SOCIALISM AND NATIONALISM: A COMPARISON BETWEEN THE THOUGHT OF H.O.S. TJOKROAMINOTO AND ALIMIN PRAWIRODIRJO

Socialism and Nationalism: A Comparison Between the Thought of H.O.S Tjokroaminoto and Alimin Prawirodirjo. Abstract Oemar Said Tjokroaminoto and Alimin bin Prawirodirdjo were Indonesian founding fathers who played a salient role in the national movement and represented two influential groups and ideas of their time, Islamism, and communism. Due to their significant roles in the Indonesia independent movement and the broader Indonesian political thought, exploring their ideas is important. Hence, this article aims to analyze their thoughts on nationalism and socialism. By using a qualitative approach, this study traces two sources of data. First, references that contain the statements of these two figures and other scientific references. Second, confirming them based on analysis of two key informants' interviews. The study has demonstrated that Tjokroaminoto and Alimin's views on socialism and nationalism overlap in some regards and diverge in other aspects.


Introduction
Indonesian national movements not only produced many important organizations, but also produced figures with influential political thoughts. Oemar Said Tjokroaminoto (Tjokroaminoto) and Alimin Prawirodirjo (Alimin) are historical political icons, not only in terms of their capacity as movement figures, but also as prominent ideologues with many followers. Tjokroaminoto was the founder and chairman of the Islamic Union (SI), while Alimin was an activist and the chairman of the Indonesia Communist Party (PKI). Each represented a school of thought in Indonesia that was very influential. The significance of the separate streams of thought that they both represented was captured in Soekarno's famous treatise in Suluh Indonesia entitled Nasionalisme, Islamisme dan Marxisme, which acknowledged Islam and Marxism as having a strong influence on the national movement (Sukarno, 1926).
Tjokroaminoto and Alimin developed their thought in the beginning of the 20th century prior to Indonesia's independence. They were inspired by the spirit of Nationalism and the values of socialism. Being inspired by both of these factors was not 102 Akademika : Jurnal Pemikiran Islam Vol. 27, No. 01 January -June 2022 unique, as most of the national independence figures were to some extent inspired by socialism and even used it as a basis for their nationalist movement. Ahmad Suhelmi (2007) regarded this as part of their efforts to find an intellectual basis in responding to and fighting against colonialism, capitalism or other right-wing ideologies. Nonetheless, comparing Tjokroaminoto and Alimin is not new, but it is still rarely discussed. Scholars have produced extensive research on Tjokroaminoto's social and political views, including on socialism and his position on Nationalism (Makin, 2017;Manan, 2016;Melayu, 2002;Mulawarman, 2015). On the other hand, there are fewer studies about Alimin, however, they are mainly focused on his biography and political activities or movement, and not a comprehensive study of the social and economic framework that shaped his politics (Alimin, 1957(Alimin, , 2018. Alimin was a communist leader who received less attention from researchers, as most studies on the communist or socialism movement or ideas in Indonesia mainly explore the views of figures such as Tan Malaka, Semaoen or Misbach (Brackman, 1963;Hiqmah, 2000aHiqmah, , 2000bPoeze, 1998;Syarizal Rambe, 2003;Semaun, 2000aSemaun, , 2000bSoewarsono, 2000;Yuliati, 2000). In general, these studies have also not been comparative; they mainly only focus on one big issue at a time. The only recent comparative research is a study done by Honghxuan which compares and scrutinizes the relationship between Islam and communism from [1915][1916][1917][1918][1919][1920][1921][1922][1923][1924][1925][1926][1927], and as such touches on the political views of both Tjokroamninoto and Alimin (Hongxuan, 2018).
For this reason, this study aims to contribute but also enhance the quality of existing studies on socialism and in Indonesia by discussing and comparing the complex political ideologies upheld by Tjokroaminoto and Alimin, who are now referred to as founding fathers and were prominent voices and leaders of the early 20th century or preindependence era.

B. Method
By using a qualitative approach, this study traces two sources of data. First, references that contain the statements of these two figures and other scientific references. Second, confirming them based on analysis of two key informants' interviews. The study has demonstrated that Tjokroaminoto and Alimin's views on socialism and nationalism overlap in some regards and diverge in other aspects.

C. Finding and Discussion Tjokroaminoto's Thought Brief Biography
Hadji Oemar Said Tjokroaminoto was born in Bakur, Sawahan, Madiun, east Java on August 16, 1882 (Mulawarman, 2015, p. 14). Tjokroaminoto was the second child of 12 children, from a father who came from the aristocratic class. His father was a civil servant with the rank of Wedana in Kleco, Madiun. His grandfather had served as regent of Ponorogo, and based on his family tree, he was also a descendant of the Kiai as well as the Priyayi. His great-grandfather was a cleric named Kiai Bagoes Kesan Besari, owner of an Islamic boarding school in Tegal Sari, Ponorogo (Mulawarman, 2015, p. 15). Tjokroaminoto's formal education began at the Opleidingsscholen voor Inlandse Ambtenaren (OSVIA), training school for native civil servants in Magelang. During his education, Tjokroaminoto was known as an active and aggressive student, because of this he often changed schools as he rebelled against every school rule enforced by the Dutch education system at that time. Tjokroaminoto completed his OSVIA education in 1902, then worked as a clerk at Glodog, Purwodadi. He married R.A. Soeharsikin in 1905, a Priyayi daughter of the deputy regent of Ponorogo.
During his time as a clerk, his intellectual rebellion began by questioning the employment system instituted by the Dutch. For instance, he questioned why the Javanese had to work as employees of the Dutch; why there were no Dutch clerks; why all coolies were Javanese and not Dutch; and why outside of his family and the Priyayi groups, farmers in the village were very poor and destitute, but still had to pay taxes to the Netherlands. These questions ultimately made him resign from his job in 1905. His resignation was a form of resistance to the feudal culture. This critical attitude damaged his relationship with his father-in-law, as such Tjokroaminoto decided to leave Madiun, and was believed to have lived in many unknown places. During this time, he began to learn and study books at various Islamic boarding schools and decided to be free from the demands of tradition imposed by his middle-class family, by living in Semarang with his wife. In Semarang, Tjokroaminoto's interaction with poor and working-class people is seen when he also worked odd jobs as a porter. He felt and understood the lives of the people who were far from living a comfortable life like he did growing up (Mulawarman, 2015, p. 15).
In 1907, Tjokroaminoto continued his studies at the School of Civil Engineering (Burgerlijke Avond School/BAS) majoring in engineering, while working at the Kooy & Co trading company to pay for his school tuition. After graduating in 1910, he worked as a machine engineer for one year and eventually became a chemist in a sugar factory in Surabaya between 1911-1912(Mulawarman, 2015). While working in Surabaya, young Tjokroaminoto's intellectual capabilities began to appear: his admirable journalistic writings, especially his writings about the poor conditions of the people due to the exploitation by foreign companies and the Dutch colonial occupation. His writings were published in a newspaper in Surabaya, Suara Surabaya. His work in the SI became a tangible form of Tjokroaminoto's intellectual resistance and rebellion against feudalism and the Dutch. He joined SI in May of 1912 at the invitation of the founder of the organization, H. Samanhoedi (Tempo, 2017, p. 6). Tjokroaminoto soon became the most influential person at SI because his speeches and writings encouraged many people to join SI. This was proven in 1913 when his speech was published in the newspaper, which encouraged native solidarity. He became incomparable such that he replaced Samanhoedi as chairman of the SI through a congress in Yogyakarta.
Being recognized as "Heru-Tjokro" was the peak of Tjokroaminoto's popularity; a symbol of the arrival of Ratu Adil in Javanese beliefs -a belief that the figure of "Ratu Adil" will bring Java out of misery and colonialism. This belief was particularly strong because of the low levels of education among Javanese natives, and due to poverty, colonialism, and other life difficulties (Rambe, 2010, p. 75). The belief that Ratu Adil was to free the people from suffering was a form of Javanese millenarianism, which also manifested in a number of protests across rural Java.

On Socialism
Tjokroaminoto's intellectual contribution to socialism in Indonesia is very well known today. His thoughts on and resistance to feudalism led to the emergence of Tjokroaminoto's beliefs about socialism. By fusing tenets of socialism with that of Islamic ideals, Tjokroaminoto mobilized Indonesians to challenge feudal culture and Dutch presence. This feudal culture, enhanced by Dutch colonialism, created a division in society, in particular between Priyayi (aristocrats) classes and non-Priyayi classes. Non-Priyayi classes were often referred to as indigenous groups, sometimes also identified as poor, uneducated, and other stigmatizing labels. They often worked for Priyayis and were even made slaves. As a result of this status-quo, on a practical level, Tjokroaminoto applied the progressive rules to his organization where members greeted each other, including him, in Ngoko (low) language, not Kromo (high) language (Anderson, 2006). 104 Akademika : Jurnal Pemikiran Islam Vol. 27, No. 01 January -June 2022 He even discarded his Raden Mas (the title for male nobility in Javanese aristocracy) (Asyhad, 2015).
Socialism in Islam according to Tjokroaminoto is more than a theory, it is an obligatory Muslim practice that he often referred to this as Islamic socialism. According to Tjokroaminoto, Islamic socialism rejects feudalism because Islam rejects the exploitation of poor people and slaves. He further argued that the elevation of the rights of slaves by Prophet Muhammed indicates a commitment to provide equality for all of humankind (Tjokroaminoto, 2017, p. 40): "The biggest step he took towards socialism was when he raised the level of a slave towards a level of independence. He gave slaves rights that they did not have. He made slaves to be coworkers, warrior heads, or leaders of various occupations." In Tjokroaminoto's writing, socialism is described as having multiple dimensions. However, equality in socialism was evidently the most fundamental in his work. It was a principle that was to clearly show that there is no difference in Islam between the king (leader) and his people (community) (Tjokroaminoto, 2017, p. 40). Based on this understanding, Islamic socialism advocates for the equality of every human, regardless of race, ethnicity or class (Tjokroaminoto, 2017, pp. 44-45). This principle as well as other socialist-aligned values are reflected in the commands laid out for Muslims, namely shadaqah and zakat. There are three basic teachings about alms. First, alms mean giving priority to the needs of the public rather than one's own. This goal illustrates self-sacrifice to others, so as not to let others starve to death. Second, alms in the form of zakat reflects the sharing of wealth with fellow Muslims. Zakat promotes the values of socialism in which poor people will get a share of the wealth of the rich. Third, alms mean less shame for poor people, and helps them to avoid illegal activities. In addition, in Islam, all Muslims are not only viewed as the same, but also considered "one". In interpersonal life, there are no differences, as such there is no room for division on the basis of class or other social differences. The nature of equality must also be fair because all Muslims are viewed as one soul in a body. As stated by Tjokroaminoto (2017, p. 17): "Muslims are one person. When a person feels pain in his head, his whole body feels pain too, and if his eyes hurt, his whole body feels pain too. A Muslim is one form, one part strengthens the other parts, with that kind of behavior one strengthens the other".
Therefore, Muslims are forbidden from any practice of differentiation or division, even in relation to non-Muslims. Another core value of Islamic socialism is the spirit of brotherhood. Since all human beings are one entity according to Islam, Tjokroaminoto believed that equality also meant brotherhood. Furthermore, brotherhood not only depicts equality, but also leads to the goal that has been set in Islam, namely humanity (Tjokroaminoto, 2017, p. 17). Tjokroaminoto further emphasized Islam's teachings that brotherhood must also be practiced among Muslims everywhere; whether red, yellow, white, black, rich or poor (Tjokroaminoto, 2017, pp. 44-46). The concept of brotherhood can eliminate class and caste differences, and instead create the sense of equality of rights. Tjokroaminoto's interpretation of this was that the concept of brotherhood emphasizes the real meaning of egalitarianism as promoted in socialism. More so, according to Tjokroaminoto, the Al-Quran has affirmed a sense of love and a sense of brotherhood in every Muslim person to feel mutual brotherhood to fellow Muslims.
Tjokroaminoto also argued that Western socialism was very different from Islamic socialism. In his view, Western socialism adopted secular approaches in which the fundamental element of the policy-making is people's interests, delivered through political representation (Manan, 2016), whereas the main reference of the political process in Islamic socialism is God's rules as stated in Al-Quran and Sunnah. Consequently, the main source of the Islamic socialist policies was Islamic law and not the interests of political parties (Manan, 2016). Land ownership, specifically Islam's teachings on land ownership, was another key feature of Tjokroaminoto's Islamic socialist ideology. Tjokroaminoto subscribed to the teachings and work of Prophet Muhammad in Medina, that land should be managed equally by the state, so that it could be used mainly for the interest of the people (Gonggong, 1985, pp. 73-76;Manan, 2016). According to socialist ideology, state ownership of land also means state control of the means of production, which is believed to ensure equal access for all people to land, food, healthcare, and all other basic and non-basic amenities. Tjokroaminoto favored this socialist quality of state control so much so that he protested that the private land owned by the foreigners to be returned to the state, to be reallocated in the interest of the Indonesian people (Gonggong, 1985, p. 69).
Finally, anti capitalism was also central to Tjokroaminoto's Islamic socialist ideology. This is primarily because Islam forbids usury, and as such capitalism should be challenged. Acts of exploitation, such as the unfair compensation of workers as well as the unequal division of the profits and benefits of any company is prohibited by Islam (Aziz, 2018). Therefore, Islam is opposed to capitalism because it sees the basis of capitalism as usury, and this is forbidden by Islamic law. Evidently, Tjokroaminoto's branch of socialism is anchored in Islam, and he believed that it ought to be carried out by Muslims, as long as it is an Islamic religious command. In Tjokroaminoto's view, the tenets and philosophies behind socialism has existed for over thirteen centuries; practiced since the time of the Prophet Muhammad, therefore, it does not draw from European ideologies. Rather, it is an ideology and a movement guided by Islamic identity in order to achieve the perfection of freedom from oppressive systems and governance (Manan, 2016).

On Nationalism
Tjokroaminoto never aspired to a form of nation-state that separates religion from the state, because his understanding of Nationalism was grounded in Islam. According to him, Nationalism for Indonesian people should be in line with the spirit of putting religion forward as part of political life,and not to marginalize it. He argued that if Nationalism was based on the idea of the separation between religion (Islam) and politics, it would be erroneous, as Muslims make up the majority of the population of Indonesia (Mulawarman, 2015, p. 39). In Tjokroaminoto's view, the choice of secular Nationalism in order to establish unity among Indonesia to reach independence was not correct. He believed that the spirit of Islamic based nationalism should be clearly expressed and struggled for, before and after Indonesia became an independent country. Tjokroaminoto, is quoted in Mulawarman (2015, p. 39) having expressed that: "In Indonesia itself, where the people are currently learning, and evoking nationalism zeal, there are also signs that they will lead Nationalism in the wrong direction. Some of our brothers who claim to be Muslims say: Now we want to become nationalists first. If this country becomes independent, we will try to regulate the government based on Islam. Obviously, this is a heresy in the Islamic view".
Tjokroaminoto also believed that every Muslim should be consistent in following their religion: they should not hide their beliefs and practices, and should be as zealous in public as they are with their families and in private spaces. He also criticized Muslims who refused to greet in an Islamic way in public meetings or occasions, regarding this 106 Akademika : Jurnal Pemikiran Islam Vol. 27, No. 01 January -June 2022 behavior as a "neutral attitude" by a "misguided Muslim". As quoted in Mulawarman (2015, p. 39): "There are also our brothers who claim to be Muslim but if they want to speak in gatherings, do not like to say greetings according to Muslim customs. And when in a meeting they hear greetings from a Muslim speaker, they do not answer it. There are also some brothers who claim to be Muslim but, in their Nationalism, they are "neutral" towards all religions even to their own religion (Islam!). Such Nationalism is really lost for us as Muslims".
In addition, Tjokroaminoto argued that discrimination or domination had no place in Nationalism. This was because Islamic based Nationalism teaches respect for religious differences. Tjokroaminoto believed that differences should not bring about a barrier in the achievement of independence for all. He further asserted that equality is important and should be the main focus for a new nation-state. This can be seen in his speech at the 2nd SI Central National Congress in Batavia on October 1917 (Raharjo, 2019, pp. 89-91): "…what we want is the same feeling, regardless of religious differences. Central of Sarekat Islam (Central Sarekat Islam/CSI) wants to promote the equality of all races in the Indies in such a way that it reaches (the stage) the self-government. CSI opposes capitalism. CSI does not tolerate human domination of other humans".
Within this Islamic socialist ideology upheld and promoted by Tjokroaminoto, national independence is seen as a prerequisite for practicing Islam in all aspects of life. If a nation does not have national independence, then it is impossible to achieve Nationalism in accordance with Islamic ideals of human unity. Patriotism was also another important factor highlighted by Tjokroaminoto as being a sign of the life of an ummah (community/people) practicing Islam to the fullest extent. He believed that striving for Nationalism and patriotism will produce the desired independence of the country (Makin, 2017, p. 275). He also argued that Nationalism should not only be about fiery and mesmerizing public speeches, instead, it should be a sacrifice by Muslims to achieve freedom, by promoting ma'aruf, goodness and truth, while preventing cruel and evil things (Mulawarman, 2015, p. 39).
Tjokroaminoto's efforts to evoke the spirit of Nationalism were evident when he led the SI. In Noor's analysis (2008) , the initial period of SI's existence was characterized by an awareness of national identity that came from three areas of consciousness: the awareness of Muslims subjected to pressure from other religious parties (invaders); the awareness of SI members as oppressed groups as a result of colonial practices; and the awareness of being part of a nation that was humiliated by foreign imperialists. Tjokroaminoto emphasized and cultivated an awareness of pride for being Indonesianthis is reflected in the myriad of ways that SI members conducted themselves. For example, the Indonesian language was used in SI organizational meetings and in many official documents, including organization statute. Similarly, "national congress" was used as a term for SI annual meeting since 1916. Even SI was committed to demanding a national self-government as a form of national sovereignty. For these reasons, scholars believe that SI had a deep contribution to Indonesia nationalism making (Jaelani, 1959;Mehden, 1957;Noor, 2008).
Tjokroaminoto's nationalist political agenda while at SI was clearly directed towards self-government and freedom from colonialism. At the SI Congress in 1916, this idea was put forward, as he called for governance and independence for the Indies (Indonesia) with the term zelfbestuur (self-government) (Raditya, 2018). In his statement, he said: "People increasingly felt, both in the Netherlands and in the Indies that zelfbestuur was really needed. People increasingly felt that it was no longer appropriate for the Indies to be governed by the Netherlands, like a landowner who controlled his lands".
With this statement, Tjokroaminoto became the figure of the first movement to dare to spark the idea of independence and advocate that the Indonesian people should have their own government. His views signaled a clear message that the Indonesian people no longer wanted to be a colony of the Dutch or that of any other foreign nation. His commitment was manifested later in his political activities both in the SI and the Volksraad.

Alimin's Thought
Alimin was born in Delangu village, Surakarta in 1889. He came from a poor family, but the difficulties Alimin experienced did not stop him from having a social and political voice. Alimin's attitude attracted the attention of a Dutchman named G.A.J. Hazeu who adopted him. Hazeu sent Alimin to Jakarta to become a government official, but he had other interests; he chose politics and journalism. In the realm of politics, Alimin joined Budi Utomo, while in journalism he published the Djawa Moeda newspaper and edited the journal Modjopahit (Mcvey, 2010, p. 301). At the age of 22, Alimin became a member of the Jakarta branch of Budi Utomo, led by Sadikun Tondokusuma. Alimin believed that Budi Utomo was primarily focused on improving the lives of the upper class, and it was separated from the masses or the common people. After SI was established, Alimin joined and became an early member of the SI led by Tjokroaminoto. Shiraishi, Indonesia political expert, then called Alimin as "Tjokroaminoto's man" (Shiraishi, 1997).
Alimin highly praised SI as a progressive and rapidly advancing organization, with more than 2,000,000 members spread throughout the Indonesian archipelago. Alimin believed that the creation of SI helped to the improve the consciousness of the Indonesian people. He said (Alimin, 1957, p. 8): "In my opinion, SI is the first mass movement, which paved the way for the development of national movements throughout Indonesia. Sarekat Islam was the first mass people's movement to arouse the spirit of the struggle of the oppressed people." Alimin was interested in labor issues, as such became one of the founders of the trade union founded by Adolf Baars, called the Association of Workers and Farmers (PKBT). He was also the deputy head of the pawnshop union and worked for the Batavian branch of the Mitsui Japanese company, but was later fired at the request of the ruler of the Dutch East Indies (Mcvey, 2010, p. 301 (January 1948-August 1949, Alimin supported Hatta Government and did not approve of Musso opposing it. He also supported diplomacy between the Indonesian and the Dutch government to secure Indonesian independence. In the 1955 Constituent Assembly election, Alimin was elected to represent the PKI, and during a debate about the state ideology, Alimin expressed that he was a supporter of the Pancasila ideology (Febriana, 2009). In this case, PKI interpreted the first principle of Pancasila (Five Pillars/Principles), namely "Belief in one God", as "religious tolerance and freedom for being neutral on religion". PKI figures viewed religion as private, that the state should not force anyone to choose a religion (Mahendra, 1999, p. 209). The interpretation of PKI was unique, but by having that interpretation PKI wanted to show that Pancasila as state ideology was still in line with the essence of communism.
After young communist D.N Aidit became PKI chairman in 1951, Alimin's role was diminished in the PKI CC (central committee). Shortly after, Aidit got rid of many of the old cadres, including Alimin, as he was considered weak, elitist and pragmatic (Febriana, 2009, pp. 35-36). On June 23, 1964, Alimin died from an illness, and a day after his death he was bestowed the Indonesian National Hero title by President Soekarno because of his contributions in the struggle against colonialism. According to Adam (Interview, 2020), Alimin's appointment as a national hero was due to the PKI's insistence and Soekarno's short-term strategic interests.

On Socialism
In comparison to a number of socialist thinkers, Alimin subscribed to socialist ideas put forward by Karl Marx, and that are considered to fall within the "early phase of communism". The early stage of communism outlines economic principles as needing to follow this logic: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work". Whereas fully fledged communist thought advances into: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (Budiardjo, 1984, p. 4). In this regard, Alimin's socialism is different from Robert Owen's and other non-communist socialist thinkers, also often referred to as "socialist democrats". Alimin understood socialism as divided into two types, namely utopian socialism, which was founded by figures such as Robert Owen, Saint Simon and Fourier, and scientific socialism, which was formed by Karl Marx (Alimin, 1947). It is popularly called "utopian socialism" because their ideas are not accompanied by a scientific concept, while scientific socialism, which was built on Marx's social theory, is seen as formed on the basis of scientific laws (Budiardjo, 1984, p. 78).
Political thinkers like Alimin believe in the promise of socialism as an economic system that will put an end to economic exploitation. It is understood that in a socialist society, people are prohibited from using the labor of people's others for their own interests and profit, and that every person will work for their own needs. Alimin said (1947, p. 10): "At the beginning of Socialism, the society still used the rules of the State, but that tools of the state of Socialism did not apply like the tools of the ruling State, but it is designed to educate people so that the craft production and the will to work will be high. And conversely, the instruments of the state are watched by the entire people of that society. Socialism is a society that leads to the continual addition of the welfare of the people". In a socialist society this law applies: "who works, can eat" -"who does not work, does not eat". Additionally, to guarantee the absence of exploitation, all means of production must be controlled by the state, and Alimin proposed that the Indonesian government must have one or two large companies which should become the basis of the national economy (Alimin, 1947, pp. 51-52). In lieu of this, Alimin's socialism tends to be centralized and opposes individual ownership. The state is to be responsible for guaranteeing the equitable distribution of prosperity and avoid any systematic forms of exclusion. According to Alimin, this socialist society has to be upheld through class struggle, thus, class consciousness must be formed. In Riwayat Hidupku, Alimin wrote (Alimin, 1957, p. 26): "According to Marx's lessons, the entire history from ancient times to the present is none other than the history of the struggle of the oppressors and oppressed; the exploiter and the exploited; the struggle between the bourgeois class and the proletarian class." In the Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx expressed that all political struggles, whether in the West or the East, are none other than that of economic struggle. The class struggle theory taught by Marx is based on the theory of dialectical materialism where there are only two classes in each phase of the development of human history, and in contribution to this view, Alimin (1947, p. 32) said:

"Dialectics is the law of movement (beweging), the law of motion, the law of conflict. Dialectics is the law of the progress of society which consists of several groups. Dialectics is the law of all motion, both outside (outer), and in the way of the human mind (inner), all of which are bound by the law of dialectics. The law of dialectics determines the process of birth, the process of continuity or negation.
Dialectics is also the process of changing, from watery to thick (frozen) and from freezing to watery, so from quantity to quality and vice versa. This is dialectics of quantity. Marx's dialectics is specifically used to view the course of the revolutionary movement. A view that is far from fantasy, far from ideals, far from estimates, and far from dialectics based on the spirit of "adventure", "adventurism"..." Alimin also believed that the dialectical process -which culminates into a conflict between the bourgeois class and the proletariat, which will later give birth to socialism -needed to be driven by a revolution of the proletariat or the workers. Conflict between classes should not be avoided, it must happen. For Alimin, revolutionary action is essential to producing the ideal social economic system, which is communism, more so, in his view the eradication of anti-revolutionary groups is necessary. This is seen in Alimin's (1947, p. 11) comments on socialism: "Socialism is a social system that was born by the revolutionary action of the workers and their comrades in arms. Thus, socialism is born from capitalist society on the condition that its driving forces are active action and revolutionary. According to Historical Materialism, the transition from one society to another -a transition to a higher levelfor example, a slavery society became a feudal society and from the feudal society, a capitalist society was born. Displacement or transition from one community to another does not occur by peaceful or safe means, but by means of opposition and struggle -by means of desperate resistance".
Ultimately, Alimin believed that a classless society is the fundamental goal of a socialist or communist nation. And this was indeed what Marx envisioned, namely the formation of a society in which there are no more social classes. 110 Akademika : Jurnal Pemikiran Islam Vol. 27, No. 01 January -June 2022 To create this, a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat is needed to eliminate private ownership which would put an end to exploitation and oppression. A classless society would also lead to a stateless society, not only that, the communist party will also eventually cease to exist. Hence, Alimin committed his efforts toward abolishing class divisions in Indonesia and became a noble struggle of his and his party: "…With the elimination of classes in society, the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) will disappear by itself, but as long as the classes in society still exist, the PKI will remain standing like a rock in the midst of society...". (Alimin, 1957, p. 24).

On Nationalism
Alimin's political outlook was formed from through the lens of anti-colonialism and revolutionary movement against Dutch colonialism. This outlook, where workers and peasants are main actors, is also inseparable from the arguments put forward by Marx and Lenin. Therefore, it is unsurprising that Alimin thought about Nationalism as inseparable from the following: revolution, the labor movement, the peasant movement, capitalism and imperialism. Alimin also believed in international co-operation and community, in which newly independent nations must join the international communist organization called the Comintern. Alimin's strong belief in the role of the Comintern can be seen in his presence at two Comintern congresses (Alimin, 1957, p. 24).
Independence and unity were two other elements that Alimin argued could not be separated from Nationalism. Independence requires unity and unity requires independence -without independence, it is difficult to foster unity as a nation, and without unity it is difficult to achieve independence. The peculiarity of independence from colonialism and imperialism is why Nationalism in Asia, when compared to Europe, is quite different. Asian Nationalism is the resurgence of the colony to gain independence, to establish a free and independent state. In other words, Alimin's Nationalism is a combination of anti-colonialism, fighting for independence and building new glory for the nation (Sugianto, 2018, pp. 5-7).
In relation to this, it can be said that Alimin's Nationalism is "revolutionary nationalism". It is a nationalism in the form of a revolution against colonialism, which the workers and peasants are the main actors. For this reason, to have support from the workers and peasants is crucial. For Alimin, the national revolution in Indonesia had easily overcome several reactions and difficulties because of the help from the poor peasants and petty proletariat. According to him, the national revolution in Indonesia was excellent at suppressing counter-revolution inside the country and resisting counter-revolution outside with the help of peasant youths and young workers who defended the national revolution.
Alimin's view of revolutionary Nationalism is also inseparable from the crisis of capitalism. He argued that the 1926 revolution in Indonesia was a pioneer of the revolution in the Pacific and was caused by an economic damage brought about by the crisis of capitalism. Speaking on this, Abdurakhman argued 2020): "Related to the views on national movements, one thing that is interesting from Alimin's view is about the factors. What factors caused the emergence of a movement in Indonesia? Often, we only see outside factors (external); more likely to be subjective as in Alimin's view. So, the objective factors are often forgotten by the figures of the movement. It was mentioned that almost all of Alimin's views on national movements were driven by the economic factors." Chauvinistic Nationalism, which refers to hate for or opposition to other nations, was also addressed by Alimin as having no place in Indonesian Nationalism. In this regard, Alimin's view is similar to that of other founding fathers, such as Soekarno. Similarly, Soekarno (1964, p. 112) emphasized that the Nationalism that he built was not based on national pride or chauvinism and was not an imitation of Western Nationalism. In Alimin's writing, he proclaimed that although chauvinistic thought has existed, it will no longer exist in Indonesia: "We know that in Indonesia the question of nationality is no longer a problem. At the time of revolution and counter-revolution, a group of people in Indonesia were united and another group separated itself. But as long as the revolution wins, then this group of nations will always struggle together. They do not care about anything. The revolution must win. In Indonesia today, we have seen the groups of nations gather and unite as one large nation. They fought together based on the unity of the Nation and on the basis of Patriotism -love for homeland and nation. As far as our knowledge in Indonesia the "chauvinistic" feeling has almost disappeared altogether". (Alimin, 1957, p. 31) In summary, for Alimin, Indonesia and its people will win as long as they unite to achieve the unification of the entire Indonesian population and the unity of all leaders of political movements in Indonesia. Furthermore, prejudice, hatred and pride must be abandoned, instead the people's power should be harnessed to defend Indonesia to overthrow the Dutch (Alimin, 1957;Febriana, 2009). He declared the motto: "Let's unite the entire population of Indonesia and gather all the energy and strength for the Republic of Indonesia" (Alimin, 1957).

Comparison of Thought
There are overlapping and peculiar characteristics between Tjokroaminoto and Alimin's thoughts on socialism and Nationalism. Some of these characteristics are less glaring than others, and as such, the next section will provide a discussion on the similarities and differences between these two political thinkers.

On Socialism and the Ideal Type of Society
There are various interpretations of socialism, and oftentimes, conflicting ones. However, despite its many definitions, the essence of socialism is summed up by Kolakowski as: "The belief that uncontrolled concentration of wealth and wealth will undoubtedly lead to growing poverty and crisis, that this system must be replaced by another system in which the organization of production and the exchange of results will eliminate poverty and exploitation and result in the distribution of new wealth in accordance with the principles of equality, to whom according to his work or in broader perspective, to whom according to his needs" (Magnis-Suseno, 1999, p. 19).
Socialism has been an interest of Tjokroaminoto and Alimin, which they used as tools to fight capitalism and colonialism. However, both share different point of views, in which Islam is the foundation of socialism for Tjokroaminoto and historical materialism is the foundation for Alimin's socialism. Tjokroaminoto believed that Islam, specifically Islamic law and teachings, should be the basis of socialism. The most fundamental pillars for him were ending oppression, prioritizing collective interests over individual interests, and caring for fellow human beings. He believed that Indonesian Muslims should not fully follow or adopt western version of socialism, since Islamic teachings have foundations and values that are in line with the spirit of socialism. These were the essential values that fueled Tjokroaminoto to build the type of socialism 112 Akademika : Jurnal Pemikiran Islam Vol. 27, No. 01 January -June 2022 that he upheld. Islamic socialism was Tjkroaminoto's chosen answer to the phenomenon of injustice that he was a part of.
In contrast, Marxism was the foundation of Alimin's socialist struggles. Class struggle from the Marxist perspective of economic determinism was central to his political analysis. However, according to Shiraishi (1997), he also tried to harmonize the teachings of communism and that of Islam, for instance, on the 22 nd of November 1923 in Surakarta, he gave a speech before the members of Sarekat Rakyat, and he said, "... if we communists could reach ranks, it would be easy to turn the world of capitalism into communism and true Muslims could free themselves to follow God's path ..." (Shiraishi, 1997, p. 425). Nevertheless, the main aim of Alimin's socialism was still to create a communist, classless society. The execution of this was evident in the existence of the Indonesia Communist Party which facilitated attempts to carry out land revolution for peasants, to eliminate the monopoly of foreign investors and to end feudalism. Like Tjokroaminoto, he also believed that socialism was the best tool to fight colonialism and imperialism.
Indonesia is still in a state of struggle towards achieving equality for all of its people, as the gap between the poor and the rich continues to be perpetrated by a capitalist system. Although it seems unlikely that socialism or its variants as offered by Tjokroaminoto and Alimin will be followed in large numbers by Indonesians, some of their thoughts, including the spirit of equality and an anti-capitalist consciousness could reform the Indonesian political economic situation.
At the beginning of the Reform Era there were actually political parties that tried to fight for socialism agendas, including the People's Democratic Party (PRD), the People's Sovereign Party (PDR) and the New Indonesia Party (PIB). Unfortunately, these parties did not get enough support from the public and have no seat in the parliament. In general sense, the issues of inequality and anti-capitalist remain minority in the Indonesian political constellation, reflected people and elite less concerned on it. This condition to some extent gives a way the resurgence of oligarchic tendencies in the Indonesia current political situation.

About Nationalism and the Idea of Bounding Values
Ernest Gellner (1983, p. 1) defined Nationalism as the principle of political legitimacy that unites the ethnic and political units in a country in a conscious or noncoercive way. Benedict Anderson (1983) stipulated that Nationalism is an "imagined community" that binds several groups of people who often do not know each other on the basis of brotherhood, from which a shadow of sovereignty with a certain territorial boundary is created. By contrast, Guibernau and Rex believed in Nationalism as a tool to unite without coercion, in the spirit of equality and citizenship (trans-ethnic), based on the spirit of promoting the rights of society in a certain territory (Rex, 1997, p. 8). Essentially, Nationalism can take various meanings and many interpretations.
Tjokroaminoto believed that Islam would play a salient role in the formation of a nation-state, particularly as a main foundation for Indonesia unity. Islam could establish the spirit of the brotherhood and the sense of togetherness among oppressed people. Indonesia nationalism, based on the spirit of Islam, will enhance solidarity for all Indonesian people regardless their ethnic background, class, or social status. Tjokroaminoto also praised Nationalism as the most noble expression in Islam, which love of the country and homeland as thought by the Prophet Muhammad was one of the main foundations. Moreover, Tjokroaminoto argued that Islam has a potential to be state foundation since the teachings of Islam have solution for all humanitarian problems (political, social and economic) (Munasichin, 2005, p. 120). Nationalism based on Islamic principles also means respect other nations or country. For this reason, the senses of being superior before other nations and desire to conquer or destroy the existence of other nations are not allowed.
As for Alimin, communism is the best foundation for establishing an independent nation. The faith on the unity of oppressed people (the proletariat) must be the main spirit in creating a sense of togetherness as a basis of a nation-state. It is in line with Marx's doctrine stated in the Communist Party Manifesto, "In the national struggle of the proletariat in various countries, they show and promote the common interests of all the proletariat". Furthermore, chauvinism is not the objective of Nationalism, since Indonesia should have equal position with other countries, respect their existence establish and willing to establish cooperation with all nations. To him chauvinism is a form of fanaticism by glorifying own nation and demeaning other nations. Excessive love for nations and hostility to other would endanger the existence of humankind. Under these conditions, Indonesia diversity must be respected and the feeling of being chauvinistic will soon disappear (Alimin, 1947). In addition, revolution is the rational way to free Indonesia from imperialism and establish national independence. To Alimin, revolution could break up the chain of foreign domination and imperialism.
Alimin and Tjokroaminoto's respective perspectives on Nationalism were the result of their experiences as national figures in the early years of the 20th century, as people who believed in the possibility of creating a nation-state that is diverse. The methods to be adopted in bringing about this goal is where the differences between their schools of thought emerge .

D. Conclusion
The discussion in this paper has demonstrated that Tjokroaminoto and Alimin's views on socialism and Nationalism overlap in some regard, but also diverge in other aspects. Tjokroaminoto fused values from Islamic teaching with that of socialist ideology, thereby creating an intellectual resistance movement against the unjust conditions experienced by many Indonesians. While Alimin relied on Marxist theory to inform his socialist commitment of eliminating economic exploitation in society. To an uncritical eye, their views might appear to be complementary, however, there are undeniable fundamental differences which make it difficult to unite their separate positions toward achieving nationalism. In spite of this and the continued domination of capitalism, both of these founding fathers remain two of Indonesia's most celebrated intellectual political thinkers.