Rethinking Tan Malaka's Madilog

Rethinking Tan Malaka’s Madilog Qusthan Abqary Some people ignore one thought base on like or dislike or even political or economical preference of the thinkers. I believe this kind of attitude could make big barriers especially not only in social sciences but also philosophy as well. One prominent thinker, politician, and even philosopher in the modern Indonesia is Ibrahim Datuk Tan Malaka who also was a communist for the most of his life time. His political preference on communism could be the unnecessary and unimportant barrier for others in discussing and exploring his thought not only in the New Order Regime but also during the Reformation process since 1998. I would like to say that Tan Malaka as a philosopher rather than politician, not only because he was failed as a politician – in order to gain the power because Soekarno is the one who was succeeded to take the power as president – but also he is success in explaining his philosophical thought through his magnum opus Madilog. Yet some Indonesian still have colonized mentality such as need acknowledgement from foreigners or international community about the status of philosopher in Indonesia. One ambitious young lecturer in Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia for instance, ever arbitrarily object my opinion that Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana is philosopher until I showed to him one book whose title is Culture, Philosophy and the Future: Essays in Honour of Sutan Takdir Alisjahbana on his 80th Birthday which contains of acknowledgement from foreign scholars that Takdir is one prominent Indonesian philosopher. In order to satisfy this kind of mentality, I would like to show one interesting acknowledgement that Antonio Gramsci highly praised his thought’s acuity and even Gramsci inspired by some of his books. Gramsci gave sympathy to Malaka’s loneliness among Indonesians and was sad with his destiny. If this fact could not satisfy such colonized mental attitudes, it should be better if they would like to discuss Tan Malaka’s though on Madilog. This paper would like to explore to what extent Tan Malaka’s though on Madilog could enhance our comprehension on materialism, dialectic, logic, and science?

Analytical Aspects Tan Malaka briefly states that “Madilog is the fusion of words (Ma)-tter, (Di)-alectic and (Log)-ic. Matter is interpreted as ‘things,’ dialectic is the contradiction or movement and logic is the law of thinking. Its meaning in Bahasa Indonesia is not so good and does not

stimulate new comprehension like my ‘donkey’s bridge.1’” Just as Bahasa Indonesia did not absorb the word ‘matter’ into ‘materi’ at the time, materialism is perceived by most Indonesians as one thought which its fundamental assumptions are all entities are things and there is no divinity which directly imply to one over simplification opinion that materialism is the opposite of religions until now. Most Indonesian people do not change their such assumption on materialism even after the word ‘matter’ got absorb into ‘materi’. Equally important, materialism in a more bias meaning is used in order to suggest every single person who would like to measure anything with money. One slang word appears to represent this kind of bias meaning as ‘matre’ or ‘materialistis’ (literally means materialistic yet contextually refers to someone who would like to think that money is everything in his or her life). ‘Matter’ could philosophically mean that it is a specific category in order to classify unique substances which exist in the frame of sphere and time. In short, materialism denies that there is single entity which on the outside of space, sphere and time. Let us check at these premises:

1. Matter is a specific category in order to classify unique substances. 2. This substance exists in the frame of space, sphere and time. 3. So, matter is a specific category in order to classify the substance which exists in the frame of space, sphere, and time. The question arises: is there any unspecific category in order to classify the nonunique substance which does not exist in the frame of space, sphere, and time? At this point, Tan Malaka offers different kind of explanation than most Indonesian communists. Most Indonesian communists declare that there is no single entity which stands on the outside of space, sphere and time because all things are matters in the sense of things. One extreme argument could say that matter is all entities which could be touched, be smell, be tasted, and so on and so forth. Yet it is so weak because there are many other entities which exist but could not be touched by every single person. I would say this kind of comprehension is the form of bankruptcy of materialism in Indonesia while Tan Malaka indirectly believes that there is unspecific category which refers to classify the non-unique substances which does not exist in space, sphere, and time as shown on his following statement: 1

Tan Malaka, Madilog (Jakarta: Teplok Press, Third Edition, April 2000) pp. 18-9. Tan Malaka says his donkey’s bridge is like ezzebruggece (p. 13) even though not always the same with the well-known one in Belgium. I uses the word ‘Madilog’ interchangeably between as one way of thinking or as Tan Malaka’s magnum opus.

“Yet God, Atman, Soul, or Hell and Heaven however could not be naturalized to the category of “could not” experiencing by us, millions of unfortunate human (sic!): whom do not bless like angles, hears or feels the Almighty, the Most Excellent, the All-Loving. Every human who ever met or saw God, Holy Soul or Atman, with his or her five senses never show to me and the public by recalling the Almighty. In short, God, Human Soul, Atman, Heaven, and Hell are matters which outside of the experience.”2 It is interesting yet still vague because I do not know whether Tan Malaka’s word ‘pengalaman’ means ‘peng-alam-an’ (naturalization) or ‘pengalaman’ (experience). So far I believe it as ‘pengalaman’ or ‘experience.’ However, Tan Malaka still admits that God is in the matter and not outside of it, even though it would be problematic. Thus, Tan Malaka separates matter into the one which inside and outside of the experience. I would like to say that the latter category of matter as the “unspecific category in order to classify the nonunique substances” rather than Tan Malaka’s categorization as “matters which outside of the experience” itself. Tan Malaka’s differentiation of matter – the inside and outside experience – is problematic due to the lack of vocabularies in the past or even arbitrary meaning in the present Bahasa Indonesia. The past of Bahasa Indonesia is lacked of vocabularies while the present one is arbitrarily defines matter itself as things which means that the absorption process of words into Bahasa Indonesia could not enriching the philosophical categorization of meanings for the word ‘materi’ or ‘matter’. Tan Malaka thinks that all being category is equal with the matter itself. Furthermore Tan Malaka generalizes the being category equally with the matter itself and equally with the existence itself [Yang Ada ialah Materi/Benda yang Terikat oleh Ruang & Waktu; Being is Matters/Things which bound to the space, sphere, and time; or Being = Matters/Things = Existence] which implies that every single entity is matter and exists or could not get out of sphere, space, and time. As the consequence, he tries to explain his cosmological understanding of nature which sounds both like the Hindhu’s faith on reincarnation and Darwin’s evolution theory. This claim could be best describe on Tan Malaka’s statement as follow:

2

Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 368. I give the emphasize in order to show that Tan Malaka does not reject the Divine power even though he never see publicly someone to prove divinity in his or her own way.

“According to Madilog, [if] there is no body, there is no nature. Soul is just specific nature on the specific body. Yet like other nature, it stops when the body stops. It changes to be chemical nature after the body gets back to the soil, water, and air.”3 It means that Tan Malaka thinks that soul is not the business of God while human just knows a little about it; but just about the chemical materials. Yet he rejects the Hindhu’s faith on reincarnation simply because it bases on the soul4 and not on the matter but using its kind of explanation and tries for adapting it with Darwin’s evolution theory. His views on body, nature, soul and the chemical process were claimed as the one and only kind of interpretation which base on Madilog while he also admits that “Madilog is intended more as the way of thinking. Not as Weltanschauung, world view, even though the way of thinking and world view or philosophy are like ladder and home, which is so close.”5 However, if we do agree with Tan Malaka that Madilog is not the Weltanschauung or world view but rather as the way of thinking, so the soul would not “stop when the body stop” and would not just about “chemical nature” because the way of thinking should not make uniform the result of its way of thinking. Most thinkers would agree that more interpretations would enrich one way of thinking and more interpretations would be more interesting for others to use and explore one way of thinking. Just as liberalism or capitalism survives from crises to crises because its ability on self-reflection even though it would be contradictive with its previous logics or dialectics; while Marxism or precisely the political and economical regime of Marxism collapsed after the Cold War in regard to its orthodoxy in interpretations. Tan Malaka’s insistence that every being category as matters would sounds as the syncretic cosmological comprehension of nature because he rejects Hindhu’s faith on reincarnation. On the one hand, Tan Malaka believes that all witchcrafts or mysticism needs things as the hub for its power. On the other hand, he uses it in order to justify the Darwin’s evolutionary theory while claiming it as scientific explanation. Hence, Tan Malaka implicitly admits that there is any unspecific category in order to classify the non-unique substance which does not exist in the frame of space, sphere, and time. These could be God, witchcrafts, or unidentified and unexplored matters which should be the object of science. So, it would be worth to examine Tan Malaka’s view on science.

3

Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 375. Tan Malaka says it as “Maha Jiwa Atman” (literally means The Holy Soul Atman). 5 Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 19. 4

Views on science: limited and syncretic Tan Malaka emphasizes three definitions on science: (1) “accurate thought, natural science, which is accurate and precise way of thinking, or real understanding”; (2) “organization of facts, composing facts”; (3) “simplification by generalisation.”6 Although these three definitions were not belong to Tan Malaka’s thought but he made it as his standing points for arguing on science but those three are problematic because contemporary sciences are not only about natural sciences but also about social sciences, ignoring the critics that social sciences in certain senses use the method of natural sciences. Definition of science as organization of facts and composing facts do not sensitive and compatible with the differentiation among all languages over the world. More complex one language would be more sensitive and compatible with the development of science and vice versa. Composing facts actually need appropriate words and sufficient structure of language while most Indonesian thinker would agree that Bahasa Indonesia is not ready yet to become one language of science although we should praise Takdir Alisjahbana’s effort in developing Bahasa Indonesia. Moreover, simplification by generalisation is the inductive way of developing science which tends to the hegemony of empiricism and positivism. As a matter of fact, simplification by generalisation is just one method of thinking and logic which was not quit significance in the battle of scientific theory during the history of sciences for centuries. This battles show that the deductive ways in developing theories are more and more helpful due to the lack of tools for investigating the object of natural sciences. Moreover, Tan Malaka thinks that science itself has certain limits which should be realized by every scientist or student as follow:

“Yet, there are limits for science. Its limits cause that it could not or not yet develop as possible. Those limits are, first of all is in itself, secondly is out of itself. In itself, which are the lack of instrumental tools, which could precisely enlarge the little and bring something closer, and the lack of using accurate method which is dialectic. The lack on out of itself is on the role of society on politics, economy, and social. The first lack has its significance and depends to the second lack. The lack of instruments or limits of using dialectic would vanish if the society justifies. Immediately the incomplete instruments would perfect and the more accurate method of thinking would gain.”7

6 7

Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 55. Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 113. I give emphasize.

The history of science shows us that the lacks of tools are only a little challenge which could or could not be solved when the problems just appeared. Kuhn explains this kind of challenge as the part of his second form analysis of crises science which “Then scientists may conclude that no solution will be forthcoming in the present state of their field. The problem is labelled and set aside for a future generation with more developed tools.”8 Undoubtedly, Tan Malaka did not explore much about the history of science and then put the issue of lacks of tools as the internal limits of science without considering that scientists attitude, either in reflecting science or doing the research, which also contribute to the successes or fails of developing science from time to time. Modern days show there are width ranges of issues which relates to the internal limits of science from methodological, ethical, morals, until the ontological problems. Kuhn’s accounts on the revolutionary history of science and the battles among theories or even Lakatos’ research programs contain of both the internal and external aspects of science which are very determining on the crises science, normal science, or even shift paradigm. As a matter of fact, Tan Malaka never writes anything in his Madilog about the shift paradigm from Geocentric to the Heliocentric which remind us that the internal limits of science do not just about the lack of tools but also about the scientists’ fundamental assumptions, faiths, or attitudes when doing research or facing the new discoveries or even new shocking inventions in sciences. Feyerabendian critics on how that all students or citizens do not choose science among other form of knowledge in the ballots as their own study but rather as the ideological state which should be learnt by its citizens, just like how the Church were being the state itself in the Middle Ages; are very meaning full in order to show that scientists’ fundamental assumptions on science or even scientists’ faiths are more decisive than the lacks of instruments as the internal limits of science. Yet Tan Malaka’s account on the external limits of science is truly ambitious even though the role of society on politics, economy, and social is not the main determining factor for internal limits of science especially the lack of instruments and limits of using dialectic methods. I think that both of those internal and external limits of science are determining each other and which one would more determining than the others depends on each context. Tan Malaka was very true when writing that “Science does not care of colour or the shape of body. Where there are tools, there will be progress!” 9 But he might not consider that colonialism made the oligarchic structure of science which could decide whether one idea, 8

Thomas S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Third Edition, 1996) p. 84. 9 Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 398.

theory, or argument is scientific or not. The colonial Dutch were still racist whenever restrict education system for the white, the Chinese, and the indigene people even though there was ethical politics which gave opportunity for high class and brilliant Indonesian to study in Holland. Just as neo-colonialism project through overseas scholarships program for Indonesians are trying to educate the best Indonesian scholars to study abroad and then arbitrarily think that everything should be evaluate and view scientifically with no tolerance for the non-scientific but useful things. It means that science as a product might not deal with the colour or the shape of body and it could be free value laden. Yet science as the process would be racist in order to defend its oligarchic structure just as capitalism which only brings many benefits to the white or yellow skin people. In contrast, Tan Malaka has genuine explanation on how the non-scientific but useful things are still base on matters. Yet this kind of explanation is also syncretic because he uses materialism, dialectic and logic to explain the non-scientific but useful things. He wrote “But one magnificent nature needs matter, even like iron or human’s body. In the frame of contemporary science, shaman does not base his or her nature to his or her nature itself. He or she needs something, which is the reason why I said this kind of faith could not throw arbitrarily.”10 He also explained why that materialism, dialectic and logics could be used to clarify the non-scientific things because dialectic and logics are two ways of thinking which appropriate for exploring the problems which base on matters, things or ideas, shadows, only mind, or only spirit.11 This reason does not mean that materialism is less important than dialectic or logics, because materialism is obviously different with matter, while I would say that materialism is just like the ontological assumption on how one thinker should perceive his or her surrounded environment.

Materialism Vs Divinity Tan Malaka’s ontological assumption on matters is best shown as follow:

“What are matter and idea in the frame of dialectic? The matter is the things in natural sciences like what we have discussed, that is about our five senses. So it is about the real, what can be seen, be listened, be tasted, be touched and be smell. The idea is the shape of understanding or our minds’ perception of things in our brains. The things are on the outside of our brains and the thought is shadow of the things in our brains.”12 10

Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 376. Tan Malaka, ibid., pp. 20-1. 12 Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 144. 11

Conversely, Tan Malaka’s definition on matter would be contradictive with his own understanding and appraisal to the so called “magnificent nature” which needs something as the manifest of its power to the others. Additionally, he intentionally defines “Madilog is the way of thinking which bases on materialism, dialectic, and logic in order to search the consequences, which stand on sufficient evidences and sufficient experiments and to be observed.”13 Some questions arise here: (1) why does Madilog prefer to search the consequences better than both the causes and consequences? (2) What is so great about the consequences in the frame of Tan Malaka’s Madilog? These two questions would help to understand Tan Malaka’s acceptance on materialism on the one hand and divinity on the other hand. The first question might relate to Tan Malaka’s analysis of mind which rarely did by most Indonesian communists at the time and the Madilog itself which contains of the law of materialism, dialectic, and logic. Tan Malaka believes that:

“So, mind just goes through the estimated history. The advance of mind would bounce up unmeasurably because all of our contemporary measures are constant, [that is] measurable commodity (note: Laurentz, Relativity of Measurements). Yet mind moves forward in accordance with the law of movement, the law of dialectic and are complicated with its continuous history.”14 It means that human’s mind is the product of evolutionary biological and chemical process in the history and still able to develop more and more, just like Tan Malaka would never imagines that present human being could invents the artificial intelligence or develops cybernetics. Yet Tan Malaka never denies the existence of Divine power as his statement “Nor do I mean that there is no divinity15 in the world, which has been known. Knowledge would not over and might not over. Like ‘one’ you said, ‘two’ I said. ‘One million’ your answer, ‘one million and one’ I reply.”16 His admittance on Divinity is strongly connects to the unlimited potential power of mind which might cause the never ending knowledge and science for centuries, just as the emanation theory which believes that the First Being emanates and illuminates the First Intelligence and so on and so forth. I am not saying that Tan Malaka’s admittance is compatible with the emanation theory but it seems alike in its

13

Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 271. I give emphasize. Tan Malaka, ibid., pp. 365-6. 15 I should say that Tan Malaka prefers to use the word “gaib” better than “Esa.” 16 Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 272. 14

own way for arguing even though it does not clear enough where the position of Divinity is in Tan Malaka’s interpretation of Madilog. He writes:

“Ignoring the dialectic which base on materialism could slam the experts to the nature of mystic or to the nature of mechanism. From the composition of cell to the composition of human’s body, from instinct to mind, all things and nature are subject to the law of dialectic. Yet this dialectic is about materialism, [that is] matter. It is not materialism which subject to dialectic. Dialectic could be born earlier in the most brilliant human brain. But this kind of dialectic should appropriate with matter’s dialectic, which is the law of matter’s movement. If tomorrow or the day after tomorrow would not found the compatibility, so this kind of dialectic means empty dialectic, dreaming dialectic, viz the dream of expert in dialectic.”17 Therefore Tan Malaka has its own unique interpretation which is not common for most materialist thinkers especially on his admittance that there is Divinity in his own interpretation of materialism which should be moves in the light of dialectic and logic. On the one hand, Tan Malaka’s intention on dialectic which base on materialism and logic brings us to give more and more attention to the consequences of every matter which move dialectically and logically including predictions, hypothesis, projections, and others which directly relate to the future without ignoring the importance of the past. Even Tan Malaka strongly states that history, in its widest meanings, is the most important discipline or study for illuminating other sciences, social sciences, disciplines, or other form of knowledge. On the other hand, Tan Malaka also tries to describe the other form of knowledge because he believes that witchcrafts, for example, needs things as the medium to deliver the power. At this point, materialism, dialectic and logic would easily slip to the so called scientism or fascism of science or even positivism. Meanwhile, Tan Malaka against such inappropriate attitudes and he seems accept the anarchistic theory of knowledge which tends to position science, herbal medicines, acupuncture, moxibustion, astrology, even witchcrafts and other form of knowledge as equal as sciences. Anarchistic theory of knowledge would like to campaign that there is no single form of knowledge, even the scientific one, could be the most superior among others because each form of knowledge has its own unique and specific methods and there is no single measures would be appropriate to judge whether one is more excellent than the others. Yet Tan Malaka’s view rather different like what he states:

“Yet if other party from other faith says that such faith is lower from his or her faith, so I would ask in what directions that it could be lower. 17

Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 367.

If it was seen from the point of view of natural sciences (science and experiment) I dare to say that original faith of Indonesians at least equal, I honestly said equal, because there are some parts of it that could be examine and at least could not just throw arbitrarily. I do not mean to knock the door of stille krachten18, the secret nature which is saw by most people in Europe and Asia. I myself consider the separation between soul and body, which is soul, could stand in itself outside. Body, like one faith, is outside of the experience.” 19 Even though Tan Malaka admits that there is no single faith which could be lower than other faiths, he still needs the natural sciences to be his point of view in order to measure the original faith of Indonesians. Such reflection shows that Tan Malaka still thinks that he could convince the readers if he uses the natural sciences as the implication of his Madilog’s way of thinking; while the more fair position would not use one kind of knowledge in order to support the anarchistic theory of knowledge. Moreover, he states:

“The fault of original Indonesian faith, in accordance to dynamism, is the specific nature of things, animal, or human are perceived as the ultimate nature. The specific character or law were became the general character or law. So in the faith of all matters, they show simplicity: primitive thought. It is fit with the land of Indonesia and knowledge and technique which are lying on the ancient Indonesia.” 20 His analysis is brilliant but he failed to separate between the original Indonesian faith in itself with how the people interpret and implement their faith. Just as one community who would like to burn Al Qur’an or terrorists who do bombing around the world are not the same with what their faiths are and have taught them. It means that Tan Malaka would like to say that there was over generalization on how the people implement the specific character or law but I do not think this kind of fault is wholly the same with primitive thought. Furthermore, as one way of thinking, Tan Malaka’s interpretation on Madilog [as the product] is not a matter in itself but rather as an idea. That is the differentiation between what Marx says about interpreting the world with changing the world. However, the idea does exist in Madilog and remains one question: does Madilog refuse the existence of ideas or categorize it as the inherent part of matter or just refuse the idealism without rejecting the ideas? I think that Tan Malaka’s interpretation on materialism, dialectic, and logic would like to perceive that Madilog just reject the idealism as one philosophical way of thinking without 18

Literally means the silent forces. Tan Malaka, ibid., pp. 374-5. 20 Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 377. 19

rejecting the being of ideas as one important entity. This is more appropriate with Tan Malaka’s admittance on Divinity rather comprehensively refuse the existence of ideas or put the idea as one inherent part with the matter because idea and matter are linguistically, philosophically, and historically are two different entities. Tan Malaka’s investigation on the non-scientific matters or the other form of knowledge is not the way in looking for the consequences even though there are convincing evidences that things are still be needed in practising witchcrafts as an example. I think the great of searching the consequences in the frame of Tan Malaka’s Madilog is it would not extremely reject the seemingly immaterial noumenon or phenomenon like how most materialist thinkers would do, but emphatically and heuristically do sufficient investigation in order to search the present truth not just because it is challenging but because it is too worth for putting aside as well as it is the surrounded environment of most materialist thinkers in Asia and Africa. Just denying the power and influence of witchcrafts or other form of knowledge could push materialism, dialectic, and logic to the valley of alienation in most Asian and African communities. Tan Malaka’s attention on such other form of knowledge might relate to the connections between Madilog with the so called “four coordination” which put the environment as the first and foremost component. Organism, function, and adaptability are three other components which have its significance and should be aware when every thinker would like to use the Madilog.21 Tan Malaka’s hesitation on how to exactly implement the Madilog when facing divinity and faith is clearer especially when he states “Madilog could not directly valid to the faith, because faith is lack of the tools to step forward, which is matter. Yet in turn around, indirectly, Madilog could lighten that faith like the electrical torch which stands out of it, which does not enter the matter entirely.”22 This claim could not match with neither how Tan Malaka tries to investigate the so called “mystical logic” nor judging one fault of original Indonesian faith, exploring Hindhunese, Jews, Christian, and Buddhists’ faith. If he believes that witchcrafts, for instance, need things in order to show and deliver its significance influences or power, why does not he think that faith also need things or even matters too? Did not many prophets need matters or things as the medium for miracles? Did not Moses, Isa, and Muhammad use something to deliver the revelations or show their prophecies? Moses uses his cane to cleave the sea; Isa uses his hands to revitalize someone’s life; while Muhammad was followed by moving clouds wherever he goes. Even God uses two matters for teaching humans about God’s being that is the Holy Books and Cosmos and I think both 21 22

Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 352. Tan Malaka, ibid., p. 369.

of those two “Holy Books” should be explore, learn, and discovered by humans. The needs of matters or even things for supporting the being of faith, in my opinion, is the direct implementation of Madilog – in its widest range of definition and understanding – on faith.

Conclusion Madilog helps people to keep materialistically, dialectically, and logically thinking while pursuing, exploring, investigating, researching, or inventing knowledge and sciences. The controversy about materialism depends on to what extent we could understand and define it well: more extent our comprehension, more bigger the passion to investigate and thinking like what Tan Malaka has been showed, despite its degree of rightness. I think that matter could be best understood as a specific category in order to classify the substance which exists without denying the being of any unspecific category which classifies the nonunique substance that does not exist in the frame of space, sphere, and time. On the one hand, Tan Malaka seems nervous when harmonizing the Madilog (materialism, dialectic, and logic) with his faith. His nervousness could be transcended if he preferred to explain some foreign concepts just using foreign words better than trying to translate it into inappropriate or unavailable vocabularies due to the lack of words in ancient Bahasa Indonesia, because realities could not go beyond language. The farther Tan Malaka tries to translate one concept or word into ancient Bahasa Indonesia, the more he would face many misunderstandings among Indonesians on materialism, dialectic, logic, and science. On the other hand, different complexities among languages would make different realities among people around the word because each language makes its own boundaries to the users and these boundaries are out of the necessity of this paper.

***