Sukarno and Marxism

By: Syamsul Kurniawan

When Sukarno was young, in 1926, he wrote about Nationalism, Islamism, and Marxism, and people took them for granted. In the 20s, Marx's thoughts, especially his sharp criticism of capitalism, had a vast influence among the young intellectuals of the Indonesian national movement. But 35 years later, when Sukarno modified it into NASAKOM, Sukarno jumped into another dimension. The leap that finally landed the nation into a national tragedy was the emergence of the September 30 Movement in 1965 with all its consequences. From the realm of ideals, Sukarno jumped into the harsh realm of political power struggles. Sukarno did not pay enough attention to the PKI as a genuine communist party with a Marxist-Leninist ideology that rejected democratic pluralism. The party's peculiarities differed from those of nationalist and religious-based parties.

Karl Heinrich Marx and the Marxism that Sukarno Studied

Karl Heinrich Marx, whose name became a famous "Marxism," was born on May 5, 1818, in Trier, Rhineland, Germany. In this city, his father, Marx, practiced as a lawyer. Karl Marx finished his schooling in Trier at 17, and in 1835 became a student at the Faculty of Law at the University of Bonn and, in 1986, moved to the University of Berlin.

One distinctive element in Marx's thought was that his thought did not dwell in the realm of theory but rather as the ideology of Marxism and communism, becoming a social and even political force. Marx developed an essentially philosophical thought that later became a theory of the struggle for many generations of various liberation movements. At the same time, he was known in all walks of life as a symbol of work.

Marx never understood his thought as a purely theoretical-intellectual endeavor but a real and practical attempt to create better living conditions. Marx always demanded that philosophy be useful and the driver of social change. Marxism is not the same as Karl Marx's teachings, communism, let alone socialism. Through his various ideas, Marx achieved his official teachings, which, with his approval, especially by Engels, were standardized into "Marxism" (also Marx's official theory and the theory of scientific socialism) which Lenin later formalized or modified again into a component of "Marxism-Leninism," the official ideology of the communists.

Moral ideals and scientific knowledge of the laws of the development of society drove Marx's socialism here. Marx's approach thus changed from being purely philosophical to increasingly sociological. Marx gave a picture of man as supposedly free and universal, individual and social and natural; this is where Marx's humanism is seen. In his analysis, Karl Marx was also able to ascertain that capitalism contains the seeds of collapse in itself and that the failure of capitalism will inevitably result in a socialist society.

Marx's critique of religion made his entire conception seem atheist. It began with Feurbach's criticism of religion in his view that man must dismantle religion to realize his potential. Theology must be anthropology. This criticism of Feuerbach became the starting point for all later Marx's thinking. Marx also wrote that man makes religion, not religion makes man. Religion is the realization of human nature in wishful thinking, so it is a sign that man has yet to succeed in realizing his essence. Religion is a sign of human alienation but not its basis.

Thus, according to Marx, criticism of religion must be criticism of society. Criticism of faith alone is useless because it does not change what gave birth to belief. It is not religion that should be criticized, but culture. The criticism of heaven turned into the criticism of the world, the criticism of faith into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics. So it is not religion that should be investigated, but man, because man is its factual basis. Marx questioned what circumstances make people want to be religious. Thus, religious criticism led Marx to realize that the real target of criticism in society.

The Influence of Marxism on Sukarno's Thought

Many people do not doubt the considerable influence of Marx in Sukarno's thought. Since he was a first-semester student, he has learned and known the theory of Marxism from a social-democratic HBS teacher to understand the idea by reading many Marxism books of all shades.

Sukarno's theory of Marxism was the only theory considered competent to solve historical, political, and societal problems. His ideas or thoughts about the separation of religion and state and his criticism of Islam were influenced by Karl Marx's criticism of faith; in his view, the root of the problem is in society, in addition to being a socioeconomic analysis of Indonesia. Likewise, Sukarno's Marhaenism is Marxism applied to the situation and conditions in Indonesia.

But Sukarno did not just apply Marxism. He also boldly and creatively revised Marxism. Among other things, by getting rid of the dominant role of the proletariat to be replaced by Marhaen. The Marhaen are the needy people in Indonesia, in contrast to the proletariat, who still own the means of production, albeit on a small scale. Another Marxist theory that Sukarno did not use was a class struggle because he saw that in Indonesia, it was necessary to unite various groups to expel colonialism that had collaborated with capitalism and imperialism. And unlike Marx, who did not like nationalism, Sukarno considered the important role of nationalism in fighting capitalism and imperialism in Indonesia. ***

Bullying and the significant work of religious teachers

By: Syamsul Kurniawan

The trend of bullying among students deserves mutual attention because the social ills among these students seem to have never been treated. Ironically, cases of bullying committed by students that should be seen as a severe disease afflicting the education world by some parties are even seen as something ordinary, so there is no particular intervention to minimize it. There is a kind of proclamation. Such is the view that links bullying, for example, by students at school, as part of their process of "self-discovery." In the recent case in Pontianak, a school-age girl bullied her friend.

This is ironic because, in many cases, the consequences of bullying committed by them (read: students) are arguably quite serious, not only seen from the perspective of victims of traumatic bullying but also because it is counterproductive to the noble purpose of education itself. Throughout 2021, based on information from the Regional Indonesian Child Protection Commission (KPAI), there were 17 cases of violence involving students at school, and among them were instances of bullying. Of these cases, not a few of the victims who, out of frustration, became reluctant to go to school, even in a few cases, committed suicide.

So relevant here is a question: "Why schools that are supposed to be seedbeds of nonviolent thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors, even in some of the above cases are, so familiar with bullying?" The root causes of this incident need to be examined, including the internal and external factors of the school that contribute to the development of students' thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors that tend to violence. K. Standish, in his book Cultural Violence in the Classroom: Peace, Conflict, and Education in Israel (2015), based on research he conducted in Israel, reveals how school culture can foster violence, such as ignoring the habit of ridicule among students or bullying. C. Harber said the same thing 

in his book Schooling as Violence: An Exploratory Overview (2002 ) and L. Davies in his publication Schools and War: Urgent Agendas for Comparative and International Education published in the journal Compare (2005).

The violence committed by students in the school above, by Feels in D. Hicks, in the book Education for Peace: Issues, Principles, and Practice in the Classroom (1988), the root of the problem can be grouped into two, namely the fruit of sonatinas and other indirect causes (read: cultural causes and structural causes). Bullying between students can arise for this reason.

 

Significant Religious Teacher Work

In this area, the roots of violence in education (read: bullying) should be erased by reconditioning school culture and structure towards peace. As L. Davies reveals in his book Educating Against Extremism, this is possible when schools can become a fulcrum of hope for spreading a culture of peace. The point for religious teachers is that students should get adequate learning experience from them about the severity of violence and the importance of seeking peace.

Thus, from religious teachers, students can be well-informed about the importance of peace and awareness of the dangers of attitudes and behaviors that transcend boundaries and especially with violence. In addition, students also need to be trained by religious teachers to think, behave and behave critically so that it is not easy for them to be intimidated and adopt a culture of violence that may be easily accessible from mass media or social media. Because, often, the influence of mass media or social media causes students to be provoked to bully their friends. This is what Davies reveals about the power of mass media or social media that targets massively by students today.

Peacebuilding thus becomes a necessity of Islamic religious education that Islamic teachers must consider. Comenius, a Czech academic, is said to have first used the term "peacebuilding" in the context of education (read:  peace education) to refer to education that provides a way to realize peace. [1] In addition, one of the figures who also helped promote peacebuilding in the field of education, especially schools, was John Dewey. Dewey believed in the potential of schools to foster communities that live in peace. This is because the school allows its function to be directed at the formation of students' consciousness so that they choose a nonviolent way of life. [2]

 

In this regard, according to him, the functional role of the school curriculum is vital. In other words, for schools to be a fulcrum of peace, the curriculum should be engineered for that need: peacebuilding. So even in the context of learning Islamic religious education, the curriculum must support this peacebuilding: both written and hidden.

 

In this area, peacebuilding is gaining knowledge and developing attitudes and behaviors to live in mutual respect, tolerance, mutual assistance, nonviolence, and peace. The developed aspects of peacebuilding are peace and nonviolence, respect for human rights, democracy, patience, international and intercultural understanding, and understanding of the inevitability of different cultures and languages. [3] Based on this principle, bullying has no place.

 

In its realization by Islamic school teachers, peacebuilding is an educational model that seeks to empower students to handle conflicts or problems creatively and nonviolently. Peacebuilding teaches mutual respect, love, fairness, and justice. Peacebuilding is based on the awareness of the importance of being nonviolent, loving, trusting, fair, cooperating, respecting, and respecting others. [4]

 

In dealing with and minimizing bullying, peacebuilding presupposes the importance of cooperation of three elements in its implementation: students, teachers, and parents. These three elements largely determine the outcome of peacebuilding. [5] These three need to work together, for example, to heal the trauma of bullying victims. Because of the common assumption from psychologists, for instance, that achieving peace is the same as healing trauma. Therefore, usually, a psychologist encourages his patients to tell what became his traumatic experience.

 

According to Johan Galtung, a person's willingness to share stories about the experience of suffering and injustice that he experienced may be helpful for healing trauma. But the nature here is privacy. Because according to Galtung, not all private traumatic experiences can be freely known by many people in public spaces. It is essential to distinguish what is suitable for an individual from what is good for the public sphere. It is not impossible, in some instances, to open stories about being bullied, considered to opening up "old wounds."[6] In the context of bullying between students, it is evident in some cases that the motive is revenge. Many of those caught up in the social ills are traumatized for a long time.

 

Islamic religious education in schools built from the spirit of peacebuilding is expected to lead students to better understanding because they are equipped with helpful knowledge by their Islamic teachers. Islamic religious education, with the nature of peacebuilding, is an essential instrument for students – say those who experience trauma due to bullying – to get a proper life amid their social environment and not be alienated in their environment. [7]

 

For what reason? Students trapped as bullying victims feel alienated by the surrounding social environment. So it is easy to understand that students who feel unwelcome by the surrounding social environment, and then because they do not get enough support related to healing their psychological condition, then they are easily affected by their new problematic social environment. [8] When their new inappropriate social environment requires them to be plunged into prolonged shame, and because they are trapped and difficult to break out of the vicious cycle, it is for this reason that we understand why among victims of bullying choose to end their lives. Sad!.

 

Capital that is not enough to do with peacebuilding can be traced in their schools. It is not impossible that peacebuilding was never really taught in the education they received in schools, including in Islamic religious education. Even if there is, it is limited to the content of lectures from their spiritual teachers when teaching them in schools. It doesn't permeate into a vital learning experience for them. Bullying is counterproductive to the educational goals and teachings of any religion.

 

But why does this not exist? The reason is easy to understand. That education in schools in Indonesia still tends to be modeled after the bank style. [9] This bank-style model of education has historically been found in general people who have experienced as colonized. This model only matures students if they are conditioned to learn independently and critically. With this bank-style model, Islamic teachers seem like omniscient figures, while students are treated without knowledge, like empty glasses being filled. So, Islamic teachers who position themselves as all-knowing are on the side that is always right, and vice versa. Students are on the side that is always wrong in the moment of exchanging opinions. If it is wrong, students are ridiculed, satirized, ridiculed, and such. If this is the case, how will students gain important learning experiences around peacebuilding? Bullying often starts from mistakes that these teachers rarely realize. Our education world must consider this bill if we want brawls between students to be broken by the vicious circle. ***

 

REFERENCE

[1] Ian M. Harris, Peace Education Theory (Milwaukee: University of Wiscounsin-Milwaukee, 2002), 10.

[2] Charles F. Howlett, John Dewey and Peace Education (Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2008). 2.

[3] Imam Machali, ‘Peace Education dan Deradikalisasi Agama’, Jurnal Pendidikan Islam, Volume 2, Nomor 1, Juni 2013, 44-45. (41-64)

[4] Ibid., 45.

[5] Ibid., 46.

[6] Johan Galtung, ‘Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution: The Need for Transdisciplinary’, Transcultural Psychiatry, Vol. 47, Nomor 1, 2010, 20-32. DOI: 10.1177/1363461510362041, 25.

[7] Irfan Tri Wibowo, Adnan Madjid, dan Josphine R. Marietta, ‘The Peace Education as the Conflict Prevention Strategy in De Britto College High School’, Jurnal Damai dan Resolusi Konflik, Volume 4, Nomor 2, Agustus 2018, 71-91 (72).

[8] Moch. Tolchah, Dinamika Pendidikan Islam Pasca Orde Baru (Yogyakarta: LKiS, 2015), 50.

[9] Toto Suharto, Pendidikan Berbasis Masyarakat: Relasi Negara dan Masyarakat dalam Pendidikan (Yogyakarta: LKiS, 2012), 69.