A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 30 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Catalan_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours

Links to indexes of first few lines of all posts of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013 | of 2014 | of 2015 | of 2016 | of 2017

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) Indonesia, Questioning Anarchist's Confidence BY TERRIK MATAHARI - Response to Bima Satria Putra[i] [machine translation]

Date Mon, 4 Dec 2017 09:49:13 +0200

I would like to thank Bima for trying to explain his point and to answer my suspicions.[ii]All have been answered. And I was wrong from the beginning, for having responded (actually not seriously) to the extraordinary writing of the ignorant.[iii]I should realize that this is not a matter of misunderstanding. This is belief, it is about the anarchist faith. So as an unbeliever and accused too seriously, I want to repeat the mistake while joking seriously for the last time in an effort to mendemistifikasi Bima belief especially in his article entitled: Still Subject Primates: Finish What We Do not Start . ---- There are some interesting things in the article, but I generally conclude 5 things, that Bima: ---- Refusing to distinguish anarchist is anarchist, marxis is marxis . (Believe in: "the possibility of a synthetic diversity of both ")
Believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat . (Propose: " dictatorship by the proletariat , in the form of a self-government, when the proletariat represses and clears the remnants of the 'old world' by its own power, in its various forms, whether it be councils, communes or free associations" )
Believe in pioneering ( vanguardism ) . (Seeing: " the intellectual capacity of each different person " therefore "has no problem to be led by people who are considered more capable and powerful " and requires that: " These 'leaders' will only work together in the spirit of fraternity and equality, in an egalitarian setting " )
Believing anarchism as the key answer . (" Deciding to make anarchism (specifically anarchist-communism and its various traditions) a 'key answer' by placing it as the goal of a thorough social change over most of the current problems" )
The consequences of points (2) and (3) are excessive belief in the masses .
This paper will specifically respond to the five (5) beliefs of Bima mentioned above:

Responses to points (1):

Anarchists are anarchists and marxists are marxists. To come to this conclusion, we must define what is Marx, Marxism, Marxism, Anarchy, Anarchism and Anarchism. Likewise with Libertarian Marxism , Autonomist Marxism and Marxism-Leninism . That way we know that there are figures, there are sociopolitical ideas and theories, there is an ideology, there is an interpretation of thought and there are people or groups of people who use certain thoughts either as approach, method and analysis, as practice or as ideals.
If we recognize that: "the possibility of a synthetic diversity " between anarchism and Marxism by saying that: "it is quite possible that an anarchist uses some Marxian analysis without being a Marxist," we basically admit that two things are different: Marxists are Marxists and anarchists are anarchist. By identifying the differences, then we know what can be synthesized. Because synthesis can only be done on two different elements or elements: a + b = ab. Carbon (C) + Oxygen (O 2 ) = Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ).
If we identify Marxists as individuals who use Marxist teachings and Marxism as grip, then it can be said: Marxists are those who are faithful to Marx's teachings as well as obedient in applying Marxism and therefore obliged to abstract the ideas and methods offered by Marx in an effort to the ideals of communism . This is different from an anarchist that is not singular, multi-variance and there is no central figure in it. If we identify anarchists as individuals who base anarchism in all its variants as ideas and practices, then it can be claimed: Anarchists are those who are unfaithful to the teachings of the characters (firmly rejecting the personality?) And disobedient in applying existing isms ( expressly rejects the ism?), and hence it is free to articulate all sorts of approaches, theories, methods and so forth in an attempt to aspire. It is therefore not forbidden for anarchists to read Marx texts or to use some of Marxist analysis (if desired). Moreover, it seems that anarchists have not moved on from their friendly experience with the Marxists, where everyone knows, one often betrays and one often forgives (forgetful?).
Libertarian Marxism , Autonomist Marxism, etc., is a partial marriage of ideas and practices between the tendencies of anarchism and marxism. There has never been a complete synthesis, so I have not (yet) ever heard of an anarchist marx, or an anarchist marxist. But I do not know, the possibility is always there, who would have thought if there was a fruit-flavored condom?
Certainly trapped in the anarchist dichotomy and the marxis is less work, I do not intend to propose sectarian segregation between tendencies. But it is funny if one identifies oneself in one tendency but fails to show the difference with the other. If it fails to find the difference it must fail to find common ground (if any). So there are those who say: "I am anarcho, and I do not like labeling!" Jeng ..
Responses to points (2):

Whatever its form, dictatorship is a dictatorship, it contains an inherent authoritarian character in it. Although tampered with from: the dictatorship of the proletariat to dictatorship by the proletariat he means the same. Dictatorship is a manifestation of domination. The dictatorship by the proletariat is also what Marx intended in: The Class Struggles in France, 1848 - 1850 , when the term was used as a form of appreciation for the achievements of the Paris Commune, while affirming its opposition to the bourgeois dictatorship. The claim of the Paris Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat was later repeated by Lenin. On the other hand Bakunin rejected it by writing: " They say that such a yoke - dictatorship is a transitional step towards achieving full freedom for the people: anarchism or freedom is the aim, while state and dictatorship is the means, and so, in order to free the masses of people, they have first to be enslaved![iv]"
I have not found a text that states that forms such as councils, communes, or free associations are formed as a dictatorship of the proletariat in addition to claims of those not involved in it. None of the communard members claimed that the Paris Commune was a form of dictatorship of the proletariat, other than Marx and Lenin, of course. According to Vsevolod Mikhailovich Eikhenbaum aka Volin, the first soviet formed in January 1905 in St.Petersburg Russia, was a workers council that campaigned for an autonomous workers movement, and had nothing to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat, as well as other soviets, until the Bolshevik present.
How can a liberation effort be pursued by oppression? This is the morality of slaves, the hatred of oppression is mutated in two forms; enjoying the oppression or reproduction of oppression. Because his hatred was born of a sense of helplessness over power, his effort was to turn things around; seizing power instead of destroying it. Being in power instead of being free. Rebellion should be seen as an attempt to seize freedom rather than seize power. So social wars are the materialization of consciousness, not jealousy and envy.
Although there are many groups or individuals within the anti-authoritarian circle that discuss the model of anarchist society of the future, but there is no single agreement in it. Some even doubted the whole: model , anarchist society , and the future itself. To be sure, anarchists reject any form of oppression, the prison concept for example remains denied to this day. Tolerating dictatorships means tolerating oppression.
In answering questions such as how to deal with threats and / or what is called Bima as: counter-revolutionaries , anarchists propose self-defense and mutual defense . As part of direct action, it is useful not only in dealing with state and capitalist oppression, but also useful in the face of rogues, psychopaths and sociopaths, as well as delegitimizing the role of law enforcement .
Responses to points (3):

The only anarchist publication that Vanguard uses as its name is Vanguard: A Libertarian Communist Journal run by a syndicalist anarchist group called Vanguard Group in New York City (1932-1939). Based on the history of its formation and some of its written content it is clear that this publication is still affected by pioneering work. By the end of 1938 one of its founders Mark Schmidt praised Stalin's economic achievements and invited his anarchist associates to join the previously rejected United Front. Sam Dolgoff (a syndicalist) calls Mark Schmidt a communist hypocrite who pretends to be anarchist.[v]There are several publications that use vanguard as a name, such as: Vanguard Press (1926-1988), is a publisher in the United States that publically publishes socialist-themed books and The Vanguard (January-March 1853) was founded by George Julian Harney socialist media publications. This means there is no special anarchist publication that uses the name Vanguard before 1917.
Pioneering ( vanguardism ) presupposes a mass of passive and fearful masses while also conditioning the shepherds. Pioneering legitimizes representation above presentation. This character subordinates the individual to the decision of a person or group of people and ignores individual initiatives.
Glorification of leader icons is only done by two parties: the cowards and the hypocrites. The coward did so in anticipation of the arrival of martyrs and messiahs who would walk in front of them when the war took place. While the hypocrites do it because it keeps the rottenness in their hearts for one day to come to power. Therefore, even if it must be, only the conscious brave will say: There will be no Rojava without Rojava warriors, there will be no Paris Commune without communards, there will be no anarchist insurrection in Ukraine without farmers and anarchist workers!!
Recognition of the uniqueness of each individual also means the recognition of potential and weaknesses, and the celebration of difference. But discriminating individuals into capacity and intellectual ability is a form of specialization recognition, which agrees with human separation in the work specification as the basis of the division of labor. It also means the legitimacy of the intellectual bourgeoisie, as well as the denial of the unique potential of each individual. It is this denial which then legitimizes the terms of community empowerment, empowerment, capacity building, etc., which is actually fooling and weakening.
Each individual has potential. Again, potential, not capacity. Capacity can be measurable but not with potential. Capacity can be converted to the equivalent of certain units, but in the potential stored possibilities are unexpected. It's nice to know that some individuals have been wary of one or more areas, such as art. Then share with others. Or some of them are very significant develop the potential of uniqueness and invite others to get involved in the process or just enjoy. That we can sit together while having dialogue on many things without the need for dominance and nod of heads due to the recognition of other capacities better than others, so that anyone can pour wine in a glass without waiting for a turn.
Knowledge of evolution, for example, does not require the intellectual capacity as described by Bima. As a person of formal education, Bima should admit that material on evolution has been obtained from junior high school level.[Vi]The issue is up to the individual to consider it important to be studied or not, willing to be speculative or serious. Of course it's about individual interests and interests. Moreover, there is much evidence that there is no need to be a biologist to know about evolution. Kropotkin, for example, is not a biologist, but explains at length about mutual aid , as a critique of Darwin and a misconception of evolution by social darwinists. This thus denied the argument that only biologists could speak biology and only mathematicians could speak mathematics. As well as prove that there is no complicated science if we want to learn. Not a few agricultural scholars who learn from farmers who never know what is nutrients and soil chemistry, or marine science scholars learn from fishermen who never know about the dynamics of the beach and oceanography. This is probably what I understand from a song lyrics: "everyone is a teacher, my school universe" or from the spirit of " do it yourself " or " do it with your friends ".
After all, if Marx is not born then there is no more value-sucking? Or is it that if Kropotkin during his youth decides to admit his prince title and does not travel to Siberia then mutual aid does not exist? Of course not, because as long as there is capitalism then the exertion of more value will always exist. And as long as there is organism activity then mutual aid will still exist. The presence or absence of Proudhon, Bakunin, etc., anarchists will remain. If Bakunin was never born then the character of collectivism does not exist? Of course not. Or if there is no punk subculture in Indonesia then anarchism will not exist in Indonesia?
What I want to say is: Waiting for the pioneer is to wait for the messiah ...!! I do not need messiah, dude ...!!
Responses to points (4):

The answer will be true to the right question. 2 would be the correct answer for: 1 + 1, 3-1, 4-2, etc., otherwise 2 can not be used as the correct answer for: 4 + 4 or 3 + 5. Thus 2 as an answer only applies to certain questions. Or in other words 2 can not be used as the correct answer for all mathematical questions. 2 will remain as a number without any questions, but 2 as the answer will apply correctly to the correct question. Or try with others; the chair will still exist without any question: what is the name of the place to sit? But the chair in answer will apply correctly to the question and apply as the wrong answer to the question eg: what is the name of the place for boker?
If the above is acknowledged then the next condition applies: true-false is determined not only by how accurately he or she answers the question but is also bound by space and time. Let's look at an example: One of the causes of differences in views between Darwin is more emphasis on competition and Kropotkin is more to see that in addition to competition there is also mutual aid as a driving factor of evolution, is the location and time of observation of both different. Let's see, Darwin's observation location on the Galapagos Islands: geographically small, isolated sea, temperate climate, there are only two seasons, and resources are very limited in meeting the needs of the population. While the location of Kropotkin's observations in Siberia: geographically broad, not isolated by the sea, extreme climatic conditions, there are four seasons, but more resources than the population. The question is the same, what is the factor of evolution in the mechanism of natural selection? The answer is different due to different space and time. But is competition and mutual aid a driving force in the success of evolution? Yes! That way the answer will apply to certain questions based on space and time.
But to space and time, the answer is not seen in the concept of absolute and relative, because it should be remembered that the character of capital expansion today is to differentiate as well as uniform space and time. Therefore we will see differences such as the development of infrastructure in different regions, but immediately know that the same spirit: oppression and exploitation. For example the MP3EI scheme that divides Indonesia by economic zones. Or how exploitation is basically the same for factory workers and white-collar workers, but in different forms, so it seems clear to the harsh laborers but so vague in white-collar workers. Oppression and exploitation come in many different forms, in different spaces and times, but singular in character.
Therefore the answer is not relative, the question must be relativized. That means the question should be lowered, that's why we need a set of questions. In addition to avoiding the trap of empiricism, the right questions show how much we understand the problems.
Even if anarchism is the answer it is not because it is decided or made but because it applies to certain questions. So anarchism must be derived in concrete methods or questions, such as: can consensus be an appropriate and efficient mechanism for decision making? What is the right size and efficiency? How to do it appropriately and efficiently? Under what conditions can immediate action be taken? Or how to look at the ecological crisis in an anarchist perspective? What is an anarchist perspective? This is done not to seek justification but to prove right or wrong. Because in answer he must be proved right-wrong. When the answer is still possible , it also preserves the possibility that there is a path that must be taken to ensure it is not merely true, one of them through experimentation.
Experimentation as part of a method must take a variety of forms. As Einstein said, only crazy people expect different results from the same way. Anarchists have many methods, and none are superior to one another. Also many methods are synthesized. All are effective when done in consideration for a particular purpose. So I do not think there is the most revolutionary size between those who throw glasses with those who do bossnapping, because they are not answers, both are attempts at answering questions, both of which are tactics. So black block for example must be seen as a tactic, not a goal, it is a means. It is the same as insurrection, it is a method. So anyone can do insureksi. It is amnesia to say insurrection belongs only to the illegalists, or exclusively to the individualist group, for example, because there is little insurrectionary activity perpetrated by anarchist, syndicalist and platformist communist groups. In fact, specific insurrection does not belong to anarchists, since it is also practiced by many groups.
There is no problem if Bima " decides to make anarchism the key answer by placing it as the goal of comprehensive social change over most of the current problems ". What matters to me is three things: First, is it the right answer or not? Second, true to what question? Third, what is the basis of deciding to make? This must also be explained from the blurring of two definitions: answers and ideals.
The attempt to answer the question and question this answer is not to make anarchism limited to the field of science or to apply it as an instrument of social analysis; this is the attempt to demystify anarchism, destroy its sanctity, so that it is not merely a utopian idea of langitan, it must be concreted or completely forgotten . So he is not a word and his confession not because of faith. It is also so that we can distinguish what is initiative and spontaneity and what is reactionary.
This is of course unimportant to me accused of being selfish and anti-social, but it seems to be important to those who are targeting the social revolution. It's nothing, but just like a scriptural seller, the truth is a high price.
Responses to points (5):

One of the foundations of anarchism is individual autonomy. Anarchism recognizes the individual as an entity and rejects the forms of human domination and exploitation of man and man over nature. Whatever the anarchist variant from the far left to the far right, individual autonomy is one of the starting points. All kinds of variants of social anarchism still presuppose the freedom of the individual within the sphere of social equality.
Of course the individual presence presupposes the other individual. As an organism that can not divide, the presence of a human must require two parental individuals. But whether the significance of the new individual is in the collective or not, we can still debate.
Through the recognition of individual autonomy and the existence of consent in a relationship made consciously and equally, then free association can be created. So that each individual is a revolutionary subject who will speak for himself and make it possible to take his own initiative. When that happens then an autonomous group can say: "us."
Man is a social and anti-social creature at the same time, Novatore said. As a creature of thought and consciousness, human beings have their own desires, sharing with each other is of course an option. So the collective interest should be seen as the interests of the individuals involved. Because anarchists understand that capitalism and the power of the state run in social relations, it is important to look back at the relationship so as not to be merely the relationship of production, control and exploitation.
There is no difference that can be fully integrated, the differences can only be celebrated through free association. There are therefore only two ways of realizing unity: cooperation and repression.
Cooperation and repression here must not be seen in black and white. These are two sides of the coin. Because the co-operation in the state regime and capitalism is a more tacky batman trap from reality shows . Partnerships, empowerment, etc. are examples. This cooperative also contains the character of repression. Want an example? Papua and Aceh I think enough! Because the real definition of NKRI is: join or be destroyed!
Anarchists, of course, accept co-ops while resisting repression. Well, in the intepretation of the matter of cooperation is a lot of debate going on. As an organization, for example, anarchists disagree on some matters relating to the need for organization, its form and nature, number, etc. Anarchist, syndicalist, collectivist communist variants, etc., see that there is a need for formal organization, some even proposing a permanent mass organization. While some of these inividualis-nihilis propose a temporary informal organization. Others reject any organization of its form.
Humans tend to group in small sizes, this group is based on many factors: kinship, regionalism, etc. Small groups generally have a tight bond and solid. Several associations between autonomous groups in the past occurred with the spirit of mutual aid , they will conduct a temporary union with other groups when for example to deal with invasions from outside groups, or unfortunate events. The mutual relationship is of course not only related to threats, but related to other associations such as trade, etc. While the incorporation of small groups into larger groups, goes hand in hand with the history of conquest.
The belief in the number comes with the history of conquest. One of the requirements of the type of domesticated animal is the animal that is socially clustered. Why? Because it tends to be hierarchical and easily controlled. And believe me it also happens to humans. The number becomes important in the army, colonies, slaves, etc. The bigger the better. Consequently, count against the amount.
So even if there is a need, associations of groups or communities, whether in solidarity, etc., must be seen as a free association, not a union. So large or small scale is not about the amount but about how massive or not.
Additional responses:

Yes, the adventure is fun. If Emma Goldman wants to dance in her revolution, I want an adventure, with or without revolution. What is the use of life without the joy of each individual?
If only to find that " we are under the same sky " then my advice, no need to go to the forest or look at the stars. Yes, but this is the consequence, there are two types of people who enter the forest, those who just want to know what's in the forest and those who want to know what is going on in the forest. I am not surprised at this, it is this first-person type who comes to an action or to a community of people who are fighting and then fascinated with what is there, without trying to understand what is happening or what has happened: yes, photographed, , upload on medsos, use caption: keep fight!, long life anarchy! ... bla..bla..bla ...
And yes, in response, what I am talking about here must be in doubt, for surely this is not a word to be respected.

[i]This is a response to the writings of Bima Satria Putra entitled: Still Subject Primates: Complete What We Do not Start: http://anarkis.org/masih-perihal-primata-finish-what-be-not-started/

[ii]The writing of Bima is actually a response to my writings entitled: Primates, Evolution, Anarchism. See: http://anarkis.org/primata-evolution-anarkisme-part-1/

[iii]View: http://anarkis.org/primata-hierarki-revolution/

[iv]Mikhail Bakunin. 1873. Statism and Anarchy .

[v]Sam Dolgoff. 1986. Fragments: A Memoir . Refract Publications. Cambridge. P. 23.

[vi]See the syllabus of Junior High School / Madrasah Tsanawiyah (SMP / MTS) special subjects of Natural Science Subjects issued by the Ministry of Education and Culture 2017, for Class IX, the subject matter of character inheritance is included, in which there are sub- adaptation and natural selection. This syllabus is adapted to the syllabuses of the previous year.
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center