Communism easier to handle than capitalism

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.