between Stalin’s group and the opposition, Russia on the threshold of the Five Year Plan. And neither was it the Russia of 1941, during the outbreak of war with Nazi Germany in July [sic], when three successful economic plans had won the admiration of the whole world and had made all previous historical progress seem like child’s play. And, finally, neither was it the Russia of today, which has seen the Second World War annihilate a great part of what had been built up over the years with the sweat, tears, and even lives of the people.
[95] We can read any number of books, in almost any language, about Russian history, economics, sociology, and culture. On these small scraps of paper I could not and will not parrot what experts and plagiarists have already written. Neither am I able, in this present period of revolution and in this atmosphere of anti-imperialism and anticapitalism, to record my experiences in the different committees and conferences or in the Fourth Congress [of the Comintern] in November 1922, where I represented the PKI.16 Even in the revolution there are things to be told to one and all, things to be whispered from one comrade to another, and things that are best kept in one’s heart until the end. Therefore I shall mention only in passing some of my impressions from my year or so in Moscow.
In essence, Lenin’s greatness in the revolution of 1917 was comparable to that of Marx in economics or Charles Darwin in biology.17 It was Darwin’s good fortune to find or obtain and classify previously unknown plants and animals. On the basis of logic and the dialectic, he succeeded in drawing conclusions concerning the origins, development, and possibilities of life. Karl Marx’s application of dialectical materialism to all the economic factors analyzed by economists from Aristotle to David Ricardo successfully determined the origins, development, and future possibilities of capitalism. Similarly, Lenin, applying the dialectical materialist way of thinking to all the social forces in Russia, was successful in understanding the nature and strength of all the revolutionary groups in overthrowing feudalism and capitalism one after the other though almost simultaneously. These three thinkers approached their respective problems in a calm, courageous, and progressive spirit, taking into account all evidence in a context of “contradictions, details, clashes, building up and breaking down.”
[96] This was a scientific method that recognized motion, upheaval, change, and revolution in seemingly permanent facts and truths. They laid aside neither methods of science in compiling all relevant facts nor logical methods of comparison, induction, deduction, and verification. The logical method was indeed used to the fullest, but within the context of contradictions (the dialectic) and of reality.
Darwin was a revolutionary regarding living things. Marx was a revolutionary in economics (and philosophy). They both tore down the old and built up the new; they both thought in a revolutionary fashion. But Lenin was an expert in the strategy of revolution itself. He can be said to have been a revolutionary revolutionary.
Just as the first task of every expert is to examine all relevant facts, so a revolutionary must first gather together facts relating to all the social forces that are to be examined for their character and direction and to be coordinated and mobilized against the class to be eliminated (feudal or bourgeois). This must all be done according to the dialectical materialist method, while relying on one’s instinct in understanding the psychology of the masses in motion.
Since the social factors in Indonesia or India are going to be different in character and history from those in Russia, for example, the conclusions reached by Indonesian or Indian revolutionaries will certainly differ from those reached by Russian ones. The only similarities will be in the method of thinking (dialectical materialism, the spirit of inquiry); in the revolutionary element; in the one requirement for a leader of the masses, to know the psychology of the masses; and, finally, in the basic principles which we share as communists—proletarianism, mechanization, collectivism, and so on.
To adopt holus bolus such terms as feudal, bourgeois, or proletarian and apply them with all their corresponding characteristics, motivations, and history to the feudal, bourgeois, or proletarian classes in Indonesia or India would be uncritical and undialectical. Likewise, swallowing whole all the decisions made by Russian revolutionary thinkers in 1917 or those made by Marx in the mid-nineteenth century, and applying those decisions to a different time and place, such as Indonesia, without analyzing, testing, and weighing the situation here, would be as unreasoning as a parrot’s echo. “Marxism is not a dogma, but a guide to revolutionary action.”18
The revolution in Indonesia, as well as the conclusions that determine revolutionary strategy in Indonesia, should be considered on its own merit.
[97] We must not forget the weakness of the science of revolution, a weakness shared by all the social sciences. They all have to take account of the uncertain factor, the “x” factor: human behavior. Bourgeois economics is supposing that all human beings (farmers, laborers, clerks, traders, professors, and so on) buy and sell according to certain economic laws and that those laws always apply. For example, if they have little money they will first buy food, the most important thing, and only after that will they buy clothes and then a bicycle, car, gramophone, cinema ticket, and so on. The theory presupposes that human beings do not buy wrongly. There is no one who needs clothes more than rice or who needs opium or a cinema ticket more than money for the children’s schooling or the rent. Similarly, revolutionaries are forced in broad terms to generalize the behavior of all members of a given class. For instance, the stand of the oppressed and exploited workers against capitalism and imperialism is considered in theory to be stronger than that of the middle bourgeoisie against the same actions of capitalism and imperialism. All the members of the exploited and oppressed proletariat are considered to share the same attitudes and behavior. None are regarded as betrayers of their own class. That is the theory. The generalization is necessary, as it is in most sciences, and in broad terms it is correct. But let us not forget the differences between theory and practice.
The weaknesses of theory can be avoided or minimized through practical experience. First-rate economists must be experienced in some branch of the economy or must attend closely to the facts of everyday economics. Similarly, practical experience can aid revolutionaries in more accurately assessing the revolutionary mood of the masses. In addition to studying the science of revolution, revolutionaries must associate themselves with the masses, or at least be able to understand the psychology of the masses in motion. It is, therefore, essential to know well the atmosphere of the society being studied: the climate; the prevailing technology; existing economic, social, and political regulations; and the history, skills, desires, behavior, feelings, political outlook, ideals, and organization of the members of that society. It is best if this is accompanied by direct personal experience.
[98] A real revolutionary from a given country must, like experts in any science, keep an open mind towards revolution in other countries. This was the case with most of the prominent leaders when I was in Russia (in 1922). They did not dictate to the various Asian leaders their own viewpoint regarding the nature of the revolutionary movement in Asia (Indonesia, India, or China) and the stand that should be taken in those countries. They were conscious of the existence of the “x” factor in those countries and of the fact that the people there experienced a different situation from that of Russia, where they themselves had been born and educated and where they had entered the struggle. For this reason there was extensive discussion and debate in the congress and the committees of the Comintern. We did not need to be afraid that this or that “great leader” would be offended if we put forward a particular criticism.19 Criticism was regarded as important in the same way that carbolic acid is needed to cleanse away dirt or a torch is needed to light the darkness. All parliamentary democratic rights could be exercised among those comrades in the struggle and were the only limits on speech. As a result, all decisions made in such discussions or debates were generally felt to be satisfactory. They were followed, since all objections and reservations had already been raised, and a revolutionary Communist has to understand that decisions arrived at democratically are valid and have to be carried out faithfully, even though they may not accord with one’s own opinion. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not mean a dictator dictating to the proletariat, let alone to the proletarian party.
I still consider myself to have been fortunate to