Review
Tan
Malakka : nationalisme, marxisme et Islam (1/2)
Tan
Malakka : nationalisme, marxisme et Islam (2/2)
The site http://www.oumma.com which has published 2 parts of this article at 15th
and 24th of April 2008 is one of few French Muslim sites which
supported the revolt of proletarian youth from suburbs in 2005.
Soviet-Russian opportunism kept silence about Tan
Malakka who was the founder and the first chairman of Indonesian Communist
Party and who was executed by Sukarno regime; today Russian opportunism continues
to keep silence about him. There are no mentions about him in the Big Soviet
Encyclopedia. There are almost no articles about him in Russian-language
Internet. He is mentioned briefly in the Russian translation of the book of
Arrigo Chervetto ⌠Unitary Imperialism■ (volume II), but it is written in
biographical supplement as if he was ⌠the veteran of ⌠Sarekat Islam■ party■ (it
is evident from Malakka▓s speech at 4th Congress of
Comintern, that it is outrageous distortion
of the truth).
Why do opportunists dislike Tan Malakka? It is
caused by Malakka▓s speech at 4th Congress of Communist International
in 1922 (see Tan Malaka. Communism and Pan-Islamism), in which he argued that alliance
with Pan-Islamism is necessary.
Opportunists from Stalin to
present-day ones catch at Lenin▓s rough
drafts of theses to 2nd
Congress of Communist International (as drowning man catch at a straw) when
the matter concerns the support of national-liberation struggle of Muslim
peoples of the ⌠3rd World■, especially against Russian imperialism. In
that theses Lenin said about ⌠the necessity of the struggle against Pan-Islamism■
(see Lenin, Complete works
(Russian-language edition), 5th edition, 41st volume, p.
166). For some reason ⌠communists■ don▓t remember Lenin▓s words about
⌠democratic movement of the people masses in Java under the banner of Islam■, that
⌠proletariat of European countries and young democracy of Asian countries which
full of belief in its own power and full of confidence in masses come to take
place of decaying European bourgeoisie■ (see Lenin, Complete works (Russian-language
edition), 5th edition, 23rd volume, p. 145-146)!
Chervetto in his criticism of Tan Malakka and alliance with
Pan-Islamism interpreted these Lenin▓s rough drafts of theses too loosely (see Arrigo Chervetto, ⌠Unitary Imperialism■ (Russian-language edition),
volume II, p. 118-121 and further). Chervetto ascribed to Lenin his own semi-kautskian thoughts without adducing any proof (it is
comically: Chervetto ⌠explained■ the meaning of these short rough drafts on the several pages, though there is no that
meaning in these drafts). I already criticized this place from Chervetto▓s work
in my work ⌠About the state■ (2006) and shall not return to it here.
What Lenin meant when he said about the necessity of the struggle
against Pan-Islamism? Lenin, who had the experience of the struggle against
culture-national autonomy of the Bund, evidently feared that communists in
their support of national-liberation movements can be carried away to such an extent
that they will begin to support the reactionary element of poor nations. But
Stalin▓s opportunism (and the whole opportunism up to present time, which is infected
with the spirit of Stalinism up to now, although it often repudiates Stalin) has
used these Lenin▓s words as excuse for rejection a support of national-liberation
movements.
From the speech of Tan Malakka ⌠Communism
and Pan-Islamism■ it is evident that Pan-Islamism in the countries of ⌠the 3rd world■ (like
But opportunists catch at the letter of Lenin▓s doctrine in order to obscuring its spirit.
Unfortunately, the author of this
article about Tan Malakka repeated the mistake of chauvinists under the mask of
communists, but inside out: he blamed Lenin for Great Russian chauvinism. It is
wrong.
Firstly, ⌠westerner (occidentalist)
concepts■ of Lenin were always the struggle against oriental (eastern)
despotism, against barbarism, not justification of colonial oppression from the
side of advanced nations √ oppression which is supported just by this despotism,
which preserve barbarism in colonies for the sake of gaining maximum profits.
On the other hand, as it was justly noticed by many analysts, Islamism, despite
its religious phrases, its quotations of Quran, is essentially quite modern,
Europeanized, occidentalist ideology, which struggles against
both newest capitalist imperialism of rich nations and traditional semi-feudal
Islam, which is knitted with this newest capitalist imperialism.
But the author of this article,
which claimed, that Lenin ⌠was unable to comprehend this■, simply ignored what
Lenin wrote about populism (⌠narodnichestvo■), Asian democracy, about
Kuomintang (see my article ⌠How they begin to sing!■ (2007), also see Lenin, Complete works (Russian-language edition), 5th
edition, 21st volume, p. 404-405). The term ⌠occidental■
(⌠westerner■), which meant ⌠bearing progress, civilization■ for Lenin, means
⌠pro-western■ for Girard. In this, the latter sense Lenin, certainly, never was the ⌠westerner■, and
to claim the opposite means simply to ignore the essence of his doctrine √ the
theory of imperialism.
Secondly, to claim that Lenin disputed against
Pan-Islamism in the interest of Soviet (= renewed Russian) imperialism is wrong
too. It means to ignore his last dying works (see his work ⌠On the issue of
autonomization■ (╚й БНОПНЯС НА ЮБРНМНЛХГЮЖХХ╩, Lenin, Complete works (Russian edition), 5th
edition, 45st volume), for instance); it means to lump (to confuse)
Leninism with Stalinism. Snorting at Lenin is the
weak point of that article. Here nationalism of Girard and his disbelief in
revolutionary proletariat of the rich nations are shown up.
In addition to the consideration of the issue of
Pan-Islamism Girard considered in this article the issue, about which Lenin
wrote at 6th
subparagraph of 11th paragraph of above-mentioned Lenin▓s rough
drafts of theses, namely:
⌠The necessity of the steady explanation
and the exposure to the broad masses of all, especially backward countries, the
deception which imperialist powers pursue systematically √ the formation of
states quite dependent on them in economic, financial, military respects under
the guise of the formation of politically independent states┘■
The emphasis of the fact that formal
political independence doesn▓t mean real independence yet (not only of
In this article Tatar Marxist
Sultan-Galiev, who also advocated the
alliance with Islamism is mentioned too. Sultan-Galiev was slandered by Stalin
and was repressed with the connivance (if not to say with complicity) of
Trotsky (see interesting article about Sultan-Galiev ю.б.яЮЦЮДЕЕБ. лхпяюхр яскрюм-цюкхеб ≈ пебнкчжхнмеп х лшякхрекэ. пняяхъ х янбпелеммши лхп. бшосяй 3(20),
1998 тюйрш, янашрхъ, кчдх). For
the avoidance of misunderstanding I emphasize once again that conclusions which
have drawn from poor nations certainly inapplicable to Tatarstan and
Bashkortostan (republics in central-east part of the European part of
Take into account that the word (the adjective)
⌠nationalist■ in Girard▓s article means rather ⌠national liberation■ than
⌠nationalist■ properly (appositely, above-mentioned Sagadeev who referred to
Anouar Abdel Malek (Girard also referred to him) also wrote that it is rather
correct to use the term ⌠nationalitary■ than ⌠nationalist■ with respect to
national liberation movements).
April 13th 2009
A. G.════════
═══════════════════ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════
═══ ═════════════════════════════
═══