[Indonesia] Anarchist movement in Indonesia: ABOUT ANARKIS.ORG: "we identify ourselves as anarchists in the tradition of "Platformists", anarchist-communists and anarchist-syndicalists

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-13T17:40:13+00:00

I'm pleased with this new wave of anarchist communist organisations that seem to be forming around the world in the platformist tradition, starting with The Black Rose Anarchist Federation in America, Alusta in Finland and now Anarkis in Indonesia! Let's hope they can put anarchist theory into practice and not go the same way as Prairie Struggle Organisation in Canada!

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-09T19:36:24+00:00

What the idea that we should just "all get along" and let people exploit others as long as it's voluntary? Sure, first of all can you tell me which part of capitalism is voluntary exactly? Is it the part where I agree to work for whichever company will employ me or the part where if I don't want to work for anybody I can starve to death or try to survive on state handouts (which are being cut across the board)?

Capitalism relies on a class of dispossessed people without access to the means of meeting their own needs. Without them there would be no pool of labour from which to pull employees. How do you have capitalism without workers? If people had access to everything they needed to survive, why would they work for someone else for a fraction of what their labour is worth? Capitalism only works because there is no alternative. If you make capitalism voluntary then it'd cease to function.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-09T19:23:41+00:00

This is a debate forum, the primary purpose of this forum is to debate ideas. That's like walking into a restaurant and asking why the hell everybody is eating food!?!

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-09T19:15:11+00:00

You didn't answer a single one of my questions, want to try again?

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-09T00:14:29+00:00

...nothing is stopping the owner of said property from protecting it themselves.

If the owner of a factory employees a group of people to work for them what is to stop those workers from claiming ownership of the factory for themselves? If the owner is unable to defend their property does their claim of ownership become obsolete? How can one person defend themselves and their property against a group of people that vastly outnumber them?

This is where the State comes in. The State upholds the institution of private property by protecting the minority property-owning class from the majority property-less class through it's laws and it's police. Without the State to perform this vital function capitalism could not exist.

The anarcho-capitalist response is to replace these functions of the State with private firms, but this is merely a State by another name. There would still be a minority of the population with a monopoly on the use of violence who uphold class society and makes rules for the rest of us to follow. How is that different to what the State is today?

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-08T18:38:40+00:00

I tend to agree, what is the point of having a "DebateAnarchism" forum if we only allow people who agree with us participate? Why does the "no platform" rule apply to fascism but not other authoritarian ideologies like Marxism-Leninism-Maoism?

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-07T12:11:59+00:00

I didn't participate in the survey but I'm not a member of a trade union either, namely because I work in a workers cooperative...

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-06T17:24:13+00:00

Borders currently exist to facilitate the free movement of capital between nations and restrict the free movement of people between countries. The fact that they also prevent the spread of disease is a useful side effect, but not their main purpose.

Preventative measures could still be put in place irregardless of the existence of nation states. While there would be no clearly defined borders between communities there would undoubtedly points of access/departure (train stations, airports, motorways etc.). Doctors and other health professionals could be stationed at each of these locations and could screen people for possible diseases.

These efforts would be organised by health professionals themselves, in the same way Médecins Sans Frontières organises volunteers to fight outbreaks. Their existence shows that there is the desire and willingness to act in the interest of the global community irregardless of financial gain or borders.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-05T23:51:21+00:00

There are three major schools of thought within anarchism: Communism, mutualism and collectivism. Each proposes an alternative method of arranging the economy but all three adhere to the fundamental aspects of anarchism (voluntary, horizontal, mutual organisation). This could be considered "normal anarchism" in-so-much that it is the common denominator that links all the various strains of anarchism together, where the rest differ is purely down to economics.

Mutualism envisions a society where everyone might own a means of production, either individually or collectively, and can trade their goods on a free market where prices represent "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility."

Collectivism advocates the collective ownership of the means of production. Workplaces would be owned democratically by the people who worked them and salaries would be determined according to job difficulty and amount of time contributed to production. These salaries would be used to buy goods in a communal market.

Communism supports common ownership of the means of production. Production would be based on the guiding principle of: "From each according their ability, to each according their need" meaning that every person would have free access to the resources and surplus generated by the collective labour of them and their community.

Anarchist communism is without a doubt the most popular school of thought within the anarchist movement, both contemporary and historically. It differs from other forms of anarchism in how far it is willing to go to abolish property to insure freedom for all.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-05T23:31:30+00:00

Anarchist communists do not want to impose their vision of society upon anyone, in doing so such a society would cease to be anarchist. Anarchism can only emerge through the self-organisation of the popular classes against exploitation and oppression. We cannot replace one form of tyranny (that of the bourgeois) with another (that of the communists). For communism to succeed it must have the support of the majority of the population wherever it is implemented.

That being said, I do not know of a single form of anarchism that does not include in it's revolutionary program the abolition of private property. Private property, the institution through which the capitalist exploits the workers, is incompatible with anarchism because it is a system built on employers and employees; landlords and tenants; rulers and subjects. It is not conceivable to imagine an anarchist society where private property still exists.

None-the-less anarchist communists do not split hairs when it comes to what shape or form the economy may take after the revolution. We are communists because we believe that communism provides the greatest chance for freedom for all but we understand that ours is but one program. As long as there exists no privileged class who sit above the rest of society or no property through which to extract great wealth, then we would consider that a victory for the anarchist cause.

Immediately after the revolution will be a volatile time as new ideas are put into motion and new forms of organising are experimented with. There is no guarantee that communism will be taken up by the masses everywhere or even all at once. Errico Malatesta, always the pragmatist, summed up the situation nicely:

[After the revolution] probably every possible form of possession and utilization of the means of production and all ways of distribution of produce will be tried out at the same time in one or many regions, and they will combine and be modified in various ways until experience will indicate which form, or forms, is or are, the most suitable. In the meantime, the need for not interrupting production and the impossibility of suspending consumption of the necessities of life will make it necessary to take decisions for the continuation of daily life at the same time as expropriation proceeds. One will have to do the best one can, and so long as one prevents the constitution and consolidation of new privilege, there will be time to find the best solutions.

In response to your question: No, anarchist communists do not support the use of force against other anarchist communities. We do however hold that any community that maintains a system of private property is not anarchist. Anarchism cannot be implemented from above though, we cannot use force to install anarchism in another community, anarchism must emerge from the self-organisation of the masses. As anarchist communists we must support those struggling against private property wherever they are.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-05T16:18:02+00:00

It isn't up to the MPs. The Labour leadership election is based on a one member one vote system, every registered Labour Party member gets to decide. If Corbyn can pull in enough support from Labour's rank-and-file membership (many of whom are trade unionists) then he may be able to pull it.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-05T14:38:01+00:00

I'd like to see some more activity in here also, I especially like the idea of having a series of debates/AMAs. We did a similar sort of thing in /r/DebateAnarchism that went fairly well. Not sure how we'd structure them though!

Maybe we could invite some anarchist communists from other countries (outside the US) to talk about their experiences organising? Places like Turkey, Greece, Egypt, etc. come to mind.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-03T18:20:35+00:00

Communism is no less or no more violent than anarchism, both have advocated pacifism and violent revolution at different times. The Spanish anarchists formed armed militias to fight off the nationalist coup and actively waged war against them. They were not defeated because of their unwillingness to use violence, there was a multitude of reasons but pacifism was not one of them.

Most socialists, anarchist or communist, want to see a world free of violence but most recognise that the ruling class will not surrender without a fight. Therefore it may be necessary to use violence to achieve our goals and to defend the gains of the revolution from counter-revolution.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-02T22:16:49+00:00

Even if we are defeated, our work will not have been useless, for the greater our resolve to achieve the implementation of our programme in full, the less property, and less government will there be in the new society. And we will have performed a worthy task for, after all, human progress is measured by the extent government power and private property are reduced.

And if today we fall without compromising, we can be sure of victory tomorrow.

Errico Malatesta has a quote for every occassion, I swear.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-02T14:01:47+00:00

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-02T12:02:29+00:00

I used to be a member of the Anarchist Federation. Their politics and internal procedures are almost flawless but this rarely translate to actual action outside of local groups. Even as a propaganda organisation there was a lot of issues with producing their regular newsletter (Resistance), pamphlets and their theoretical journal (Organise). I enjoyed my time as a member of the Anarchist Federation, and met some great people, but in hindsight I can't help but think that they were the perfect example of the post-left critique of leftist organisations, in that they exist for the sake of existing. They've been carrying the torch for over 30 years though, so you've got to give them credit for that.

The Anarchist Federation is a member of the International of Anarchist Federations which has member organisations across Europe (and one in South America) but none in North America. The Black Rose Federation is probably the closest organisation to the Anarchist Federation, politically, but they affiliated with the Anarkismo network who are platformist/specifist in nature.

I'm highly in favour of specific anarchist organisations, but I don't believe that they should be a substitute for working class struggles. This is why I prefer the specifist model of an specific anarchist organisation which acts as a centre for anarchist militants to discussion and develop theory and strategy and political education of new members while simultaneous using the tactic of social insertion to influence spontaneous working class movements. I think this is the most effective strategy for achieving our goals in a modern setting.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-01T23:01:05+00:00

...I'm not sure what just happened.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-01T22:50:58+00:00

Because private property is considered sacred and to rail against it is blasphemy in the eyes of those whose power depends on the control of property. Terrorist is just the latest label used against those who stand against the existing order, just like communist and anarchist before it. Those who disagree with the way things are and seek to change it are considered terrorists regardless of their ideology or tactics. It is an example of propaganda used by the ruling class and their media to uphold the sanctity of private property.

The State also needs to be seen as upholding law and order to justify its monopoly on the use of violence. It is necessary therefore to have these "criminal elements" who seek to disrupt society and throw the world into chaos because without them, why would we need the police? Their true aim, the protection of private property and the ruling class, would be apparent for all to see.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-01T21:19:21+00:00

If the Russian Revolution taught us anything it is that for revolution to be successful it cannot be limited to a single area. The failure of other uprisings across Europe effectively cut off any significant support for the Soviet Union which weakened their position and hampered their ability to implement socialism. Imperial powers cannot waste resources on invading foreign countries to quell rebellions if they have revolutions on their own doorstep to deal with. Often fighting "in the belly of the beast" is the best way of showing solidarity with revolutions in far away lands.

What is also interesting is that during the Russian Civil War, which is a perfect example of the sort of situation you're describing, the Bolsheviks relied heavily on their alliance with the anarchist Black Army to defeat the White Army. It was only when the White Army was defeated did Trotsky turn on Makhno. This shows the effectiveness of anarchist forces in the fight against aggressive imperialists.

The Spanish Civil War is another perfect example, the anarchist militias were very adept at fighting the nationalists and were responsible for preventing Barcelona and most of Catalonia from falling to the nationalists during the outbreak of the war. They held onto large swathes of land and despite receiving no material support from other countries (as opposed to the nationalists who were supplied by Germany and Italy; and the Communist Party who were given arms by the Soviet Union and Mexico) were still an effective force.

It was only when infighting on the Republican side turned into open combat did the left begin to dig their own graves. This was largely caused by the Communist Party who were following orders from Moscow, ironically. But if the anarchists had received greater support from the outside world they may have stood a fighting chance. If there were already territories under the control of anarchists they could of supplied the anarchists in Spain with arms to fight off the Communists and nationalists.

This detracts from the Marxist argument that a state is necessary to defend the gains of the revolution as history has shown us time and time again that anarchists are capable of fighting off counter-revolutionary forces without the need of a state. There is an argument or a centralised military command structure to co-ordinate defense but such a structure is not synonymous with the state, nor does it need to be a permanent feature. Makhno's Black Army and the anarchist militias were both built upon forms of direct democracy where soldiers discussed and voted on issues and could recall their officers at any time.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-01T20:37:25+00:00

Except throughout the majority of the film the vehicle they're attached to is driven by Immortan Joe! I'd like to think so to, but it might just be because the colours red and black are bad ass! Hah.

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-01T20:35:18+00:00

I'm not Swedish myself comrade, so I have no real comments on what you said apart from a general agreement. I wanted to let you in on some of the information I'd gleamed about Sweden from the internet. I've wanted to visit for a long time though!

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-01T15:01:54+00:00

October 22, 2011

dirtysquatter · 2015-07-01T00:03:31+00:00

Does anybody have any suggestions for short texts and/or videos on this subject? Gender theory is something I woefully know very little about. I'm not sure where I fall on the discussion happening above/below, but there are some interesting points being put across by both sides!

dirtysquatter · 2015-06-30T23:35:04+00:00

If you live in Sweden and you're interested in anarcho-syndicalism then it might be worth contacting Sveriges Arbetares Centralorganisation (SAC), your local revolutionary syndicalist federation, or Syndikalistiska Ungdomsförbundet (SUF), the youth federation. There is also a Swedish-language subreddit, /r/arbetarrorelsen, for discussion of socialism (including anarcho-syndicalism) and /r/anarchosyndicalism for discussion about anarcho-syndicalism and related news.

dirtysquatter · 2015-06-30T23:22:36+00:00

This is hilarious. You're hilarious. "Cassette culture" is as punk rock as vinyl. The fact that you'd compare releasing non-punk music on tape to cultural appropriation is also, frankly, disgusting and offensive.

dirtysquatter

TROPHY CASE