Compiled and written by Agra’s Central Comittee to document our most recent struggles from year 2025 - 2026. JOURNAL OF OUR STRUGGLES report & ANALYSIS Feudalism or Capitalism? The Oil Palm Wood Analysis Put OUt the fires! Save the people! “Unite Our Stance, Improve Our Practice, Oppose the Land Grabbing Regime!“ Indonesia’s False Land Reform Written by the AGRA Central Committee, on the Indonesian Agrarian Reform Regulation Law (UU Pengaturan Reforma Agraria) On September 22nd 2026, exactly two days before the commemoration of the 66th National Peasant Day, the Government of Indonesia passed the Agrarian Reform Regulation Law through a Plenary Session of the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI). All political party factions gave their approval, as did the ministers as representatives of the government. Not a single voice of opposition was heard. Everyone present at the plenary session appeared to stand proudly, as if they were loyal defenders of the interests of the Indonesian people. Does the law indicate that Indonesia is truly ready to implement Agrarian Reform to improve the welfare of the peasantry, eradicating poverty and austerity in rural areas, as well as an initial step toward building genuine people's sovereignty? Has Indonesia truly ready to abolish land monopoly as the main basis for the existing feudal system that has been deeply rooted for hundreds of years? These questions arise because we understand that Indonesia is a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. Under these conditions, the character of the ruling regime is certainly a puppet government of Imperialism, whose only interest is to ensure that Indonesia remains a country producing raw materials for the interests of large industries owned by imperialists, a provider of cheap labor for imperialist-owned industries, while ensuring its large population remains a promising market for the products of imperialist-owned industries, as well as a Indonesia’s false land reform provider of land as extensively as possible for the export of capital arising from the excess capital of imperialists. Land monopoly is the main root of poverty and rural austerity that has existed for hundreds of years, which can be briefly described as follows: Land Grabbings during Colonialism and Feudalism The historical foundation of the process of land monopoly formation in Indonesia can be traced back to the victory of Dutch colonialism in various wars of conquest in the 19th century. The defeat in the Java War (1825–1830) became an important turning point in Indonesian history because it opened the way for the consolidation of colonial powers throughout the Archipelago. Following this victory, the colonial government expanded its conquests through various wars outside Java, such as the Padri War, Banjar War, Aceh War, Lombok War, and various other wars. These military victories were not merely a change of political power. On the basis of armed force, Dutch colonialism carried out a systematic process of land grabbing and destroyed the people's sovereignty over agrarian resources. Meanwhile, true Agrarian Reform is to transform the structure of land ownership and control in order to ensure the improvement of the welfare of the peasantry. Agrarian Reform begins with the distribution or redistribution of land to the landless peasant, poor peasants, and lower-middle peasants, in order to ensure that every peasant has sufficient land to meet the needs of their livelihood and household. This program is then followed by the restructuring of production and the cooperativization of production outputs to ensure that the peasantry has sovereignty over both its agricultural inputs and outputs. In this sense, Agrarian Reform aims to reduce and even abolish the land monopoly system – Feudalism. This means completely breaking the main chain of Indonesia's dependence on colonialism and the influence of Imperialism. A Brief History of Land Monopoly in Indonesia 1 Thus, the roots of inequality in agrarian control in Indonesia cannot be separated from the history of land grabbing carried out by colonialism and continued through various forms of large-scale land control to this day. Sultanates and feudal kingdoms were not completely abolished, but were subjugated and made into a social base for the expansion of colonial power. Following the Java War, the colonial government implemented the Forced Cultivation System (Cultuurstelsel), which is a system to push various export commodities for the interests of the world market. For decades, the people were forced to surrender their labor, land, and production in order to sustain colonial profits and finance the development of capitalism in the Netherlands. This suffering was subsequently expanded through the emergence of the Agrarische Wet of 1870, or the Colonial Agrarian Law. This regulation became the legal basis for the open-door policy that directed European private capital to gain broad access to lands in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia name before independence). From that time onward, a large-scale process of land liberalization took place. Lands that had previously been used by the people to meet their needs were transformed into plantations producing export commodities. The people lost their land, while large plantation companies obtained extensive land-control rights with the full support of the colonial state. This colonial agrarian development model remains deeply embedded and forms a structural foundation that largely persists to this day. Many large plantations, forest areas, as well as agrarian management models that developed during the colonial period were maintained and inherited by the post-independence Indonesian state. Nationalization after Independence and the Emergence of the State as a Landlord After independence, one of the important steps taken by the Indonesian government was the nationalization of companies owned by the Dutch, particularly through Law Number 86 of 1958. This step was significant in the struggle against colonial domination. However, from an agrarian perspective, 2 These weaknesses deter away from the objective of destroying land monopoly as the basis of feudal and imperialist exploitation. Nevertheless, the UUPA remains an important milestone because, for the first time, the state recognized the inequality in land control as a structural problem that had to be resolved However, in practice, the implementation of land reform based on the UUPA faced a number of fundamental limitations. One of the main problems was that the principal targets of redistribution largely consisted of land exceeding maximum limits, land with no ownership, inherited land, and several other categories. As a result, the targets of land reform primarily affected lands owned by middle peasants, rich peasants, and classical landlords, while the concentration of land control in the form of large-scale concessions and direct state control was not adequately addressed. From Land Reform to Land Administration Historically, the so-called agrarian reform in Indonesia is rooted in the spirit of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) of 1960. The UUPA emerged as an aspiration to build an independent national economy and eliminate the remnants of feudalism and imperialism within Indonesia's agrarian system. To realize these objectives, various regulations for land reform were subsequently established to carry out the redistribution of land to the people. such nationalization did not automatically eliminate the land monopoly inherited from colonialism. The lands of former Dutch plantation companies were largely transferred into state assets and subsequently managed by state-owned companies that later developed into various State Plantation Companies and State Forestry Companies. As a result, the form of land monopoly changed, but the land monopoly itself was not dismantled. If the land had been previously controlled by Dutch colonial companies, much of that land was transferred under state control after nationalization. In this sense, the state assumed the position of a "new landlord" replacing the old colonial landlords. 3 through agrarian reform. To achieve these objectives, the project is targeted to include: 1. systematic registration of approximately 4.8 million hectares of land; Since that period, the orientation of agrarian policy gradually shifted from the land reform agenda, which emphasized redistribution and transformation of the structure of land control, toward the land administration agenda, which emphasized administrative organization, legalization, and legal certainty of land rights. Since the governance of Soeharto during the New Order era, the orientation of agrarian policy shifted significantly from transforming the structure of land control toward strengthening the land administration system. This shift can be seen through various land modernization projects supported by the World Bank. One of the most influential projects was the Land Administration Project (LAP), which was implemented beginning in the 1990s. Its main focus was accelerating land registration, certification of land rights, development of land administration systems, and strengthening the legal certainty of land rights. All of these orientations were directed at ensuring certainty of land rights and land administration in order to ensure investment security, open access to credit, and encourage the efficiency of the land market. ILASP: A New Stage of Land Administration Reform for Imperialist Interests This shift is increasingly visible through the emergence of the Integrated Land Administration and Spatial Planning Project (ILASP). On September 30th, 2024, the World Bank's Board of Executive Directors approved the ILASP project worth US$653 million or approximately Rp10–11 trillion. The official objective of this project is to strengthen land administration, land tenure security, climate-informed spatial planning, and digital land information systems. According to World Bank documents, ILASP aims: "to strengthen climate-informed spatial planning, land tenure security and land administration in Indonesia". 4 Through Presidential Regulation Number 62 of 2023, the government established strategies for implementing agrarian reform through: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. asset legalization; land redistribution; economic empowerment of agrarian reform subjects; agrarian reform institutions; public participation. From the overall direction of the program, it becomes increasingly apparent that the main goal of Indonesia's agrarian/land policy is directed toward ensuring convenience and security for the export of imperialist capital, whether through investment schemes, cooperation, or debt. From this perspective, the term Agrarian Reform, hijacked from the hands of the peasantry through these programs, is ultimately not directed toward dismantling the structure of land monopoly, but rather toward ensuring the convenience and security of investment through strengthening land administration systems and certainty of land rights. 2. 3. 4. development of a national digital land information system; preparation of more than 500 spatial plans; integration of land administration and spatial planning. In line with these objectives, the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) at the time also stated that improving the quality of spatial planning through ILASP was expected to increase certainty for investors and have an impact on economic growth. Manifestation of ILASP in Indonesia's Agrarian Reform Program In line with the entry of funding through the ILASP project, the Government of Indonesia issued Presidential Regulation Number 62 of 2023 concerning the Acceleration of Agrarian Reform Implementation, replacing Presidential Regulation Number 86 of 2018. Subsequently, during the Prabowo administration, the Agrarian Reform Regulation Law was also issued as a continuation of this policy direction. 5 In addition, Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency also reported the success of agrarian reform through conflict resolution Although the regulation still places land redistribution as one of the main strategies, in its implementation, the asset legalization part has been far more dominant than land redistribution. However, upon closer examination, it turns out that this achievement was dominated by the asset legalization program. From the asset legalization target of 4.5 million hectares, approximately 10.34 million hectares, or 229.78 percent of the target, had been legalized. This achievement mainly came from the Complete Systematic Land Registration (PTSL) program and certification of people's land program. Furthermore, the land redistribution and release of forest areas in question largely did not originate from new land distributed to the people. Most of it instead came from land that had long been controlled and worked by the people, either in the form of transmigration program land or customary land. Thus, in practice, the program essentially resembles asset legalization or land administration more than redistribution of land in the true sense of agrarian reform. The government stated that the agrarian reform target in the National Medium – term Development Plan (RPJMN) of 9 million hectares had been exceeded. According to data presented at the 2024 Agrarian Reform Summit, the achievement of agrarian reform reached approximately 12.1 to 12.5 million hectares, or around 138 percent of the target. At first glance, these figures indicate a major success. From the initial target of 4.5 million hectares of land to redistribute, approximately only 1.81 million hectares, or around 40 percent of the target, were realized. Even land redistribution from the release of forest areas, with the initial target of 4.1 million hectares, only reached approximately 380 thousand hectares, or around 9.27 percent. 6 In practice, these lands often become a source of spoils for land speculators in rural areas. One example is the practice of releasing former Right to Cultivate (HGU) land of PT. Condong company in Garut, West Java, covering approximately 300 hectares. In this case, the peasants who had been involved in the struggle and conflict for years received only a very limited portion of the land, while a large portion instead became an object of distribution among land speculators, including local government officials. This situation could subsequently generate new horizontal conflicts because the amount of land available for distribution was not proportional to the number of peasant families who had struggled for decades. in 24 Agrarian Reform Priority Locations, with the redistribution of 14,968 land parcels covering approximately 5,133 hectares to 11,017 families. If divided equally, this area amounts to only around 0.47 hectares per family and still falls within the category of smallholder farmers according to the government's definition. First: Affirming that genuine Agrarian Reform aims to end the monopoly over land and agrarian resources through the redistribution of land to the landless Thus, when viewed from both its achievements and policy orientation, the agrarian reform program currently being implemented is heavily focused on the aspects of asset legalization, land certification, land tenure security, and land digitalization. During the on-going Prabowo-Gibran administration, this orientation subsequently received a stronger legal foundation through the Agrarian Reform Regulation Law. Therefore, the agrarian reform that has now been enacted into law will certainly not differ much from previous programs, namely as an instrument to implement land tenure security and land administration aimed at ensuring the convenience and security of investments, in accordance with the policy direction promoted through the World Bank's ILASP program. The Indonesian People’s Positionand Demands 7 peasants, poor peasants, and lower-middle peasants as the main groups who have historically lacked or been deficient in means of production. Fifth: Affirming that Agrarian Reform must be implemented as an integrated whole consisting of land redistribution, restructuring of production, and cooperativization of production outputs. Without these three elements, Agrarian Reform will only produce a change in the status of land ownership without a change in the welfare of the people. Third: Demanding that the main objects of Agrarian Reform must come from lands monopolized by large landlords, whether state or private, in the form of plantation, forestry, mining, or other forms of agrarian concessions that obstruct the fair distribution of land. Sixth: Demanding that National Agrarian Reform Bodies (BRAN) and all implementing bodies of Agrarian Reform be predominantly composed of representatives of the organizations of the Agrarian Reform subjects themselves, namely peasant organizations, fisherfolk organizations, ethnic minority groups, and other people's organizations that are directly concerned with the success of Agrarian Reform. Second: Rejecting the narrowing and deviation (misdirection) of the meaning of Agrarian Reform into merely land certification, asset legalization, resolution of agrarian conflicts, or land administration. All of these programs are only a small part of Agrarian Reform and cannot replace its main objective, namely transforming the structure of land control. Fourth: Demanding that the main subjects of Agrarian Reform be explicitly determined as Landless Peasants, poor peasants, and lower-middle peasants, including women Peasants, and rejecting efforts to expand the subjects of Agrarian Reform to groups that economically no longer require land redistribution. 8 Seventh: Rejecting the discussion of the Agrarian Reform Regulation Bill that is exclusive, rushed, and lacking in public participation. The drafting of Agrarian Reform regulations must guarantee the active involvement of people's organizations as the main stakeholders. Eighth: Encouraging the emergence of Genuine Agrarian Reform as part of the struggle to realize food sovereignty, rural democracy, independent national industrial development, and the liberation of the Indonesian people from poverty, dependency, and agrarian inequality. 9 With these characteristics—and amid the determination of neo-liberal policies— economic and political conditions dictate that oil palm functions as a commodity crop, operating entirely as "commercial farming." Palm oil, particularly from the fruit, can be processed into biofuels (biodiesel) and various products useful for consumption and industrial raw materials, including cooking oil, margarine, soap, cosmetics, steel, wire, radio, leather, and pharmaceuticals. At least 62 derivative products can be processed from oil palm. The advantages of palm oil as a vegetable oil include its resistance to oxidation under high pressure, its ability to dissolve chemicals insoluble in other solvents, high coating capacity, and non-irritating properties for cosmetic use. Characteristics and Cultivation History of Palm Oil Plants Oil palm is a type of palm tree. There are two species commonly cultivated as commodity crops for vegetable oil, which serves as an industrial raw material and biofuel feedstock: Elaeis guineensis and Elaeis oleifera . In Indonesia, the species predominantly cultivated is Elaeis guineensis, also known as the African Oil Palm ( Elaeis guineensis Jacq. ). This species was first introduced to Indonesia during Dutch colonialism; specimens were brought from Mauritius or Reunion, Africa, and planted in the Bogor Botanical Gardens. Oil palms grow best in tropical regions (15°N–15°S) at altitudes ranging from 0 to 500 meters above sea level, with relative air humidity between 80% and 90%. They require a stable annual rainfall climate of 2,000 to 2,500 mm and thrive in well-drained soils free from waterlogging. 10 feudalism or capitalism? the palm oil wood analysis In Indonesia, oil palm has been cultivated as a commodity crop since 1911, primarily driven by the increasing demand for vegetable oil resulting from global industrial development. At the time, cultivation was pioneered by Adrien Hallet from Belgium, followed by K. Schadt. The first oil palm plantation was located on the East Coast of Sumatra (Deli) and in Aceh, covering an area of 5,123 hectares. Concurrently, a breeding and selection center was established in Marihat, known as AVROS in North Sumatra. Since then, oil palm plantations have continually expanded, making the Dutch East Indies a primary supplier of world palm oil. The Dutch colonial era as a major global oil supplier experienced a downturn during the Japanese occupation and the Old Order administration. During this period, production plummeted to one-fifth of its 1940 levels. Consequently, Malaysia temporarily assumed the role of the world's leading oil supplier. Starting from the New Order administration—with the objective of mobilizing capital and extracting surplus production from the peasantry to secure power— oil palm plantations were developed intensively and extensively. The Nucleus Estate Smallholder (PIR / Perkebunan Inti Rakyat) policy scheme under the slogan of the "Green Revolution" served as an essential instrument and cover for expanding oil palm plantations and dispossessing lands belonging to both peasantry and ethnic minority groups in rural communities. The PIR policy was subsequently renewed through concepts such as the Primary Cooperative Credit for Members (KKPA / Kredit Koperasi Primer Anggota), the Single Roof Management (Manajemen Satu Atap), and various other partnership models. Nevertheless, these policy renewals maintained the same underlying objective: to execute land grabbing and extract peasant surplus production even more intensively and subtly. Oil palm was first introduced by the Dutch colonial administration in 1848. Several seeds were cultivated in the Bogor Botanical Gardens, and some were planted along roadsides in Deli, North Sumatra, as ornamental plants in 1870. 11 Today, large-scale palm oil plantations continue to expand. In 1940—Correction / Data adjustment based on text: In 2023, according to a report by the Geospatial Information Agency (BIG) alongside the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Indonesia, the total oil palm canopy cover in Indonesia reached 17.3 million hectares. This represents an increase of approximately 0.93 million hectares from the previous figure of 16.38 million hectares in 2019. 1 The workforce absorbed by the palm oil industry increased from 12.5 million people in 2015 to 16.5 million people in 2021. Out of the 16.5 million workers absorbed by Indonesia's oil palm plantations in 2021, 9.7 million were direct workers on oil palm estates. This total comprises 5.2 million smallholder oil palm plantation workers and 4.5 million employees of state and private plantation companies. The remaining roughly 8 million people worked indirectly in activities such as Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) / Crude Palm Oil (CPO) transportation, fertilizer and tool supply, office equipment supply, and other related activities. 1 In December 2022, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimated world palm oil production for the 2022/2023 period at 77.22 million tons, representing an increase of 3.39 million tons or 4.59 percent compared to the previous year. Of this total, Indonesia contributed 45.5 million tons, From the early New Order era through the 1980s, Java, Sumatra, and parts of Sulawesi became the initial regions for oil palm plantation development in Indonesia. With the dual aims of attracting maximum investment on the one hand, and driving economic growth while reducing poverty and unemployment on the other, the New Order administration continuously expanded oil palm plantations to other islands deemed to have potential based on land availability, soil conditions, climate, weather, and overall geographic suitability. Kalimantan, Sulawesi, and later Papua were selected as development regions due to their favorable conditions for oil palm cultivation. 1 (Uncover Truth : Is the Palm Oil Industry Only Uses Small Amounf of Labor?), Agustus 20,2024 Cited from the GAPKI Website: Mitos & Fakta-4, Publication Menguak Kebenaran: Apakah Industri Sawit Nasional Hanya Menyerap Sedikit Tenaga Kerja /Berita Terkini, Mitos&Fakta, 12 The following outlines the characteristics of large-scale plantation systems in Indonesia: These categories help clarify whether the prevailing large-scale palm oil plantation system has fully transformed into a capitalist agricultural/plantation system, or—as many studies in Third World countries such as Indonesia, Latin America, Africa, and Asia define it—whether it constitutes an agricultural system characteristic of Third World nations, namely a "Dualistic Economy" following the definition by J.H. Boeke (Bharata, 1973). 3 equivalent to 59 percent of global palm oil production, thereby remaining the world's largest palm oil producer 2 Major corporate groups controlling large-scale oil palm plantations in Indonesia include Sinar Mas Group, Wilmar International, First Resources, Harita Group, Salim Group, IOI Group, Sampoerna Group, Genting Plantations, DSN, Cargill, and BW Plantations. As a case study, the Sinar Mas Group is the largest oil palm plantation company in West Kalimantan, holding the most extensive land concession area at 258,617 hectares, managed through 18 subsidiary companies. The Sinar Mas Group also owns 4 CPO and kernel oil processing mills. Characteristics of Large-Scale Oil Palm Plantation Systems To understand the characteristics (traits) of large-scale agricultural systems, one must first examine the state of productive forces and production relations, specifically the relationship between wage labor and the owners/controllers (the bourgeoisie/landlords) of large-scale agriculture. Additionally, it is necessary to examine other defining traits of large-scale agriculture under the dominance of the world monopoly capitalist system: the process of mechanization-modernization through machinery and technology, increased capital investment, and the production of "commodities." 2 Cited from Tempo Digital: 11 Negara Penghasil Sawit Terbesar di Dunia 2023, Indonesia Nomor 1, Tempo, 20 Mei 2023. 3 Dualistic Economy. An economical characteristic by J.H.Broeke (Bharata, 1973) describing third-world countries, like in Asia during colonialism era and post-colonialism era, describes how amid the people exists dualistic-economy, which is a self-sufficient based economy and commodity-based economy. Both exist at the same time, where commodity-based economy dominates the existing system of economy. 13 Many originate from peasant families—typically poor peasants or farm laborers— who are forced to work on large-scale plantations due to a lack or shortage of farmland resulting from land grabbing committed by concession-holding companies (large landlords) or large capitalist-agent entrepreneurs (comprador big bourgeoisie). Plantation workers generally use their own simple and backward agricultural work tools. Even when some equipment is provided by the owners of large-scale agriculture, workers must rent or purchase it through gradual wage deductions. This is unusual within the capitalist system, where all means of production are provided, controlled, and fully owned by the bourgeoisie, leaving wage laborers with nothing except their labor power to sell to survive. - Large-scale agriculture/plantations do not employ wage labor in the manner of industrial wage labor, but rather rely on temporary tenant-labor / rented labor force. In Indonesia, large-scale agriculture generally employs workers whose labor power is rented (temporary-labour-rent). They are not true modern proletarians. Rather, they are agricultural workers often referred to interchangeably as agricultural workers or farm workers. -Large-scale agriculture/plantations in Indonesia are backward agriculture. Large-scale agriculture in Indonesia is also characterized by very low productivity due to limited mechanization-modernization of work tools, technology, and investment. Large-scale agriculture "does not use modern machinery and does not make significant capital investments" unlike typical What is commonly termed "wages" is actually the rental price of labor power. Because of these traits, large-scale agricultural workers are designated as farm laborers. These farm laborers are not entirely separated, detached, or fully emancipated from the means of production; most remain tied to land and basic work tools. This differs from the working class, which—in its historical genesis —emerged from primitive accumulation as truly free humans with no ties or means of production other than their labor power to sell to capitalists for survival. 14 Mass mobilization of labor is required to maintain plantation productivity or meet production targets. The utilization of this labor does not fully reflect capitalist production relations (unlike modern industrial proletariat relations with the capitalist), but rather a temporary-labour-rent relationship. Poor peasants or farm laborers whose labor power is rented perform various tasks demanded by large- scale plantation owners without permanent employment relations or job security. These agricultural workers (estate laborers) can be forced to perform diverse tasks —land clearing, planting, tending, and harvesting. They operate as non- permanent/seasonal workers (Temporary Labour Rent), commonly known as Daily Casual Workers (BHL / Buruh Harian Lepas). This is further expanded through labor flexibility policies such as piece-rate labor (borongan) and outsourcing under the slogan "No Work No Pay." Although they may have fixed working hours, their income depends capitalists. Capitalist agriculture is generally marked by modernization via machinery, technology, and investment to boost production as a means of multiplying the extraction of surplus value. In Indonesia, the reverse occurs. Due to limited or absent machinery, technology, and investment, production increases are generally pursued through the expansion of plantation lands (extensification) and the mass mobilization of labor, especially for essential work such as planting, maintenance, and harvesting. Land expansion is carried out through land grabbing against land owned by peasants or customary lands of minority ethnic groups. Land monopoly achieved by concentrating ownership and control in the hands of a few is a characteristic of a feudal agricultural economic system. Upon this feudal land tenure system, various forms of feudal exploitation are born, such as land rent , usury in production and trade, and low farm laborer wages. 4 4 There are two forms of land rent, absolute and differential land rent. Differential rent serves as a way for large-scale landlords to multiply the robbing of surplus value from the peasantries. Differential rent is manifested in several forms: 1. The difference between individual agricultural production costs/prices and the highest agricultural production cost/price. This is seen in the setting of low prices for Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) and loose fruit, which are far below the base price and world market prices. 2. 3. 4. Profits gained from price differences in agricultural products grown on good-quality lands. Generally, these lands are fertile and close to the market. In large-scale oil palm plantations, this is implemented through production gaps between the dry season (low yield) and the rainy season (harvest season), weight discrepancies, and various deductions. Profits gained from investing even a small amount of capital in fertile/good-quality lands. 15 Second, laborers on large-scale plantations function primarily as temporary rented labor originating from poor peasant families or landless individuals who are forced to work outside their own land to survive; hence, they are termed entirely on the weight (in kilograms) of Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) harvested against high quotas set by owners. Wages are thus determined not by "working time," but by FFB tonnage. Consequently, many farm laborers are forced to mobilize family members—children and women—to work, representing a wasteful use of labor in large-scale agriculture. This labor force is substantially larger than the workforce in processing plants converting FFB into Crude Palm Oil (CPO) and Palm Kernel Oil (PKO). The growth of commodity crops in large-scale agriculture stems from the dominance of the world monopoly capitalist system (imperialism). The world monopoly capitalist system (imperialist) compels all traditional economic systems in Third World countries—including Indonesia—to integrate with neoliberal economic policies (investment and markets). Conclusion Considering the state of productive forces, production relations, and their connection to the dominance of the world monopoly capitalist system, several conclusions can be drawn: First, the large-scale agricultural/plantation system—including oil palm—cannot fundamentally be characterized as a capitalist agricultural system. It more closely resembles a semi-feudal agricultural system, wherein feudal structures were not destroyed by capitalism, but rather preserved as the social foundation for the world monopoly capitalist system (neoliberal systems and policies). Consequently, owners of large-scale plantations, including oil palms, function as large landlords. However, because they simultaneously own processing plants employing wage labor and control other forms of capital (such as banks and industries), they also act as a big comprador bourgeoisie dependent on foreign capital and world markets. 16 farm laborers. They differ from modern proletarians (industrial workers) and cannot be categorized as wage laborers in the modern proletarian sense. Alongside this economic exploitation, estate/farm laborers on large-scale palm oil plantations also endure political oppression, including cheap-wage policies, the reduction or elimination of necessary social and occupational safety protections (KHS/K3), union busting, and the undermining of workers' Collective Bargaining Agreements. Third, the form of economic exploitation experienced by farm/estate laborers in large-scale rental agriculture is not merely the extraction of surplus-value, but rather the appropriation of agricultural surplus-product. This is reflected in low wages (labor rent) based on work targets (tonnage and baseline quotas), deductions, sanctions, low purchase prices for harvested yields, and variable FFB pricing scales determined by plantation owners based on planting age and seasonal yield fluctuations (low-crop vs. high-crop seasons). 17