous Round Table Conference agreement with the Dutch. In spite of the fact that the CPI had lost many of its leaders as a result of the white terror it succeeded in a short time, i.e. during 1950 and the beginning of 1951, in re-organising itself and its, Central Committee.

Afraid of the new development of the CPI the reactionary Sukiman Government launched a razzia against the CPI and revolutionary mass organisations in August 1951. Thousands of Communists and democrats were thrown into prison on the accusation of plotting to overthrow the legal government by force. The core of the leadership, however, was not caught, and in this extremely difficult situation the leaders of the CPI who escaped arrest fortified their deter­mination to study Lenin with the slogan: only with the help of Lenin’s teachings can anti-Communist razzias be defeated, and only with the help of Lenin's teachings can the Party direct developments better. The writings of Lenin, though still in a foreign language, were studied carefully, the accent of the study was laid on those writings of Lenin which in a popular way expounded Marxist, strategy and tactics, namely “Left Wing Communism, an Infantile Disorder" and Lenin's writings on the Communist Party and on the alliance of workers and peasants. It proved subsequently that "study Lenin" when in hiding not only greatly contributed in forcing the reactionary Sukiman Government to resign, but also in determining the attitude towards the successor of the Suleiman Govern­ment, the Wilopo Government.

The CPI supported the Wilopo Government and it may be said that since the time of this Government developments in Indonesia have been in the main to the left. The idea of supporting a nationalist government without Communists participating had never occurred to the CPI leadership before. Comrades who were imprisoned by the Sukiman Government were gradually released by the Wilopo Government and not a single one was brought up for trial for lack of evidence. The work of rebuilding the Party and the Party's work among the peasants scored important progress. It was deeply felt that "with Lenin” things went better.

From 1951 onward, a beginning was made in earnestly translating Lenin’s works into Indonesian, beginning with “Left Wing Commu­nism, An Infantile Disorder”, followed by "State”, “Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution”, "What's To Be Done?”, "From Where to Begin?", "The Right of Nations to Self-Determination", "To the Village Poor”, “Socialism and War”, “April Theses", "Marxism and Revisionism” and others.

During his lifetime, i.e. since the beginning of the 20th century, Lenin already showed a deep interest in and understanding of the revolutionary, movement in Indonesia. There are intimate relations between Lenin and Indonesia. Lenin is here no more and naturally he cannot further strengthen the existing relations. The only ones who can do so are the Indonesian Communists by studying his theory and his lofty characteristics as a leader of the international working class, as a scholar, as a statesman and as a man. In order to do so, many of Lenin’s writings have to be translated into Indonesian. Campaigns to study certain writings of Lenin have to be organised. The Indonesian Communists have done work in this direction but much more still remains to be done. "With Lenin" all difficulties can be overcome, the situation will develop better, while "without Lenin" easy things will become difficult, a good situation will become bad.