Comment by Graham Matthews
BRISBANE — The International Socialist Organisation (ISO) is presently touring Giles Ungpakorn around the country. Ungpakorn is billed as a visiting Thai socialist, speaking on "The Asian crisis and the struggle for socialism".
From the title, one might expect an in-depth analysis of the history of the Thai progressive movement, an elaboration of the strategies being debated by the movement in response to the collapse of the baht and the economic tremors being felt across Asia.
Unfortunately, in his talk here, Ungpakorn referred only briefly to the struggle for socialism in Thailand, and said nothing about how the broader movement is responding to the economic crisis it faces. The body of Ungpakorn's talk was spent arguing for a "permanent revolution strategy" throughout south-east Asia.
"Studies show that the majority of people in south-east Asia work outside of agriculture", Ungpakorn asserted to justify his argument that the majority of people in these countries are now "workers".
He elaborated a strategy for the people of south-east Asia centred on raising the socialist banner immediately and in all circumstances, based on the power of the industrial working class of these countries.
Ungpakorn reserved his greatest scorn for the People's Democratic Party of Indonesia (PRD) for its "cross-class alliance" with Megawati Sukarnoputri. Referring to the pre-1965 Indonesian Communist Party's failure to prepare its membership for the need to break with capitalist forces in Indonesia (which contributed to the scale of its annihilation), Ungpakorn suggested the PRD's tactical alliance with the supporters of Megawati's PDI in 1996 was likely to lead to the same result.
Ungpakorn argued that the PRD must orient to the industrial working class if it is to bring about "socialism" in Indonesia, ignoring the strong leadership given to Indonesian workers' struggles by the PRD-affiliated union PPBI led by its president Dita Sari. Dita was jailed after leading a 20,000-strong workers' rally in Surabaya in July 1996.
Ungpakorn and other speakers from the ISO severely underestimate the significance of the political ferment in Indonesia since the bogus parliamentary "elections" in May last year. Lacking any understanding of the scale of the repression in Indonesia, they criticise the democratic forces for "limiting" their demands to calls that Suharto resign and be put on trial.
Even the demand that Suharto's assets be nationalised and placed at the disposal of the Indonesian people was branded inadequate, because it did not immediately challenge the ultimate existence of capitalism in Indonesia!
The only joy that Ungpakorn found in the revolt was the riots and burning. He praised the burning of shopping centres (some likely to have been carried out by agent provocateurs) as the most revolutionary acts open to Indonesia's working masses.
Overall, Ungpakorn's analysis of the crisis in south-east Asia and the prospects for socialism was very disappointing. Dismissing the struggle for democracy in Indonesia as one for "liberal reforms", he failed to recognise how struggles for democratic demands can move without interruption into the struggle for socialism.
For Ungpakorn (and presumably his organisation, Workers' Democracy), revolutionary struggle is a clear, uncomplicated and schematic process, easily described in three-word formulations. Unfortunately, as the students, workers and peasants in Indonesia know, it is far richer, more complex and living than sectarians like Ungpakorn can conceive.