Communism easier to handle than capitalism

Political scientist and Deputy Governor of the National Resilience Institute Juwono Sudarsono said last week that capitalism had turned out to be more dangerous than communism. He shares his ideas with The Jakarta Post in the following discourse.

Question: Is communism still a danger in Indonesia?

Answer: There is at present no organized threat of communism in Indonesia. Nevertheless, potentially the appeal of communism is always there. Radical ideas, whether atheist or religious-based, can officially be banned. But ideas have legs that transcend the walls of official condemnation. Communism prospers where wide disparities -- in income, of assets, in opportunities to advance fairly -- become prevalent for too long. Communism's appeal lies in the simplistic promise of immediate deliverance of the desperate, the deprived and the despondent, particularly in populous developing countries.

Q: Are there any parties in Indonesia wanting the return of communism?

A: Not openly, for they would face the wrath of the authorities and most Indonesians would not want the return of any form of communism. But a more important political task is to reduce and, if possible, eliminate as quickly as possible the conditions that would warrant the return of communism. It's not so much whether anyone would want a return of communism as whether we ourselves can effectively establish a political and economic system that would prevent communism's revival.

Q: What is the best way to prevent the revival of communism?

A: Socioeconomic justice through good governance should be our highest priority, particularly in densely populated urban areas where glaring disparities in economic predicament prevail. Last years arrests of several young men and women involved in radical causes in Surabaya (East Java), Central Java and Jakarta underlie the point. They were attracted to Marxist ideologies because real life socioeconomic conditions pushed them to adopt these ideas. The late Mohammad Hatta, our first vice president, long ago warned that communism flourishes in dire economic circumstance and social injustice. Economic justice and fairness are imperatives to prevent the rise of radical revivalists, whether communist or inspired by religion.

Q: Which is more dangerous, communism or capitalism?

A: Communism is often more readily confrontational, apparent and obvious, though it might use subtle aboveground tactics. In a way, it is easier to handle than capitalism. The danger of capitalism -- especially unfettered consumer capitalism -- lies in its outward attractions, it is much more subtle, appealing and, fatally, makes people complacent.

The appeals of packaging, of advertising and other tricks of marketing are cases in point. The sovereignty of the consumer is extolled where in fact it is the producers who are really sovereign. The mechanics of the market are never perfect and tend to favor those who own and control the means of production and distribution.

The demise of communism in 1990 strengthened the hand of those who espouse free markets and the virtues of capitalism. Capitalism's most dangerous effect is that it destroys social solidarity in favor of the Darwinian survival of the fittest. There are the mass layoffs on behalf of market efficiency and productivity. There is the widening gap in income and access to credit and the attendant prevalence of corruption, greed and undeserved privilege.

In the Middle East, these have resulted in a backlash of violent Islamic radicalism; in Latin America, in the vehemence of neo-Marxist guerrilla movements.

Fortunately, the recent volatility in the world's capital and money markets has shown the dangers of "casino capitalism". In North America and Europe, people are now talking about the center ground of "progressivism" where government works with and supervises market forces to deliver both corporate profits as well as to provide sustenance to the deprived and unskilled.

Q: Isn't Indonesia adapting a capitalist path of development?

A: Our 1945 Constitution mandates us to form a caring state providing basic human needs to those who are poor, unskilled and deprived. But no country can escape the volatility of global capitalism. The question now is whether we can still be committed to translate our constitutional ideals into concrete reality in the face of global market forces which tend to benefit the privileged few.

They have ready access to capital as well as the requisite connections to get ahead. That creates jealousy, anger and frustration among the poor, the unskilled and the less well- connected, often leading to unilateral and violent action.

Fortunately, most of my friends who work in the high-skill professions -- banking, insurance, fund management, the stock exchange -- remain dedicated to phased economic democratization.

They are very aware of the mandates that are embedded in the articles of the constitution. They know that taming the market will not be easy. It will take at least another 15 years before things really improve on the ground.

But they realize that it is a vital political task to provide economic outreach to those below. Our national resilience as well as our survival as a nation depends on how successfully we overcome these hazardous social upheavals that are in many ways the inevitable consequences of global capitalism.