This is a bit heavy.
Though knowing what I know about Indonesia my comment is "lets get ready for the day when they move south over the horizon".
Indonesia cannot be trusted and this goes back to the spirit worship of the nation.
There are few Christians who worship a God of Love in Indonesia; as with Jesus Christ the Son. And so the Christians get persecuted... even to the death by a nation thats in satans hand.
Australia must never make agreements with Indonesia, pay attention Paul Keating, because if we do we spirituially align ourselves with those in satans hand and those who hunger for the northern part of Australia. God, in the end, Judges such people who make agreements with the devils servants. Its all through the Bible.
Ive just been looking at a copy of a map that was on the walls of Indonesian classrooms for years showing all of the land north of Townsville, QLD as "South Irian". So I say, "Lets get ready". Lets never be slack. Lets be aware of unholy connections. And their consequences.
A citizens home guard defence force, beyond a puny Army Reserve, is a good start.

The Ford Foundation promised corporate America in 1949, the Wealth of Asia. That the Marshall Plan could justify this.

General Suharto spent his life creating an American version of the evil Dutch East Indies Corporation (VoC) - a Corporate State. In 1961 Suharto organised a pathetic attempt at a military invasion of West Papua, while his Freeport friends in Washington tricked U.S. Pres. Kennedy into writing the “New York Agreement” selling the people of West Papua like cattle to Indonesia.

As the U.S. Dept. of State said in 1961, "annexation by Indonesia would simply trade white for brown colonialism".

After Suharto came to power he gave the colonial minerals to Freeport (1967) & related American corporations; and he put the population of Java to work in factories making the cheap American clothes of the 1970s.

By time America moved its cheap factories to Mexico the people of Java had developed a taste for Colonial Profits of West Papua & other colonies, and too many people liked it.

General Suharto may have retired, but General Yudhoyono and Suharto's Freeport colonial legacy lives on in Papua, Ambon, the Celebes, and Borneo.

Congratulations to OLO for publishing this ‘subversive’ essay. Mr Passant’s excellent synopsis should not be dismissed as a leftist rant. All the points he makes, including the West’s complicity and aid during the bloodbath of 1966, are fully documented – as I found to my horror and shame when I was researching history assignments on Indonesia at university.

Australia has always shown a murky double standard in its dealings with its closest neighbour – at least since 1966. While successive Australian governments have applied fawning Cold War obsequiousness to Indonesia’s corrupt and murderous regimes, we have rudely snubbed it as a society. This is despite the fact that it is an ancient and vibrant culture with much to teach us. That is our loss.

I'm reminded of Lyndon Johnson's description of a Caribbean dictator: "He might be a son-of-a-bitch but at least he's our son-of-a-bitch."

Praise for Soeharto focuses on Indonesia's growing economy and the role the dictator played in modernising Indonesia. So I guess Hitler was okay up until 1939. And really the only thing wrong with Pol Pot was his economic incompetence that wrecked Cambodia. As for Stalin, Russia underwent economic growth in the 1930s while the West went through a slump. Let's hear it for Uncle Joe.

Anyway, what sort of good times are had in Indonesia with its dire poverty - even for many of those who have jobs? Well, I've got a good job creation scheme for Indonesia - more prison guards when the Soeharto family is thrown in the slammer.

'Now the dictator is dead. May he rot in hell.'

Alongside the socialists Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Deng.

The empire of Suharto isn't dead.

His estimated $150 billion empire has simply been spread amongst kindred and friends.

http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/suharto.html

Not really good article, mediocre analysis with misleading information.

One particular example is the killing of Chinese because they are Chinese. Never did Suharto collectively murder Chinese people like the military did to the communists members. When the massacres of 1965 took place, Chinese people might had been victims but their number was by no means majority.

I am not sure if genocide or ethnic cleansing are appropriate term to describe the communist purge. For East Timor, it may be appropriate but not for mass murder in 1965

Keith,

I do not dispute the evil of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Deng, but what makes you call them socialists? The last three were communists, though Deng set China on its current capitalist path, while Hitler was a Nazi. The fact that the Nazi Party’s full name, the National Socialist German Workers Party, contains the word “socialist” has no more meaning than the fact that communist dictatorships called themselves People’s Democratic Republics. They were not democratic and the Nazis were not socialists.

Chris C

Oh I probably should have used 'communist/socialist' rather than simply 'socialist'. Thank you for pointing out my ... er laziness.
However regardless of the leftist description the comment still holds water.

Deng was Mao's chief henchman throughout Mao's reign.

Hitler was not a member of the German Liberal, Conservative or any ultra right wing political Party. He was a member of the German National Socialist Party. It's policies were socialistic and as with all the socialist experiments of the 20 century it eventualy ended up a basket case of murder and mayhem and was characterised with an utter disregard for human rights.

I've never had any dispute about the communist dictatorships claiming to be democratic. Your comparison is a 'straw man' type argument... it's irrelevant ... and socialist still means socialist.

Keith's use of the term 'socialist' reminds me of revolutionary leftists' use of the term 'fascist' - a juvenile insult that disguises the real meaning of term and which the user is unable to explain when asked.

Rather than play with labels, let's look at facts. Hitler, like Soeharto, viciously attacked social democrats, communists and other leftists the moment he came to power. Hitler also had initial support of German big business and was admired by government figures in the West including Churchill prior to 1938. As an aside, Margaret Thatcher admired Deng Xiaoping and said so on Lateline when she was touting her biography here in 1993.

Hitler's regime, like Mussolini's before him, was characterised by extreme nationalism. Socialism (at least in Marx's writings) is characterised by internationalism and the idea that class struggle between the working classes and capitalists should end up in victory for the international working class. This is not only at odds with Hitler's policies but also Stalin's.

Read Marx's Communist Manifesto and Hitler's Mein Kampf and see the difference yourself. And also note the extreme nationalism in the ideology of self-styled communist regimes such as Pol Pot's Kampuchea, Mao's China and Stalin's Russia.

I read Zapata's comment and checked with an Indonesia expert at one of our Universities. He thought that Suharto's actions were not driven by anti-Chinese sentiment per se, although the dictator did use the PKI's link to China as a reason to ban Chinese publications.

So the word genocice may be a little inaccurate. War criminal, or perpetrator of crimes against humanity, might be a better description.

The murder of 1 million Indonesians to seize power makes Suharto one of the biggest mass kilers of last century, along with Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Churchill and the like.

And what do all these mass murderers have in common? They were totally committed to a system (no matter what they called it) that objectively was capitalist.

Hmm, I think it's pushing it to claim either Mao or Stalin were "committed to a system...that objectively was capitalist".

Surely the fundamental basis of capitalism is free enterprise - all citizens should be permitted to start and invest in their own business within a defined legal framework. This was surely not the case for most of Mao's or Stalin's rule.

I'd also suggest that "mass-murderer" does not just mean "anybody whose decisions resulted, directly or otherwise, in a large number of deaths". Do you really think the world would be a better place if Churchill had never committed to fighting off the Nazis? No question some of his tactics (and various public opinions) leave little to be desired, but given the alternative, we may have little alternative to be thankful that Churchill had little hestitation in acting in such a belligerent and revengeful fashion.

Wizofus, to me there are two defining elements to capitalism - the creation of surplus value (eg profit) by workers which is then stolen by the boss, and competition.

Ironcally competition leads to monopolisation as the bigger fish eat the smaller fry. Stalinism took this one step further - the state became the collective embodiment of capital. Wage slavery (ie the extraction of profit from workers) continued and increased under Stalin and was the basis on which he indsutrialised the USSR. It was the stalinist state who stole the surplus workers created, and re-invested that suprlus in more modern technilogy and machinery.

So what about competititon then? The USSR and other stalinist regimes were (and, for those still in existence, are)in competition with the West. The same drive in the West to produce goods at a reduced cost (more mechanisation etc) existed in the Stalinist dictatorships. They had to produce things as efficiently as the West to survive. In fact for a while they did. The USSR between 1945 and 1970 was the second fastest growing economy in the world (possibly becuase of the low base it came from).

But in the end Stalinism collapsed because it could not compete with the Westand becuase its people rebelled against it.

So to my mind the two elements of capitalism - competition and wage slavery - existed in the stalinist countries, making them state capitalist regimes.

Well, with all due respect, I think it's pretty silly to claim that employers "steal" the profit generated through the efforts of employees. I do agree that we need a better framework for ensuring that employer salaries are not disproportionate to employee salaries, as (if nothing else) this ultimately leads to an unsustainable economic imbalance, where there is an insufficient market base for the products and services supplied by businesses. But without the risks and effort undertaken by employers to fund, manage and expand businesses in the first place, the employees would not be in a position to be generating much wealth at all, and further, employees voluntarily enter into employment constracts with businesses, so employers can reasonably claim a right to decide how to apportion wages (and, further, are usually the individuals who have the most to lose from getting it wrong).

I also agree that, all else being equal, competition has the tendency to lead to monopolies. Unlike in nature, where Darwinian competition has been responsible for the great variety and complexity of lifeforms that inhabit the planet today, businesses don't have a built-in death and rebirth cycle, and hence it's very common for a given business to grow to such a size that others either it near impossible to compete, or give in to financial temptation of being "bought out". While we have some amount of regulation to help minimise this tendency, there is definitely room for improvement.

I don't dispute for a moment the considerable amount of evidence that pure laissez-faire capitalism is not a sustainable system, but that doesn't mean throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Keith,

In its socialist phase, the British Labour Party nationalised steel, coal and other British industries. The UK did not end up as “a basket case of murder and mayhem…characterised with an utter disregard for human rights”. Nor did Sweden under socialistic rule for most of the past eighty years.

Democratic means democratic, but the use of the word in the title, “People’s Democratic Republic”, does not mean that the said sate was in any way democratic, as you accept. Similarly, socialist means socialist, but the use of the word in the title, “National Socialist German Workers Party”, does not mean that the said party was socialist. If the Nazis nationalised industry, I am not aware of it. As I understand history, private corporations continued under the Nazi regime, and some made profits from the death camps.

In the early years there was a socialist stream in the Nazi Party. Ernst Roehm, leader of the SA, was one who called for a “second revolution” against business. He, along with others, was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives, 30 June, 1934. Hitler had no intention of implementing the Nazi party’s socialist promises. He needed the army, the banks and business on his side. (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)

Socialism and communism are quite different. One difference is that you get to un-elect socialists, but you don’t get to un-elect communists. Nazism and communism are the same in regard to human rights, but they are not the same in regard to economic activity. Communist, fascist, Nazi and Japanese imperial regimes killed tens of millions. Elected socialist governments did not.

John Pilger's eulogy to Suharto:

http://pilger.carlton.com/page.asp?partid=473

Love him or hate him (John Pilger, that is) no one exposes the murky forces behind Suharto's 'Darling of the West' status like he does.

Chris

With all due respect Great Britian and Sweden have never been socialist states. They could best be described as Liberal Western Democracies with a government implementing few social policies. As in most of the Liberal Western, governments have some influence over economic activity and capital but none can be regarded as controlling as socialism requires. Neither of your examples ever controlled the means of production nor capital. While they may have had some influence in some sectors overwhelmingly their economies were dominated by capitalist activity.

Again your comparison of the semantic's is irrelevant. In the ideal socialist state there would be no need for elections. Today the alternatives offered in Liberal Democracies usually hold sway or the 'left leaning' parties, to become elected, have become far from socialist or have abandonded any socialist influence.

And Hitler was elected as a Socialist ... who went on to scrap elections.

Keith,

I think our disagreement must be because we must have different definitions of socialism. How do you define it? Do you regard communism and socialism as the same thing? What socialist policies did Hitler actually implement?

Paul Keating abuses columnist Paddy McGuiness (whom I found a fairly ordinary writer and analyst)after Paddy died. Apparently McGuinness's crime was to often disagree in strong terms with the world's greatest Treasurer.

Yet Keating praises and honours one of last centuries' biggest war criminals by attending the funeral of mass murderer Suharto.

For Keating the pen appears mightier than the sword. The 1 million or so people Suharto killed (some at the time Keating was in Government fawning over the war criminal) might disagree, if they could.

Keating, the bilge barnacle from the back of Burke.

Hypocrite!

Paul Keating abuses columnist Paddy McGuinness (whom I found a fairly ordinary writer and analyst)after Paddy died. Apparently McGuinness's crime was to often disagree in strong terms with the world's greatest Treasurer.

Yet Keating praises and honours one of last centuries' biggest war criminals by attending the funeral of mass murderer Suharto.

For Keating the pen appears mightier than the sword. The 1 million or so people Suharto killed (some at the time Keating was in Government fawning over the war criminal) might disagree, if they could.

Keating, the bilge barnacle from the back of Burke.

Hypocrite!

Chris,

I've always thought of socialism as a movememnt, essentially economic in nature, which intended vesting the control of the means of production and capital in the community as a whole as well as seeking to abolish private land ownership.

I'd like to see your definition.

Keith,

Your definition seems pretty right to me. I’d say that of socialism means government ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, which is about the OED definition - “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates State ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange”. My Funk and Wagnalls puts it at greater length – “Public collective ownership or control of the basic means of production, distribution, and exchange, with the avowed aim of operating for use rather than profit, and of assuring to each member of society an equitable share of goods, services, and welfare benefits; as a system of social and economic organization planned, attempted, or achieved through various methods…”, and it goes on to list various methods.

Do you regard communism and socialism as the same thing? What socialist policies did Hitler actually implement? Did he give the community control of the means of production and capital? Did he abolish private land ownership?

Thank you Chris,

Like Marx and others I think Socialism is merely a step along the road to communism.

I don't know what socialist policy Hitler ever implemented. That's beside the point. The point was he was elected as a socialist. Whether his corruption was sooner or later doesn't change that fact ... but as in all socialist/communist systems he turned totalitarian.

Keith says: "[Hitler] ... was elected as a socialist. Whether his corruption was sooner or later doesn't change that fact ... but as in all socialist/communist systems he turned totalitarian."

None of this is true. The crisis in German capitalism saw the German ruling class support Hitler to smash the trade union movement and the Left more generally. They were among the first occupants of Hitler's camps.

Rather than being a movement of the working class, fascism is initially in times of social crisis a movement of the middle classes, caught as they are between big business and the labour movement. (Hansonism for example was a movement of the middle class.)

To survive, as it gets closer and closer to power, fascism abandons its middle class support and once in power implements the policies of the ruling class, ie clears out working class resistance and drives down wages to increase profit rates.

The writings of Trotsky from as early as 1928 make clear the danger fascism presented to working class movements, including socialist and communist movements. I suggest Keith try reading some of those writings to understand what fascism is and why Hitler cannot at any stage be called a socialist.

Second, getting back to the article, Suharto was a brutal dictator representing the interests of capital both local and foreign.

Paul Keating wrote a eulogy for him in Saturday's Age. Yet the day before in the Financial Review he attacked Paddy McGuinness. McGuinness killed no-one. Suharto killed millions. The moral and political bankruptcy of Keating is the bankruptcy of Labourism in Australia. It is important for Laborites to have stability in Indonesia, a stability built on the bones of millions.

I put human life first.

Passy

The Devil is in the detail, which is sadly missing from you latest post.
Hitler did indeed smash the communists, persecute them and consign them to his concentration camps. Sadly for you the detail you've missed is that Hitlers socialism had a massive nationalist flavour while the communist movement and particularly the German Communist Party (KDP) was an instrument of Josef Stalin and was commonly acknowledged so. Hitlers persecution of the communists was limited to this party and was merely of a nationalistic flavour rather than an anti-communist crusade. Hitler persecuted them for their allegiance to foreigners ... namely Stalin.

The other major party of the time was the Social Democratic Party, the SDP. It was centrist in nature and had appeal across the social strata. Hitler banned this party and persecuted many of it's members ... not on idealogical grounds but because it merely represented opposition.

Hitler's Party grew out of socialist sympatherises and recruits. While highly nationalistic in nature it did draw it's support right across the political spectrum and it's socialist aspects were supported by many workers and lower classes... and thus assisted Hitler in his rise. Indeed without this aspect it is doubtful he'd have gained the level of support he garnered at it's peak. His brownshirts were mostly working people.

Now truely it cannot be denied Hitler was elected as leader of a party espousing National Socialist policy. That included socialist policy. I may indeed attempt to discover the National Socialist Party's manifesto's of the period from 1922 to 1933. I suspect they will endorse socialist dogma and ideas ... as policy.

Would someone like to comment on Hitler's *fascist* rule - opposed of course to the ideologies of socialism or communism that are argued in previous posts?

Fascist rule is different and some say neo-conservatism has fascist tendencies.

Interesting read so far.

Some of the posts here raise questions about what is socialism and seem to conclude it is state ownership.

The marxist tradition recognises, as Marx and Engels put it in the Communist Manifesto, that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."

The state is an instrument of class rule. Under capitalism the capitalist state is an instrument for the ruling class to control the working class and also sort out their own differences. It is the band of robber brothers and the executive committee of the bourgeoisie.

A working class revolution establishes its own State for the majority - workers - to suppress the bourgeoisie - a very small minority.

The Paris Commune and the Russian Revolution show the way for this workers' state. Democratically elected workers councils, with the right of immediate recall, pay at the average wage, the armed militia of the people (not a separate army or police, which are instruments of capitalism). And before anybody butts in with "look at Stalin", I can give a long dissertation on the failure of the Russian Revolution, but that is for another time and place. Essentially it involves the de-classing of the Russian working class during the Civil War and the failure of the revolution to spread to advanced industrialised countries (although it was a close run thing in some countries) to help Russia out of its backwardness. For that reason and others the rise of Stalin represents the defeat of the Russian Revolution and the real marxist tradition.

The fixation of taking over the capitalist state is common to stalinism and reformism (ie labor party thinking). It just means these groups do not have any thoughts about socialism as the democratic rule of the working class through its own institutions. This explains why every labor government in the world profoundly disappoints its supporter. In winning elections to the capitalist state they manage capitalism, ie they rule in the interests of capital.

Why not make concrete this discussion by returning to the original article?

Was Suharto a fascist?

Pass

You haven't responded to my post with any sort of logical argument.

You have merely responded with a leftist diatribe when confronted in your beliefs.

Now you want to change the topic.

Really I have better things to do than follow your trail once you start running from facts.

Keith

With all respect your posts about Hitler and socialism are illogical and ahistorical. I can'respond to that.

Hitler was a fascist. He was the battering ram for the ruling class to smash workers' organisations in Germany and restore profit rates.

There is nothing socialist in that.

The ALP has as one of its goals the domcratic socialisation of the means of production (or some such.) That doesn't make them socialist at all. One because they will never implement this, and two because state ownership is not socialism. The same with Hitler.

And so to my question perhaps? Was Suharto a fascist?

I ask because it relates to the topic of the article and also will help people think about what fascism is.