Anarchism and Naturalism

In the past I have asserted that Anarchism has historically usually dovetailed with naturalistic philosophy and that this is because it is the framework most amenable to shaping Anarchist commitments into a coherent world picture. As I've said the basic reason for this is that Anarchism centers the meaning and understanding of human life in the activity of human social animals within the natural environment. It therefore approaches issues of human knowledge and conduct through the scientific investigation of human society and the regularities of the physical universe. This is what classical Anarchist thinker Peter Kropotkin had in mind when he described Anarchism as a scientific doctrine. In what follows I wish to explore naturalistic philosophy more from an Anarchist perspective including providing a defense for its basic tenets. Naturalism is the view that nature exhausts reality, meaning that there are no supernatural, or non-natural entities, and that therefore philosophy should restrict its theoretical content to that which is made plausible by the best scientific understanding of the world. Here definitional difficulties immediately arise. We need to have some way of defining "nature" that delineates it from the supposedly supernatural and non-natural. We can easily provide an ostensive definition which lists examples of natural entities and contrasts them with supernatural entities; putting atoms and particles in the natural column and ghosts and Gods in the supernatural column. However, I think we can do better than a mere ostensive definition. Naturalism is a philosophical outlook that came into its own as a result of the development of modern science. Believers in the supernatural have since the scientific revolution come think of the supernatural as a realm beyond that which science investigates as a result of the fact that science has more and more bracketed questions of the existence of things like ghosts and God off as outside of the domain scientists are interested in. So clearly the natural should be thought of as the proper object of scientific investigation. To say that nature is all there is is to say that if we had a complete scientific theory (that is one that accounted for all scientific data) then we would have an exhaustive description of the world. The further doctrine of materialism (in contemporary anglophone philosophy it is called 'physicalism') can then be understood as the version of naturalism which asserts that if we had a complete theory of physics we would have an exhaustive description of the world. A supposed problem for this definition is known as "Hempel's dilemma" related to the philosopher Carl G. Hempel. The dilemma is that if we define the object of scientific investigation in terms of current scientific theories then naturalism will be false given that those theories are incomplete. If we define it in terms of ideal (complete) theories then supposedly naturalism becomes trivial (vacuous) because we don't yet have ideal theories and thus purportedly have no idea what they would appeal to. Naturalists should probably concede that neither the current, or ideal theory horns is good enough for defining their view. Instead they should resist the assertion that they are bound by the horns of the dilemma in view of a third alternative. The actual development of scientific theories over historical time is what informs us about the kinds of things science investigates. We think science investigates the chemical make up of objects because of the development of scientific chemistry. Likewise we don't think science, at least in any straight forward way, investigates the existence of demons because the scientific community has moved systematically away from such questions in its research. So when the naturalist says that all that exists is natural they are saying that only the objects of scientific investigation exist and we know what those objects are by taking a look at the actual development of scientific theories. With naturalism defined we should move to the issue of why we should be naturalists. The argument for naturalism at its most basic is the development of the scientific worldview. Naturalists believe that the scientific worldview provides strong evidence for conceiving of nature as independently an existent casually closed totality which subsumes all real processes and properties. The basic argument proceeds in the following way: If all phenomena that have explanations have scientific explanations than the natural exhausts reality. All phenomena that have explanations have scientific explanations. So the natural exhausts reality. The key premise is obviously the second one. Why should we believe it? Here we appeal to the sheer scope of scientific progress in the last 500 years. We have developed scientific theories of the expansion of the universe, creation of solar systems, diversification of life on earth, and the dynamics of human character and social development. This process has systematically replaced supernatural explanations such as divine intervention, special creation, disembodied consciousness, demonic intervention, ect. Thus the modern world picture is _disenchanted_ compared to it's ancient and prehistoric counterparts. In premodernity human life was dominated by natural cycles as well as local traditions and thought patterns. Having little understanding of how the natural forces involved worked human beings imagined powers that transcended the regularities of the everyday realm they corporeally interacted with which worked in similar ways to the entities and regularities within the latter, especially transcendent entities with the attributes of agents (beings that act and choose) since the entities they were most familiar with were themselves as agents. These powers did everything from establish and overthrow kingdoms, teach humans mores and skills, create features of the ecological environment, and even create the world itself. In the modern world the development of capitalist industry required the development methodologies reliant on regularized, standardized, empirical observation for understanding nature (obviously industry could not rely on divine favor). Thus the modern world picture is one in which nature mechanistically operates according to its own internal regularities without any necessary reverence for human purposes. This is what Nietzsche referred to as _the death of God_. After God's death even those who do believe in the transcendent (in the sense of the supernatural) find it hard to do so. The divine realm has a tendency to retreat beyond nature even further and directly intervene in it and thereby directly evidence itself in human life less and less. While the death of God creates a bona fide crisis of meaning as it forces traditional reservoirs of meaning to evaporate, in doing so it creates the possibility of a new type of meaning for humanity. This new type of meaning is humanistic and scientific. Human beings can see themselves as rational social animals who, despite being coerced by mechanistic natural processes, can develop new social relations to themselves and nature that allow human beings to understand and thereby transform nature so as to continually extend human life and happiness and thereby reduce nature's coercive pull on humanity. Thereby the door is upon for a naturalistic worldview which does away with all powers above humanity as nature conscious of itself. This is where a distinction has to be made between the kind of naturalism Anarchists advocate and the typical naturalistic philosophy on offer in analytic philosophy departments. In the 20th century academic philosophy was split into two great camps; analytic and continental. Analytic philosophy claimed that the right way to answer philosophical questions was the apriori (before experience, or _from the armchair_) analysis of concepts using formal mathematical logic. Thus analytic philosophy became dominated by a type of naturalism which asserted that the place of philosophy relative to science was simply to disentangle concepts so that they could be used properly in scientific domains. While all forms of naturalism tie philosophical theorizing to scientific evidence analytic naturalism divorces philosophy of critical theoretic content. That is philosophy has always been an avenue by which the human condition could be examined and from that examination a description of the good life could be deduced. In the modern world _political philosophy_ took on an ideological character where the development of mass movements and mass political agency facilitated the application of philosophical theorizing to the question of how society should be transformed. However, despite the fact that analytic philosophy gave rise to many developments in political philosophy since WW2 its methods, even in political philosophy, presuppose the categories of the socially dominant modes of thought (whether from economics, political science, sociology, psychology, or anthropology) as pre-theoretic raw conceptual material to be clarified by conceptual analysis and then utilized by science. As such most of political interest in analytic philosophy has been argued from the centrist liberal/conservative perspective that has been geoculturally dominant within the capitalist world-system since 1848 and most analytic philosophy consists in constant back and fourth over the same ancient and early modern arguments (e.g. the ontological and cosmological arguments for God's existence, Cartesian and Pyrrhonian arguments for skepticism, arguments about the reality of abstract objects such as numbers, sets, propositions, and properties, and arguments over the "mind-body problem" concerned with how consciousness emerges from matter and how free will is possible within the scientific world picture). By contrast continental philosophy which methodologically focusses on social science, culture critique, history, and interpretation has produced numerous critical theories aimed at showing how existing modes of thought are produced by the capitalist world-system and can have their limits transcended via the transition to a more just society (the name _critical theory_ was coined by continental thinkers associated with the Frankfurt School of Social Research). As such, despite the dominance of naturalism within the analytic tradition since its beginning, conceptual challenges are constantly mounted to it, whereby in the continental tradition it is simply the working assumption of most theorists who aren't writing in its explicitly spiritualist incarnations. As such Anarchistic naturalism must be of the continental, rather than the analytic variety. This isn't to say that Anarchists reject all analytic philosophy out of hand. In fact the first programmatic step to helping philosophy out of the analytic clap trap is promoting interaction among both analytic and continental traditions to break down the methodological iron curtain between them. It is rather to say that Anarchism should always retain its critical theoretic posture, with its naturalism being no exception. **Sources** Modern Science and Anarchism, Kropotkin Continental Philosophy, Critchley https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ https://iep.utm.edu/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/ https://iep.utm.edu/naturali/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/ Understanding Naturalism, Ritchie Continental Philosophy of Religion, Burns https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/conservatism/ World-Systems Analysis: An introduction, Wallerstein

redandblackanarchists.com.au

ASF-IWA fundraiser for 'Hero Warrior' LPDF

On 22 July, 'Hero Warrior', an independent Local Peoples Defence Force (LPDF) based in Central Myanmar officially mandated ASF-IWA to conduct humanitarian fundraisers for 'Hero Warrior' food distribut...

asf-iwa.org.au

Anarcho-Syndicalism in Bangladesh: Present Context & Challenges

### 1. Shift of Power and the Reconstruction Strategy of the Bourgeois State Apparatus The political shift in Bangladesh's state power on August 5, 2024, was not a revolution in the interest of the working class; rather, it was an unprecedented internal rearrangement of power within the bourgeois state structure. Following the fall of the Awami League—the secular bourgeois political force that ruled for over a decade and a half—the ousted party now faces an extremely hostile social and political reality. Despite institutional repression and being severely cornered at the grassroots level, this secular bourgeois group is attempting to reorganize itself by leveraging its long-standing bureaucratic experience, robust financial networks, and the cooperation of lumpen capitalists. Their recent activities and psychological resistance in various regions of the country prove that no faction of the bourgeois class easily relinquishes its power and right to plunder capital. The current BNP-Jamaat government that came to power after this political shift—which is essentially an opportunistic coalition of technocrats serving the interests of US imperialist and neo-liberal financial institutions, the military bureaucracy, and bourgeois reformists—has plunged the working class into a state of profound confusion. The so-called "democratic" and religious-nationalist forces (the BNP-Jamaat alliance), who themselves were accused in the past of corruption, lumpen capitalism, and the suppression of workers, are today posturing as "anti-fascist." In reality, the primary terror of all these bourgeois factions (whether it be the secular Awami League or the right-wing BNP-Jamaat and their extremist allies) remains the same: the spontaneous political rise and independent consciousness of the working class. Driven by this fear, they deploy the violent instruments of the state apparatus (Police, Army, RAB, BGB) and keep the proletariat divided through artificial ideological conflicts to sustain their class exploitation. From an anarcho-syndicalist perspective, we must understand that the state is not a neutral institution; it is always an instrument for protecting the interests of the ruling class. Therefore, replacing one bourgeois party with another is fundamentally antithetical to the liberation of the working class. ### 2. Historical Legacy: The Trap of "Razakarocracy" vs. Secular Capitalism To understand the evolution of Bangladesh's socio-political history, it is essential to analyze the dynamics of its class struggle. The primary driving force behind the anti-colonial liberation struggles of 1952, 1969, and 1971 was the exploited working and peasant class of this country. However, after independence, a new domestic lumpen-bourgeois class emerged by hijacking that revolutionary consciousness of the proletariat. The religious-fascist and reactionary ideology (locally known as _"Razakar-tontro"_ or Razakarocracy), which should have been socially eradicated after its defeat in 1971, instead took deep root in rural and urban life under the patronage of the state and capitalism. For a long time, the previous ruling party maintained a balance of power at the grassroots level by using this "Razakarocracy" or religious extremism as a bogeyman. In doing so, they cultivated a lumpen "Kishore Gang" (juvenile gang) culture, which is actually a distorted byproduct of capitalism. These lumpen forces established terrorist control over workers' neighborhoods, slums, and workplaces, thereby choking the voice of the ordinary worker. The events of August 5 exposed this structural bankruptcy of the bourgeois leadership. When the top leadership fled with their accumulated capital, the field-level ordinary workers and marginalized masses became mere cannon fodder for bourgeois politics. This historical lesson teaches the proletariat that relying on any specific "savior" or bourgeois party ultimately pushes the working class toward an even greater catastrophe. ### 3. Relevance of Anarcho-Syndicalism and Strategic Opportunities The current profound political instability and vacuum in Bangladesh have created an unprecedented historical opportunity (**Strategic Window**) for the anarcho-syndicalist movement. As the civil-war-like polarization among the bourgeois parties becomes starker, and the state fails to resolve the crises of its own making, the utility of a radical alternative philosophy outside the conventional governance system becomes evident. Whether the Awami League returns to the center of state power in the near future or the current right-wing forces consolidate their position—in both scenarios, the structural violence of the bourgeois state will not cease. Only the targets of oppression and the polarization will shift. To escape this endless cycle of exploitation, the working class must stop tailing bourgeois parties. ### Strategic Roadmap and the Secular Front**​** During this transitional period, our strategy must be multifaceted: * **Class-conscious Secular Front:** It is urgent at this moment to build a progressive and secular front against religious extremism, fundamentalism, and intolerance. However, this front will not be a bourgeois liberal platform; its foundation must be economic equality and the unity of the exploited class. * **Ideological Proliferation at the Grassroots:** Breaking the illusion of reformism, we must spread the core principles of anarcho-syndicalism—**Workers' Autonomy** , **Decentralization** , and **Direct Action** —among the workers. * **Building Alternatives to Corporate Unions:** As an alternative to the existing compliant, yellow, and management-pocketed trade unions, independent syndicates or workers' councils must be formed in every factory. These councils will not merely fight for wage increases but will aim for total control over production. ### 4. Current Crisis of the Bangladesh Anarcho-Syndicalist Movement and the Need for Protective Networks Despite its theoretical integrity, the history of the anarcho-syndicalist movement in Bangladesh (such as the efforts of the Bangladesh Anarcho-Syndicalist Federation or BASF) is currently going through a period of severe organizational stagnation and strategic crisis. Advancing this philosophy in a deeply conservative, religiously polarized society plagued by state and social terror is undoubtedly a monumental challenge. Many comrades are currently growing pessimistic about the effectiveness of this movement. Their despair is not baseless; rather, it is rooted in the ruthless material reality of the capitalist system. Today, capitalism has distorted human psychology to such an extent that workers are forced to prioritize immediate survival over long-term liberation. For a worker subjected to the exploitation of **Surplus Value** , spending time on political theory outside of a life consumed by grueling overtime for extra income is an extreme luxury. Added to this is the culture of joint terror perpetrated by the state and religious fundamentalist groups. In Bangladesh, joining a revolutionary movement means facing extreme economic and physical catastrophe. The working class here has no savings or surplus capital. Consequently, if a worker's home is destroyed or if they are terminated from their job due to movement activities, there is no mechanism for rehabilitation. Furthermore, due to the country's privatized and commercialized healthcare system, a worker injured by state or fascist thugs often ends up crippled and living a living-death due to a lack of proper medical care. This extreme uncertainty and lack of security cause the proletariat to psychologically withdraw from the battlefield of resistance. > **Key Realization:** We must admit that it is impossible to retain hungry and insecure workers on the streets merely with empty theoretical jargon. Until the movement can build a **Mutual Aid Network** , an emergency medical fund, and a legal defense shield within itself, the scope of the anarcho-syndicalist movement will remain constrained. ### 5. Economic Condition of the Contemporary Proletariat: Bankruptcy of Unions and the State Bangladesh's current GDP growth and the neo-liberal "epic of development" stand primarily on the cheap labor of the ready-made garment (RMG) industry, the construction sector, migrant workers, and agriculture. However, the lion's share of this economic surplus flows directly into the pockets of multinational corporations and domestic lumpen capitalists. In the face of unbridled inflation and skyrocketing commodity prices in the current market, the minimum wage of workers is a cruel joke. Working conditions are highly hazardous and unsafe. Even after massive state-corporate massacres like Rana Plaza or Tazreen Fashions, occupational health and safety remain virtually non-existent in the informal sectors. Every day, numerous workers lose their lives at workplaces; while termed "accidents" in bourgeois parlance, these are in reality **institutional murders**. The root cause of this crisis lies in yellow journalism, corporate media, and, above all, a subservient and weak trade union system. Most major trade unions in Bangladesh are either politically tied wings of some bourgeois party or bought-and-paid-for slaves of the owners (**Yellow Unions**). When workers engage in direct action to demand arrears or living wages, these very union leaders collaborate with the state and police to repress the workers and throw them into jail under false charges. Due to the absence of an independent, class-conscious, and revolutionary syndicate, the vast proletarian force of Bangladesh stands completely disenfranchised and unprotected today. ### 6. Fall of Usurious Civilization and the Rise of Proletarian Internationalism The social decay and moral bankruptcy we observe today are actually signs of the ultimate distortion of capitalism, or what can be called **"Mohajoni Shovvota"** (Usurious/Mercenary Civilization). In the feudal era, despite the suppression of exploitation, some pseudo-humanitarian social responsibilities remained. But modern capitalist society has reduced all human emotions, art, literature, culture, and relationships into mere commodities (**Commodification of Human Relations**). Money is now the sole yardstick for nobility, capability, and character. The healthcare system has turned into a profit factory instead of a place of healing; the legal system has become a protective shield for the wealthy. The core mantras of this system are "Time is Money" and "Business is Business." This extreme individualism destroys the spirit of empathy and **Solidarity** within human beings. People are forced to worship this system because this bourgeois society yields no human dignity to the propertyless. Yet, within this darkness, the light of liberation is visible according to the laws of history. In contrast to this global crisis of capitalism, a resurgence of working-class autonomy and the consciousness of a stateless society is occurring worldwide. The core tenet of anarcho-syndicalism is: **the one who labors shall be the driving force behind the means of production and societal decision-making.** There will be no place in society for those who lead parasitic lives by exploiting surplus value based on the labor of others. The capitalists and their intellectual lackeys propagate this free socialist concept as "anti-individual freedom" or "unrealistic." However, they actually fear losing their freedom to exploit. Wherever mountains of private property and monopolization of wealth exist, social evils like theft, mugging, coercion, and state fascism are inevitable. The true liberation of humanity is possible only by shattering this bourgeois arrogance and the legal frameworks of private property. ### Conclusion: A Call to the International Proletariat The geopolitical and socio-economic equations of Bangladesh will not change merely through a transfer of power or a revision of the bourgeois constitution. Whether the reins of governance remain in the hands of Yunus's neo-liberal clique, the Awami League, the BNP-Jamaat, or right-wing fascism—the fate of the worker will not change. We do not view this current transitional period in Bangladesh merely as a local crisis; rather, it is an inseparable part of global capitalism. Therefore, we call upon the comrades of the international anarcho-syndicalist movement—integrate the direct struggle of this marginalized and fighting proletariat of Bangladesh as a part of your **International Solidarity**. To defeat the nexus of local capitalists and global capital that exploits the workers of this country, we must coordinate our struggle at the international level. The struggle is long, but the fall of the usurious civilization and the victory of the workers' syndicate are equally inevitable. **Workers of all countries, unite! ​**

redandblackanarchists.com.au

Laying the foundations: Proudhon’s contribution to anarchist economics

Anyone sketching the positive vision of libertarian economics would, undoubtedly, include such features as common ownership of land, socialisation of industry, workers’ self-management of production a...

redandblackanarchists.com.au

On the persecution of CNT-AIT

Statement by Coordinamento Anarcosindicalista, the IWA Initiative in Italy

redandblackanarchists.com.au

অ্যানার্কো-সিন্ডিক্যালিজম কী? বাংলায় বিশ্লেষণ।

YouTube video by Anarcho-Bangla

youtube.com

The Evolution of Consciousness and the Anthropology of God

1. The Origin of Consciousness: The Illusion of Explanation From the very inception of the division of labor in history, we observe two distinct forms of human existence—manual labor on one side, and...

redandblackanarchists.com.au

চেতনার বিবর্তন ও ঈশ্বরের নৃবিজ্ঞান

১. চেতনার উৎপত্তি: ব্যখ্যার বিভ্রম  ইতিহাসে শ্রম বিভাজনের সূচনা থেকেই আমরা মানুষের দুটি রূপ দেখতে পাই—একদিকে কায়িক শ্রম, অন্যদিকে মা

redandblackanarchists.com.au

Imagined Space Solidarities: Rumah Merdeka

Today's working class is frequently confronted with illusory choices in the face of socio-ecological crisis, corporate power, and increasingly acute work alienation. Mainstream unions are frequently t...

redandblackanarchists.com.au

Anarkisme di Tengah Badai Teknologi Digital

Anarkisme sering kali dipahami sebagai bentuk kekacauan sosial, kekerasan, atau penolakan total terhadap aturan. Dalam banyak media populer, istilah “anarki” identik dengan kerusuhan dan ketidakteraturan. Namun, secara politik dan filosofis, anarkisme memiliki makna yang jauh lebih kompleks. Anarkisme pada dasarnya merupakan gagasan mengenai masyarakat tanpa otoritas hierarkis yang memusatkan kekuasaan pada negara atau institusi tertentu. Dalam perkembangannya, konsep ini mulai memasuki dunia digital dan melahirkan apa yang disebut sebagai digital anarkisme. Fenomena ini muncul seiring berkembangnya internet, teknologi desentralisasi, serta berbagai sistem digital yang memungkinkan manusia berkomunikasi dan berorganisasi tanpa kontrol penuh dari negara maupun korporasi besar. Digital anarkisme menunjukkan bahwa teknologi modern dapat menjadi alat pembebasan dari kontrol terpusat, tetapi pada saat yang sama juga menghadirkan tantangan baru berupa dominasi korporasi digital, spekulasi ekonomi, dan ketidakstabilan informasi. ## **Anarkisme dan Struktur Dasar Internet** Dalam konteks politik, anarkisme bukan berarti ketiadaan organisasi sosial, melainkan penolakan terhadap struktur kekuasaan yang bersifat memaksa dan hierarkis. Anarkisme lebih menekankan koordinasi horizontal, kerja sama, mutual aid dan kebebasan individu dalam komunitas atau kolektif. Prinsip-prinsip tersebut tentu saja memiliki kesamaan dengan cara kerja internet modern. Sejak awal pembentukannya, internet dirancang sebagai jaringan yang terdesentralisasi. Sebagai contoh, sistem seperti TCP/IP memungkinkan komunikasi tetap berjalan tanpa bergantung pada satu pusat kontrol utama. Dengan kata lain, internet dibangun agar tetap berfungsi meskipun sebagian jaringannya mengalami gangguan. Struktur ini mencerminkan prinsip anarkisme karena tidak ada satu otoritas tunggal yang sepenuhnya mengendalikan seluruh jaringan global. Sifat internet yang terbuka kemudian menciptakan ruang baru bagi kebebasan informasi dan komunikasi. Melalui internet, individu dapat menyebarkan gagasan, membangun komunitas, dan melakukan aktivitas politik tanpa harus bergantung pada media atau institusi tradisional. Munculnya forum online, media independen, proyek open-source, hingga komunitas atau kolektif anonim di berbagai platform memperlihatkan bagaimana internet memberikan ruang bagi organisasi horizontal. Dalam dunia digital, seseorang dapat membangun jaringan solidaritas lintas negara hanya melalui koneksi internet. Hal ini memperlihatkan bahwa kekuasaan informasi tidak lagi sepenuhnya dimiliki negara atau perusahaan media besar. ## **Kebebasan Digital dan Perspektif Anarkisme** Selain perkembangan komunikasi digital, teknologi enkripsi juga memperkuat gagasan kebebasan di internet. Enkripsi memungkinkan komunikasi dilakukan secara privat dan aman dari pengawasan negara maupun korporasi. Dalam perspektif digital anarkisme, privasi bukan hanya persoalan teknis, melainkan bentuk kebebasan politik. Kemampuan individu untuk menjaga data dan komunikasinya sendiri dianggap sebagai bentuk perlawanan terhadap sistem pengawasan modern. Oleh karena itu, banyak kelompok digital anarkis mendukung penggunaan perangkat lunak open-source, server independen, dan jaringan peer-to-peer sebagai cara mempertahankan otonomi pengguna internet. Namun, kebebasan digital juga menghadirkan berbagai persoalan baru. Internet yang minim kontrol membuka ruang bagi penyebaran disinformasi, propaganda, penipuan digital, hingga cyber crime. Anonimitas yang sebelumnya dianggap sebagai alat perlindungan kebebasan sering kali disalahgunakan untuk tindakan kriminal dan manipulasi informasi. Kondisi ini memperlihatkan bahwa masyarakat digital tanpa kontrol penuh tetap membutuhkan tanggung jawab kolektif. Kebebasan tanpa kesadaran sosial dapat berubah menjadi ruang yang kacau dan rentan terhadap penyalahgunaan. Dengan demikian, digital anarkisme menghadapi dilema antara mempertahankan kebebasan dan menjaga stabilitas sosial dalam ruang digital. ## **Kapitalisme Digital dan Dominasi Big Tech** Perkembangan internet modern menunjukkan bahwa ruang digital yang awalnya terdesentralisasi perlahan mengalami sentralisasi kembali. Saat ini, sebagian besar aktivitas internet dikuasai oleh perusahaan teknologi besar seperti Meta, Google, dan Amazon. Platform-platform tersebut mengendalikan arus informasi, komunikasi, bahkan perilaku pengguna melalui algoritma dan pengumpulan data. Internet yang sebelumnya dipandang sebagai ruang bebas berubah menjadi ekosistem yang sangat bergantung pada korporasi digital. Data pribadi pengguna menjadi komoditas ekonomi, sementara algoritma menentukan informasi apa yang dapat dilihat dan dikonsumsi masyarakat. Fenomena ini menunjukkan bahwa teknologi tidak secara otomatis menciptakan kebebasan. Struktur ekonomi kapitalisme mampu mengambil alih ruang digital yang awalnya terbuka dan menjadikannya sebagai sumber kekuasaan baru. Dominasi Big Tech menciptakan bentuk hierarki baru di internet, di mana perusahaan teknologi memiliki pengaruh yang sangat besar terhadap opini publik, perilaku sosial, dan bahkan proses politik. Dalam kondisi ini, digital anarkisme berkembang sebagai bentuk kritik terhadap monopoli digital dan upaya merebut kembali kontrol teknologi dari negara maupun korporasi. ## **Blockchain sebagai Bentuk Baru Digital Anarkisme** Salah satu perkembangan yang dianggap paling dekat dengan gagasan digital anarkisme adalah munculnya blockchain dan cryptocurrency. Blockchain merupakan sistem pencatatan digital yang bekerja tanpa otoritas pusat. Transaksi diverifikasi oleh jaringan kolektif sehingga tidak membutuhkan bank atau institusi tunggal sebagai pengendali utama. Karena sifatnya yang desentralistik, blockchain dipandang sebagai simbol baru kebebasan digital. Cryptocurrency seperti Bitcoin muncul sebagai bentuk kritik terhadap sistem finansial tradisional dan kontrol negara terhadap uang. Teknologi blockchain juga membuka kemungkinan baru dalam organisasi sosial digital. Konsep seperti Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) memungkinkan komunitas mengatur sistemnya sendiri tanpa pemimpin tunggal. Smart contract memungkinkan kesepakatan dilakukan secara otomatis tanpa mediator. Dalam pandangan pendukung digital anarkisme, teknologi ini berpotensi menciptakan struktur ekonomi dan sosial yang lebih horizontal, transparan, dan independen dari institusi tradisional. ## **Blockchain dan Cryptocurrency Terlalu Utopis?** Meskipun demikian, blockchain juga menghadapi berbagai kritik serius. Walaupun mengklaim bersifat desentralistik, banyak sistem cryptocurrency justru melahirkan elite baru berupa investor besar, perusahaan mining, dan pemilik modal digital. Kekuasaan tidak benar-benar hilang, tetapi berpindah bentuk dari negara menuju kelompok teknologi dan kapital baru. Selain itu, cryptocurrency sering kali lebih digunakan sebagai alat spekulasi ekonomi dibanding alat pembebasan sosial. Banyak proyek crypto berubah menjadi instrumen investasi yang sangat kapitalistik dan jauh dari cita-cita egaliter. Masalah lain yang muncul adalah konsumsi energi yang sangat besar dalam beberapa sistem blockchain. Aktivitas mining membutuhkan daya listrik tinggi dan menimbulkan kritik terkait dampak lingkungan. Dalam konteks ini, teknologi yang diklaim sebagai alat pembebasan justru dapat memperburuk krisis ekologis global. Selain itu, minimnya regulasi dalam dunia cryptocurrency juga menciptakan banyak kasus penipuan dan scam digital. Kebebasan total dalam sistem digital ternyata tidak selalu menghasilkan keadilan sosial, terutama ketika akses teknologi dan kekuasaan ekonomi tidak terdistribusi secara merata. Pada akhirnya, digital anarkisme bukan sekadar persoalan teknologi tanpa pusat kontrol, melainkan perdebatan mengenai siapa yang memiliki kekuasaan di dunia digital. Internet dan blockchain memang membuka kemungkinan baru bagi kebebasan, desentralisasi, dan organisasi horizontal. Namun, perkembangan kapitalisme digital memperlihatkan bahwa teknologi juga dapat dengan mudah dikuasai oleh korporasi dan elite ekonomi baru. Oleh karena itu, masa depan ruang digital tidak hanya ditentukan oleh kecanggihan teknologi, tetapi juga oleh bagaimana masyarakat mempertahankan kebebasan, distribusi kekuasaan, dan tanggung jawab kolektif dalam dunia yang semakin terdigitalisasi.

redandblackanarchists.com.au

The Necessity of Anarchist Transhumanism: A Promethean Manifesto

Marx's philosophy of history aims to interpret historical change as the result of the interplay of conscious human decision, technological innovation, and the social relations that facilitate the development of technological infrastructure in human societies. He explicitly argues that this materialist dialectic points to a historical trajectory which, although not historically inevitable and thus dependent on the contingent choices of human beings, moves toward a society in which the development of the forces of social production and thus production and accumulation of social wealth is consciously, autonomously, and collectively directed towards the needs and development of all human individuals. It is for this reason that heterodox Marxists have stressed a humanist interpretation of Marx's philosophy as against the 'productive forces determinism' of Marxist orthodoxy as well as the 'overdetermination' of structural Marxism; both of which try to argue that Marx's philosophy of history lacks any special place for history as directed by autonomous human subjects advocated by traditional humanist philosophy. Anarchists historically accepted this kind of materialist dialectic in emphasizing the determination of historical change by free cooperation among human beings and human struggles against domination in relation to the technological development of social wealth and the possibility of all humanity sharing in the benefits of that wealth in voluntary relations of mutual benefit among individuals. Thus, the kind of socialism advocated by humanist forms of Marxism as well as Anarchism presupposes a promethean view of technology and human history. That is, a political anthropology which sees history as a struggle among human beings for universal human emancipation, dependent on the contingent choices of human individuals as well as the technological development of human societies, where this technological development contains within itself the possibility of a truly free society provided that social relations are restructured along non-exploitative, non-dominating lines. This Prometheanism is to be distinguished from other purported forms of Prometheanism. Statist forms of Marxism historically held that the development of the productive forces by rational state planning would automatically lead to a free socialist commonwealth. Furthermore, in debates among 20th century Anarcho-Syndicalists advocates of industrial decentralization in free producers' communes debated advocates of the takeover of centralized industry and scientific management techniques pioneered by industrialists and their use in the self-managed activity of producers in the new society. These views are both Promethean in that they advocate technological means of human emancipation, given that Prometheus was the Greek god who was tortured for stealing fire from the other gods and gifting it to humanity. None the less they clash with each other. In the case of statist Marxism, the status of a state-controlled command economy as one in which state planners, rather than workers, or producers themselves direct social labor, requires a class distinction between workers and planners such that the former is forced to go to work for the latter. In the case of the Anarchist advocates of industrial centralization and scientific management self-management would be contradicted by the subordination of labor to centralized structures of labor control. In both cases the liberating power of technology would be suppressed in practice for the development of oppressive forms of technology which concentrate benefits among those with ultimate power. In the mid 20th century, a Promethean ideological and philosophical movement known as transhumanism developed advocating an addendum to traditional humanistic ideas of human reason, autonomy, and liberation. Transhumanism stated that this vision of human liberation and subjectivity is dependent on the development of advanced technologies to surpass the biological and natural limitations of human subjects. Like humanism in general transhumanism was for most of its existence caught up in mainstream political discourse which failed to question the class relations and structures of social domination characteristic of modern industrial society under capitalism and the state. This is seen in the fact that the first person to coin the term transhumanism was Aldus Huxley's brother Adrien who was an advocate of eugenics; a movement popular among scientific elites in the 19th and 20th centuries which advocated culling the human population so that only the purest human forms would survive and was thus deeply connected to racism, classism, and ableism. More recently developments in information technology have led to a Silicon Valley based transhumanism in which IT capitalists such as Elon Musk and Peter Thiel have used transhumanism as a justification for the acceleration of what Marx calls the organic composition of capital; the ratio of automated labor to living labor from workers themselves, as well as further developments in technologies used by corporations and the state for surveillance purposes. In Silicon Valley since the 90s a bourgeois form of Prometheanism has been conjured up as a fictional vision of a digitalized world created by tech capitalism in which all individuals can achieve autonomy, while the actual monopolization of IT for the exploitation of labor, wealth inequality, and surveillance by corporate and state structures of the capitalist world-system is ignored. Embroiled in this controversy is the issue of new AI technologies which in addition to having huge environmental costs (the hardware requires huge amounts of energy and water) are also worsening issues of racial and gender discrimination and have since the IT revolution in the 90s been rapidly accelerating technological unemployment. As such many on the anti-capitalist left have dismissed transhumanism as an ideological cover for the horrors of digital capitalism. This perspective is myopic. It's obvious that the bourgeois transhumanism defended by Silicon Valley lacks the ability to achieve real human freedom and acts as a form of ideology clouding people's judgement about the reality of bourgeois social relations, one (but not the only) function of ideology as a social phenomenon identified by Marx. However, this is the case for bourgeois versions of all thin-centered ideologies which the anti-capitalist left broadly accepts. A thin-centered ideology is simply an ideology simplistic enough in its basic components to be attached to more grandiose host ideologies. Feminism is a thin-centered ideology which has been historically dominated by bourgeois social movements such as progressivism, but which has been developed in Marxist and Anarchist versions as to take the ideology beyond these limitations. The same goes for transhumanism. As such Anarcho-Transhumanism was recently developed to combine transhumanism with an Anarchist framework able to liberate the technological transformation of the human form and natural reality from capital and the state. There is thus no reason for Anarchists and humanist Marxists to resist a socialist version of transhumanism. In fact, addressing the transition from industrial society to digital society requires a transhumanist orientation, at least if one is committed to the control of technological development in favor of the autonomy and self-determination of human individuals. The transhumanist view should not be confused with the view that all forms of technology are morally neutral, or good. In particular Anarcho-Transhumanism does not see technologies designed for subjecting workers to more arduous labor, which require destruction of the ecological capacities that support sentient life, or which are designed for militaristic purposes (e.g. nuclear weapons) as technologies which are compatible with human freedom. Technologies must be specifically designed to facilitate the development of human freedom, or at least not be deleterious to it, in order to get the AnTrans seal of approval. However, the vision of socialism advocated by AnTrans is the opposite of technologically austere. In such a society the free production and accumulation of social wealth in view of the needs of all human individuals means the use of technology to project consciousness into nature and thus the cosmos itself, making the world as comfortable for sentient life as possible. As such AnTrans is a sentientist worldview. Sentientism is the combination of a naturalistic epistemology (a view of knowledge and justification that elevates science and autonomous reason over revelation, tradition, and authority) and sentiocentrism (the view that the center of ethical value is the capacity for experience). Sentientism contrasts with more austere views sometimes accepted by the anti-capitalist left such as eco-socialism, eco-Anarchism, and ecology more generally. These views prioritize the preservation of connections making up the physical ecosystem over the extension of sentient life within that ecosystem. As such eco-socialists frequently try in vain to prove that Marx was not a Promethean whereas eco-Anarchism is dominated by views like that of ecologist Murray Bookchin which conflate Anarchism with face-to-face republican democracy in which citizens are obligated by the polity to respect ecological structures. While sentientists concur with ecologists that the ecological crisis in which capitalist production is actively degrading the life-supporting capacities of the ecology is one of the most important problems facing humanity and thus demands resolution, sentientists hold this position not on the basis that existing ecological structures are intrinsically valuable and deserving of protection (many of them are hellish from the standpoint of sentient wild animals without the technological, or social capacities to escape predation and starvation and continue to be so for human beings as a result of our technological limitations as seen in natural disasters and disease for example). As such AnTrans is in conflict with ecologist approaches to the ecological crisis such as degrowth which preach the reduction of social production and wealth accumulation in order to halt the environmental crisis. Instead AnTrans advocates the expansion of production and accumulation in a way that replaces technological infrastructure incompatible with the continued existence and health of sentient life with those which nurture it. If one thinks about it AnTrans is obligatory from the standpoint of living up to humanistic and socialist values. Socialism requires the use of productive technology for the free development of producers in voluntary association. Humanism requires the employment of scientific rationality to extend human autonomy beyond its current social and natural limitations. Private property and the state, in ensuring the class rule of capitalists over workers, block the universal realization of these values. The same is true of non-Anarchist ideologies which by definition value other objectives over the full self-determination of human individuals. Sources: https://www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/transhumanism https://theconversation.com/super-intelligence-and-eternal-life-transhumanisms-faithful-follow-it-blindly-into-a-future-for-the-elite-78538 Rise and Fall of the Neoliberal Order, Gerstle Neoliberalism, B. Steger and K. Roy https://blueshifted.net/faq/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E71Dzm0MYnY&t=34s&pp=ygUVYW5hcmNobyB0cmFuc2h1bWFuaXNt https://redandblackanarchists.com.au/green-confusion-the-metaphysical-and-political-failures-of-ecology/ https://theconversation.com/groks-antisemitic-rant-shows-how-generative-ai-can-be-weaponized-257880 https://news.mit.edu/2025/explained-generative-ai-environmental-impact-0117 https://theconversation.com/distrust-in-ai-is-on-the-rise-but-along-with-healthy-scepticism-comes-the-risk-of-harm-260189 Democracy, Zack https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-022-00507-5 Anarchism, Honeywell Marx After Marxism, Rockmore Understanding Marxism, Boucher Marx's Concept of Man, Fromm Marxism and Freedom, Dunayevskaya https://sentientism.info/what-is-sentientism/an-overview

redandblackanarchists.com.au

[VegaNana 분쟁] 제1부: GlutenFreeX/VeganX와의 비즈니스 관계 종료

원본 : https://priamaakcia.sk/veganana-part-1-end-of-the-business-relationship-with-glutenfreexveganx.html# 역자 주 : VegaNana는 슬로바키아에 위치한 제과점 입니다. * * * 2024년 8월부터 퇴사자 3명과 VegaNana 측은 수천 유로에 달하는 미지급 임금을 두고 분쟁을 벌여왔습니다(상세 정보: https://priamaakcia.sk/tag/veganana). 앞으로 몇 주간, 이 분쟁에 관한 최신 소식을 담은 연재 기사를 발행할 예정입니다. 그 시작으로, 과거 VegaNana를 전폭적으로 지원하는 한편 우리 노조와 퇴사자들을 압박했던 빈 소재 기업, GlutenFreeX(이하 VeganX)에 대해 다뤄보겠습니다. 이들 주장에 따르면, 작년에 VegaNana와의 거래 관계를 정리했다고 합니다. ### 공지사항 2025년 10월 27일, 우리는 GlutenFreeX/VeganX 소유주로부터 이메일 한 통을 받았습니다. 그 내용은 알렉산드라 포드호로바(Alexandra Podhorová, 법적으로 임금 체불 책임이 있는 VegaNana의 실체)가 다음과 같은 이유로 자신들과의 비즈니스 관계를 종료했다는 것이었습니다. > > “그녀에게 있어 우리라는 유일한 기업 간 거래(B2B) 고객에게 물건을 공급하는 것이 더 이상 수익이 나지 않았고, VEGANX와 GLUTENFREEX 측에서 그녀가 요구한 20%의 가격 인상안을 받아들이지 않았기 때문입니다.” > 상황을 확인하기 위해 GlutenFreeX와 VeganX 웹사이트의 제품 목록을 살펴보니, VegaNana 케이크 사진이 여전히 게시되어 있었습니다. 하지만 누스도르프(Nußdorf) 거리에 위치한 매장의 상황은 달랐습니다. VegaNana 제품은 실제로 매대에서 사라졌고, 업체는 (마찬가지로 슬로바키아 출신의) 새로운 공급처를 찾은 상태였습니다. 그러나 우리가 주목하고자 하는 부분은 따로 있습니다. ### 마치 아무 일도 없었다는 듯이 GlutenFreeX/VeganX 소유주가 보낸 이메일은 다음과 같이 이어졌습니다: > > “귀하 측의 요구(관계 종료)가 이루어졌으니, 이제 우리 회사와 관련된 모든 기사를 귀하의 웹사이트와 페이스북, 구글 지도에서 삭제해 줄 것을 요청합니다.” > 이에 대해 우리는 다음과 같이 회신했습니다: > > 안녕하십니까, > > priamaakcia.sk(IWA 슬로바키아 지부) 웹사이트는 저널리즘의 목적을 수행하며, 한 번 게시된 기사는 삭제하지 않습니다. > 구글 지도의 리뷰 삭제 권한 또한 우리에게 없습니다. > 해당 리뷰들은 우리가 작성한 것이 아니기 때문입니다. > 귀사와 ‘알렉산드라 포드호로바-VegaNana’ 사이의 협력이 종료되었다는 주장이 나오기 전까지, 귀사는 의도적으로 그들과 협력 관계를 유지해 왔습니다. > 현재까지 귀사는 VegaNana가 전직 직원들에게 수천 유로의 임금을 체불하고 있다는 사실에 대해 단 한 번도 비판적인 입장을 표명한 적이 없습니다. > 오히려 노동자들에게 심리적 가해를 가하고, 허위 사실로 비난하며 협박을 일삼았을 뿐입니다. > 또한, 귀사의 진술을 통해 볼 때 이번 거래 종료는 도덕적 결단이 아닌 오로지 경제적 이유 때문이었음이 명백합니다. > 이상의 사실과는 별개로, 귀하의 진술 자체는 보도 가치가 있다고 판단됩니다. 따라서 우리는 화해의 제스처로 귀사가 ‘알렉산드라 포드호로바-VegaNana’와 더 이상 협력하지 않는다는 정보를 기사 중 하나에 포함하여 게시할 용의가 있습니다. > 다만, 만약 귀사와 VegaNana의 협력이 지속되고 있음이 확인되거나, 전직 직원 3명 혹은 Priama Akcia 노조에 대한 공격이 계속될 경우, 우리는 그에 상응하는 대응을 할 수밖에 없음을 밝힙니다. > GlutenFreeX/VeganX 소유주는 단 두 문장으로 답장을 보내왔습니다. 답변에 감사하며, 협력 종료 사실을 반드시 언급해달라는 재차 강조였습니다. 그 어디에도 과거의 행보에 대한 사과나 반성의 기미는 없었습니다. ### 거짓말로 점철된 역사 과거 GlutenFreeX/VeganX의 소유주들은 전직 VegaNana 직원들뿐만 아니라 우리 노조를 반복적으로 공격해 왔습니다. 우리는 이미 “GlutenFreeX가 조작된 문서를 이용해 퇴사자들을 협박하고 있다!”라는 기사를 통해 그들의 행태를 고발한 바 있습니다. 핵심 내용은 다음과 같습니다: - 우리가 VegaNana의 실태를 폭로했다는 이유로 퇴사자들을 형사 고소하고 투옥시키겠다고 협박했습니다. - 우리 노조와 주고받은 통신 내용을 조작했습니다. - 소셜 미디어를 통해 우리가 ‘범죄 수사국 테러 부서에 등록된 불법적이고 극단적인 조직’이라는 허위 사실을 유포했습니다. - 우리가 자신들을 ‘물리적으로 위협’했으며 ‘경쟁사로부터 자금을 지원받고 있다’는 거짓말을 늘어놓았습니다. - 우리를 ‘슬로바키아의 쿠 클럭스 클랜(KKK)’이라고 비방하며 먹칠을 했습니다. - 구글 지도의 비판적 리뷰들을 ‘동구권 마피아의 수법’이라 칭하며 제노포비아(외국인 혐오)적 발언을 서슴지 않았습니다. 우리는 또한 분쟁 초기, 그들이 VegaNana와의 협력 관계에 대해 거짓말을 했던 것을 잊지 않고 있습니다. 2024년 10월 24일 자 메일을 보면 그 사실이 드러나며, 이후 국제노동자협회(IWA) 사무국과의 소통 과정에서도 거짓말은 계속되었습니다. 다음은 2024년 12월 22일, IWA 사무국원이 보낸 이메일 발췌본입니다. > > “(...) 우리는 귀사의 용납할 수 없는 행태를 근거로, 노동자들 및 Priama Akcia 노조와 연대하여 이 사실을 공론화할 뿐만 아니라 귀사와 그 구성원들을 비판하기로 결정했습니다. > 또한, 국제노동자협회(IWA)는 귀사가 노동자들에 대한 터무니없는 비방과 괴롭힘을 멈추지 않을 경우, 재정적·법적 지원을 포함한 모든 필요한 지원을 아끼지 않을 것입니다. > 우리는 귀사의 근거 없는 협박이 전혀 두렵지 않습니다. 귀사는 전 세계 앞에서 스스로를 ‘괴롭힘을 일삼는 가해자’로 전락시키고 있습니다. > 그런 허세는 원하는 결과를 가져다주기는커녕 오히려 역풍을 맞게 될 것입니다. > 조작된 문서와 협박, 그리고 의구심 가득한 비즈니스 파트너에게 집착하는 것이 정말 그만한 가치가 있는 일인지 스스로를 돌아보시기 바랍니다.” > 소유주들은 2024년 12월 23일, 다시 한번 협력 관계를 부인하며 답장을 보냈습니다: > > “(...) 우리는 카타리나 포드호로바(Ms. Katarína Podhorová)와 일하지 않습니다. > 그녀는 과거에 우리를 위해 케이크를 몇 번 구웠을 뿐, 이후 생산을 중단하고 사라졌습니다. (...)” > 하지만 이 발언이 무색하게도, 불과 한 달 뒤 VeganX의 인스타그램에는 카타리나 포드호로바(실질적인 체불 책임이 있는 제과사)의 케이크 홍보 영상이 올라왔습니다. 그녀 본인의 인스타그램에 같은 날 올라온 것과 동일한 케이크였습니다. 그들은 이후 몇 달 동안 그녀의 제품을 계속 홍보했으며, 2025년 4월에는 카타리나 포드호로바의 케이크를 수거하러 온 GlutenFreeX/VeganX 직원을 우리가 직접 만나 확인하기도 했습니다. 이들 소유주만의 ‘독특한’ 소통 방식은 구글 지도 리뷰의 답글에서도 확인할 수 있습니다. 시간이 지나면 내용을 수정하거나 어조를 낮추기도 하지만, 여전히 읽어볼 가치가 충분합니다. ### 우리는 어디서 지갑을 열지 말아야 하는지 안다 GlutenFreeX/VeganX는 현재도 운영 중이며, 표면적으로는 VegaNana의 제품을 취급하지 않는다고 합니다. 그것이 사실이든 아니든, 이 업체는 비거니즘(비건주의)의 근본적 윤리 원칙인 ‘비착취’와는 거리가 먼 행보를 보여주는 전형적인 사례입니다. 이들은 오로지 자신들과 비즈니스 실익만을 생각한다는 것을 증명했습니다. 우리는 그곳의 노동자들이 우리가 겪었던 것과 같은 대우를 받지 않기를 바랍니다. 만약 부당한 처우를 겪고 있다면, 국제노동자협회의 오스트리아 지부인 '빈 노동자 연합(Wiener ArbeiterInnen-Syndikat)'에 연락하십시오. 이어지는 두 번째 기사에서는 빈에서 브라티슬라바로 무대를 옮겨, VegaNana 관계자들의 현재 행보를 집중 조명하겠습니다.

redandblackanarchists.com.au

Liberalism is about Sameness, not Liberty

Since the wave of republican revolutions from the 1700s to the 1800s the geoculture (the set of dominant norms of the modern world-system) has been dominated by liberal ideology. The major selling poi...

redandblackanarchists.com.au

Kontrol di Atas Piring: MBG dan Ilusi Kepedulian Negara

Negara memberi makan. Tapi tidak pernah tanpa konsekuensi. Program Makan Bergizi Gratis (MBG) di Indonesia hadir dengan janji yang sulit ditolak yakni mengatasi stunting, memperbaiki gizi anak, dan menunjukkan bahwa negara benar benar hadir dalam kehidupan rakyat. Dalam narasi resminya, MBG adalah simbol kemajuan, bukti bahwa negara tidak hanya mengatur, tetapi juga merawat. Namun di balik bahasa kesejahteraan itu, ada sesuatu yang jarang dipertanyakan, mengapa negara begitu ngotot mempertahankan program ini, bahkan ketika kritik datang dari berbagai arah, ketika masalah terus berulang, dan ketika dampaknya justru membahayakan mereka yang seharusnya dilindungi? Pertanyaan ini penting, karena dari sinilah kita mulai melihat bahwa MBG bukan sekadar kebijakan sosial, melainkan bagian dari logika kekuasaan yang lebih luas. Sejak awal peluncurannya, MBG telah dipenuhi dengan berbagai persoalan. Dari kesiapan infrastruktur yang minim, distribusi yang kacau, hingga kualitas makanan yang dipertanyakan. Semua menunjukkan bahwa program ini tidak dibangun di atas fondasi yang kuat. Namun alih alih dihentikan atau dievaluasi secara serius, MBG justru terus diperluas. Di sinilah muncul kejanggalan, kebijakan yang gagal biasanya diperbaiki atau dihentikan. Tapi MBG dipertahankan. Penjelasannya tidak bisa ditemukan dalam bahasa kesejahteraan. Ia harus dicari dalam struktur kepentingan yang bekerja di baliknya. MBG membuka ruang ekonomi yang sangat besar. Pengadaan bahan pangan, distribusi logistik, hingga pengelolaan dapur Satuan Pelayanan Pemenuhan Gizi (SPPG) menciptakan ekosistem baru yang melibatkan berbagai aktor seperti pemodal, kontraktor, birokrasi, bahkan aparat negara. Program ini bukan hanya soal memberi makan, tetapi juga tentang mengalirkan dana dalam skala besar melalui jaringan yang terorganisir. Dalam konteks ini, menjadi masuk akal mengapa program ini begitu sulit dihentikan. Yang dipertaruhkan bukan sekadar kebijakan, tetapi aliran keuntungan dan distribusi kekuasaan. Salah satu aspek paling mencolok dari MBG adalah potensi keuntungan dalam pengelolaan SPPG. Dengan skema yang ada, satu dapur dapat mendapatkan insentif sekitar enam juta rupiah per hari. Dalam skala tahunan, angka ini menjadi sangat besar. Dalam skala nasional, ia berubah menjadi industri. Di titik ini, MBG berhenti menjadi program sosial. Ia menjadi bisnis. Dan seperti semua bisnis dalam sistem kapitalisme, keuntungan tidak didistribusikan secara merata. Ia terkonsentrasi. Segelintir aktor memperoleh manfaat yang signifikan, sementara mayoritas tetap berada di posisi penerima yang pasif. Ironinya, program yang diklaim untuk mengurangi ketimpangan justru berpotensi memperdalamnya. Keterlibatan aparat negara dalam program ini semakin memperjelas arah tersebut. Pelibatan TNI dan Polri dalam distribusi dan operasional MBG bukan sekadar solusi teknis untuk persoalan logistik. Ia menandai sesuatu yang lebih serius yakni perluasan peran institusi bersenjata ke dalam ranah ekonomi dan kehidupan sipil. Ketika aparat mulai terlibat dalam pengelolaan program sosial, batas antara kekuasaan militer, birokrasi, dan ekonomi menjadi kabur. Lebih jauh lagi, ketika institusi yang sama berperan sebagai pelaksana sekaligus pengawas, maka ruang untuk akuntabilitas menjadi semakin sempit. Dalam kondisi seperti ini, kesejahteraan tidak lagi netral. Ia menjadi bagian dari infrastruktur kekuasaan. Dalam praktiknya, aparat negara tidak hanya berperan sebagai pelaksana, tetapi juga mulai terlibat sebagai pengelola bahkan pemilik SPPG. Ini berarti mereka tidak hanya mengontrol jalannya program, tetapi juga mengambil keuntungan langsung dari dalamnya. Di titik ini, batas antara kekuasaan dan bisnis benar benar runtuh. Aparat yang seharusnya berada di posisi netral berubah menjadi aktor ekonomi. Mereka tidak hanya mengamankan program, tetapi juga menjadi bagian dari sirkulasi keuntungan yang dihasilkan oleh program tersebut. Dengan skema insentif yang mencapai jutaan rupiah per hari per dapur, keterlibatan ini bukan lagi marginal. Ia sistemik. Namun kontradiksi MBG tidak berhenti di situ. Ia juga terlihat jelas dalam aspek pendanaan. Pemerintah mengklaim bahwa MBG adalah bentuk pemenuhan hak dasar. Tapi pada saat yang sama, anggaran untuk sektor lain seperti pendidikan dan kesehatan (yang juga merupakan hak dasar) justru diabaikan. Di sini terlihat pilihan politik yang jelas, negara memprioritaskan program yang terlihat, yang dapat dengan mudah dikapitalisasi secara politik, dibandingkan investasi jangka panjang yang dampaknya tidak langsung. Makanan dijadikan simbol. Pendidikan dan kesehatan menjadi angka dalam laporan anggaran. Kontradiksi ini mengungkap bahwa MBG bukan sekadar soal kesejahteraan, tetapi juga soal citra dan kontrol. Yang paling mengkhawatirkan adalah dampak langsung terhadap anak-anak sebagai penerima manfaat utama program ini. Kasus keracunan massal bukan lagi insiden tunggal. Ia telah menjadi pola. Ribuan siswa dilaporkan mengalami keracunan di berbagai daerah. Ini bukan sekadar kegagalan teknis, melainkan indikasi bahwa sistem yang dibangun tidak mampu menjamin hal paling mendasar yaitu keamanan. Dalam kondisi normal, program yang membahayakan kesehatan anak seharusnya dihentikan. Tapi MBG tetap berjalan. Keputusan untuk mempertahankan program ini, meskipun risiko sudah jelas terlihat, menunjukkan bahwa ada prioritas lain yang dianggap lebih penting daripada keselamatan. Dan di sinilah logika kekuasaan menjadi terang. MBG bekerja dalam dua arah sekaligus. Di satu sisi, ia tampil sebagai bentuk bantuan. Di sisi lain, ia membangun ketergantungan. Ketika kebutuhan paling dasar seperti makanan dimediasi oleh negara, maka hubungan antara negara dan rakyat menjadi semakin asimetris. Negara menjadi pusat distribusi. Rakyat menjadi penerima. Dalam jangka panjang, ini melemahkan kemampuan masyarakat untuk mengorganisir dirinya sendiri. Padahal, di banyak tempat, mekanisme distribusi pangan berbasis komunitas sudah ada dan bekerja: warung lokal, kantin sekolah, jaringan solidaritas. Sistem-sistem ini lebih fleksibel, lebih responsif, dan lebih dekat dengan kebutuhan nyata. Namun mereka tidak dipilih. Bukan karena tidak efektif, tetapi karena tidak sesuai dengan logika kontrol. Dari perspektif yang lebih luas, MBG memperlihatkan bagaimana negara modern bekerja yakni bukan hanya melalui hukum dan kekerasan, tetapi melalui pengelolaan kehidupan sehari-hari. Ia mengatur bukan hanya apa yang dilarang, tetapi juga apa yang dikonsumsi, bagaimana didistribusikan, dan siapa yang berhak menerima. Dalam kerangka ini, kesejahteraan bukan sekadar tujuan. Ia adalah alat. Alat untuk membangun legitimasi. Alat untuk mendistribusikan sumber daya secara selektif. Dan alat untuk mempertahankan struktur kekuasaan. Istilah “gratis” dalam MBG pada akhirnya menjadi problematis. Tidak ada yang benar benar gratis dalam sistem seperti ini. Biaya selalu ada, hanya saja tidak selalu terlihat. Ia bisa berupa anggaran yang dialihkan dari sektor lain. Ia bisa berupa risiko kesehatan yang ditanggung oleh penerima. Ia bisa berupa hilangnya otonomi masyarakat. Dalam semua bentuknya, biaya itu menunjukkan satu hal, bahwa kesejahteraan yang dikelola dari atas selalu datang dengan konsekuensi. Melihat MBG hanya sebagai kebijakan yang perlu diperbaiki berarti menerima premis bahwa negara adalah solusi utama. Tapi jika kita melihat lebih dalam, masalahnya bukan pada pelaksanaan, melainkan pada logika itu sendiri. Selama kesejahteraan dikelola oleh negara, ia akan selalu berada dalam bayang bayang kekuasaan. Selama distribusi kebutuhan dasar bergantung pada birokrasi, ia akan selalu membuka ruang bagi kepentingan yang lebih besar daripada sekadar kesejahteraan. Pertanyaannya kemudian berubah. Bukan lagi “bagaimana membuat MBG lebih baik?”. Melainkan: “apakah kita ingin terus bergantung pada sistem seperti ini?” Mungkin sudah saatnya kita mempertimbangkan kemungkinan lain. Bahwa masyarakat mampu mengorganisir dirinya sendiri. Bahwa solidaritas tidak harus dimediasi oleh negara. Bahwa kebutuhan dasar bisa dipenuhi tanpa harus melalui mekanisme kekuasaan yang terpusat. Ini bukan gagasan utopis. Ia sudah ada dalam berbagai bentuk, meskipun sering kali diabaikan. Dan mungkin justru di sanalah letak ancamannya. Karena sistem yang benar benar otonom tidak membutuhkan negara untuk bertahan. Pada akhirnya, MBG bukan sekadar soal makanan. Ia adalah cermin. Cermin yang memperlihatkan bagaimana kekuasaan bekerja yaitu dengan memberi, sambil mengikat. Dengan membantu, sambil mengontrol. Dan selama kita masih melihat negara sebagai satu satunya sumber kesejahteraan, kita akan terus menerima apa yang diberikan. Termasuk konsekuensinya. Selama kita masih percaya pada negara sebagai penyelamat, kita akan terus diberi makan. Dan terus dikendalikan.

redandblackanarchists.com.au

Control on a plate (MBG and the Illusion of State Care)

The state feeds. But never without consequences. Indonesia’s Free Nutritious Meals Program (MBG) arrives with promises that are difficult to reject : addressing stunting, improving children’s nutrition, and proving that the state is truly present in people’s lives. In its official narrative, MBG is framed as a symbol of progress, a sign that the state does not merely govern, but also cares. Yet beneath this language of welfare lies a question rarely asked “why is the state so determined to maintain this program, even as criticism grows, problems persist, and its impacts begin to endanger those it claims to protect?”. This question matters, because it reveals that MBG is not simply a social policy. It is part of a broader logic of power. From the outset MBG has been plagued with structural problems. Inadequate infrastructure, chaotic distribution, and questionable food quality all point to a program built on weak foundations. Yet instead of being halted or seriously re-evaluated, MBG continues to expand. This is the contradiction, failed policies are usually corrected or abandoned. MBG is not. The explanation cannot be found in the language of welfare. It must be sought in the network of interests operating behind it. MBG opens up a vast economic space. Food procurement, logistics distribution, and the management of Nutrition Fulfillment Service Units (SPPG) create a new ecosystem involving investors, contractors, bureaucrats, and even state security forces. This is not merely a program about feeding people. It is a mechanism for channeling large flows of capital through organized networks. In this context, it becomes clear why the program is so difficult to stop. What is at stake is not just policy, but the circulation of profit and the distribution of power. One of the most revealing aspects of MBG is the profit potential embedded within the SPPG system. Under current schemes, a single kitchen can generate around six million rupiah per day. Over a year, this becomes a significant sum. At the national level, it becomes an industry. At this point, MBG ceases to be a social program. It becomes a business. And like all businesses under capitalism, profit is not evenly distributed. It concentrates. A small group of actors captures substantial benefits, while the majority remain passive recipients. Ironically, a program presented as a solution to inequality risks reproducing it. The involvement of state security forces further clarifies this trajectory. The participation of the military and police in MBG is often justified as a logistical necessity. In reality, it signals something deeper, the expansion of armed institutions into the economic and social sphere. But the problem goes beyond distribution. In practice, security forces are not only involved as implementers. They are increasingly positioned as managers and even owners of SPPG units. This means they do not merely oversee the program, they directly profit from it. At this point, the boundary between power and business collapses entirely. Institutions that are supposed to remain neutral are transformed into economic actors. They do not just secure the system, they become embedded within its circuits of profit. With daily incentives reaching millions of rupiah per kitchen, this involvement is not marginal, it is systemic. The implication is clear that MBG does not only extend state control over everyday life. It also strengthens the economic power of state security apparatuses themselves. When the same institutions act as implementers, regulators and beneficiaries accountability becomes nearly impossible. What remains is a closed loop of power reproducing itself. The contradictions of MBG also appear clearly in its funding. The government frames the program as the fulfillment of a basic right. Yet at the same time, other sectors such as education and healthcare, also fundamental rights are deprioritized. This reveals a clear political choice prioritizing programs that are highly visible and easily instrumentalized for political gain over long-term investments whose benefits are less immediate. Food becomes a symbol. Education and healthcare become budget lines. This contradiction exposes that MBG is not simply about welfare. It is about image and control. Perhaps the most alarming aspect is its direct impact on children, the very group it claims to protect. Mass food poisoning is no longer an isolated incident. It has become a pattern. Thousands of students have reportedly suffered from food related illnesses across different regions. This is not merely a technical failure, it indicates a system unable to guarantee the most basic requirement ; safety. Under normal circumstances, a program that endangers children’s health would be suspended. MBG continues. The decision to persist, despite clear risks, suggests that other priorities outweigh safety. Here, the logic of power becomes unmistakable. MBG operates in two directions at once. On one hand, it appears as assistance. On the other, it produces dependency. When basic needs such as food are mediated by the state, the relationship between state and society becomes increasingly asymmetrical. The state becomes the central distributor. People become recipients. Over time, this erodes the capacity of communities to organize themselves. Yet alternative systems already exist like local food networks, school canteens, and community based solidarity initiatives. These systems are often more flexible, more responsive, and more grounded in real needs. But they are not chosen. Not because they are ineffective, but because they do not align with the logic of control. From a broader perspective, MBG reveals how modern states operate not only through law and coercion, but through the management of everyday life. The state regulates not only what is prohibited, but also what is consumed, how it is distributed, and who is entitled to receive it. Within this framework, welfare is not merely an objective. It is an instrument. An instrument to build legitimacy. An instrument to distribute resources selectively. An instrument to reproduce structures of power. The notion of “free” in MBG ultimately becomes misleading. Nothing in such a system is truly free. Costs always exist, even if they are not immediately visible. They may take the form of diverted budgets, health risks borne by recipients, or the erosion of social autonomy. In all these forms, one thing becomes clear that welfare administered from above always comes with consequences. To view MBG simply as a policy in need of improvement is to accept the premise that the state is the primary solution. But a deeper look reveals that the problem lies not in implementation, but in the underlying logic itself. As long as welfare is managed by the state, it will remain entangled with power. As long as the distribution of basic needs depends on bureaucracy, it will always open space for interests beyond welfare itself. The question, then, must change. Not : how can MBG be improved? But : do we want to remain dependent on such a system? Perhaps it is time to consider another possibility. That communities are capable of organizing themselves. That solidarity does not need to be mediated by the state. That basic needs can be met without centralized structures of control. This is not a utopian idea. It already exists in various forms, though often ignored. And perhaps that is precisely the threat. Because systems that are truly autonomous do not require the state to survive. In the end, MBG is not just about food. It is a mirror. A mirror reflecting how power operates : by giving, while binding. By helping, while controlling. And as long as we continue to see the state as the sole provider of welfare, we will continue to accept what it offers including its consequences. As long as we believe in the state as savior, we will keep being fed. And kept under control.

redandblackanarchists.com.au

진주 화물노동자 살인 만행을 규탄한다!

어제(20일) 오전 10시 30분경, 경남 진주 CU 물류센터 앞 도로 위에서 사람이 죽었다. 아니, 정확히 말하자면 자본과 국가가 공모하여 노동자를 죽였다. 파업 16일 차, 생존권을 지키기 위해 연좌 농성을 하던 화물연대 조합원 동지를 자본의 이윤을 실은 대체 차량이 짓밟고 지나갔다. 사고인가? 아니다. 이것은 파업을 무력화하려는 자본의 탐욕과 그 하수인을 자처한 공권력이 빚어낸 살인이다. 우리는 정부와 경찰에게 구구절절한 감성적 호소 따위는 하지 않겠다. 어차피 그들의 귀에는 노동자의 단말마보다 자본가의 입금 알림 소리가 더 달콤할 것이기 때문이다. 다만 질문을 하겠다. 당신들이 입만 열면 떠드는 법치와 안전은 대체 누구를 위한 것인가? 자본가의 물류 차량이 막힘없이 지나가는 것이 노동자의 목숨보다 소중한가? 경찰의 방패 뒤에 숨어 민생을 논하는 당신들의 입에서 나오는 그 모든 말은 그저 위선일 뿐이다. 이제는 솔직해져라. “우리는 너희 노동자들이 죽든 말든 기업의 이윤이 멈추지 않는 것이 더 중요하다”라고 당당하게 말해라. 그러면 우리는 그 솔직함에 기꺼이 박수를 쳐 줄 것이다. 당연하겠지만, 우리는 IWA(국제노동자협회)의 원칙에 동의한다. 국가는 결코 노동자의 해방 도구가 될 수 없으며, 언제나 독점과 특권을 창조하고 수호할 뿐이다. 오늘의 살인 만행은 국가라는 존재가 왜 폐지되어야 하는지를 증명하는 또 하나의 피로 쓴 안전 수칙이 될 것이다. 앞으로도 이렇게 할 것이면, 그냥 다 죽여라. 노동조합을 파괴하고, 저항하는 이들을 감옥에 가두고, 길 위에서 우리를 밟고 지나가라. 당신들이 우리를 죽일 수 있을지는 몰라도, 착취당하는 자들의 연대와 투쟁의 의지까지 죽일 수는 없다. 한국 IWA 프로젝트 일동

redandblackanarchists.com.au

After Orban

The regime of Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party in Hungary has for the last 16 years been a model for the populist attempt to remove liberalism from democracy. Right-wing populists naturally seek a democratic mandate against corrupt elites but want to be unrestrained in the use of state power to repress minorities and political opponents deemed outside the community and interests of common folk. The result in Hungary since the early 2010s has been an autocracy with checks on Orban's executive authority severely reduced, political opponents persecuted, and immigrants and LGBT people scapegoated. The very phrase "illiberal democracy" which academics have come to use to characterize other similar regimes such as Putin's Russia, or the political goals of other far-right populist movements such as MAGA was used by Orban to describe his ideal political order. So foundational in cannons of far-right politics has the Fidesz regime been that it has cultivated a close relationship both with the MAGA movement and Putin's Russia. Orban pioneered techniques of resistance to EU policies as well as an illiberal coalition within the European Parliament. This is only natural as right-wing populists usually subscribe to Euroskepticism on the basis of their awareness that the EU is a technocratic body which exists to protect the kind of procedural politics consonant with a liberal world order. As such Hungary has used its veto to block EU assistance to Ukraine and sanction of Russia during the Ukraine-Russia war. However, Fidesz seems to have come out on the losing side of the 2026 elections with the majority of the seats going to Peter Magyar's Tisza party which has brought together right-wing and left-wing opposition to Fidesz. Magyar is a conservative who left Fidesz and has promised sweeping corruption reform, making supporters and observers hopeful that as the new prime minister he will bring Hungary back within the liberal EU orbit. Despite the fact that Orban's government was a global model for the far-right, the broader fortunes of far-right parties in other countries will be determined by domestic factors. Comparisons to Donald Trump's 2020 presidential election loss to Joe Biden are easy to come by. In 2020 Trump's right-wing populism was defeated by the centrist, technocratic liberalism of the Democratic Party establishment. In this case Trump refused to ever concede defeat, but in 2026 Hungary, Orban has already politely conceded his loss. In both instances the far-right was handed a major defeat by a liberal establishment which it had previously put on the back foot. However, the long-term results of Trump's defeat should make us wary for those of Orban's. In not addressing any of the issues with the elitist and technocratic nature of American liberal democracy and failing to bar Trump from reelection despite him attempting a coup against the 2020 election results, the Biden administration set the stage for 2024 when Trump returned with a vengeance and immediately carried out a huge purge of government bodies according to his illiberal designs. The basic fuel of right-wing populism is the elitist nature of technocratic politics and the existence of culture wars between dominant majorities and marginalized minority groups. All liberal democratic states are marked by technocratic politics in which most important political decisions are made by elected and appointed officials and the extent of mass political participation is voting for representatives and on referendums. As a consequence, racial, gender, sexual inequalities and discrimination can be found throughout them. The fact that they all define political participation by nationality means by necessity those deemed outside the national community are politically and socially marginalized. The struggle by these marginalized groups such as people of color, LGBT people, women, immigrants, and their allies has created since the 19th and 20th centuries a massive culture war across these societies in which these groups contest their marginalization and dominant groups and their allies fight against the progress they make and attempt to make. The intensification of these struggles since the 60s plus increasing inequality as a result of liberal democratic political-economic elitism has produced a rising right-wing populist movement which has gained political power throughout the global north. Right-wing populism proclaims that the solution to the culture war and elitism is to capture democracy in the interests of the native common people and their social traditions, thus not only excluding elites, but also various minority groups and progressive movements. Since liberal democracy, defined by technocratic separation of government powers and thus expert mediated public political consensus, is inherently elitist no matter how many electoral defeats populists suffer at the hands of their centrist adversaries, liberal democracy will always create the conditions for right-wing populism to crop up, especially in the 20th century as inequality and culture wars accelerate. Thus, even if Magyar manages to implement a swing of Hungary back into the liberal democratic orbit, it will likely be precisely this achievement that keeps the populist flame alive in the country. Actually, defeating the threat posed to minorities and political freedom posed by right-wing populism requires replacing liberal democracy with a non-elitist alternative aligned with the self-determination of marginalized groups. This alternative would have to put control over social administration in the hands of voluntary associations of individuals with the power to allocate social wealth to meeting the needs of all those individuals. Such associations would need to be constructed within the existing world and begin to take control of social space and social wealth and thereby undermine both right-wing populist movements and the technocratic power-structures. **Sources** https://time.com/article/2026/04/12/viktor-orban-election-loss-trump/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv2QItiMgj4&pp=ygUPaHVuZ2FyeSBsZ2J0IGR3 Populism, Mudde and Kaltwasser https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-self-coup-south-korea-presidents-attempt-ended-in-failure-a-notable-exception-in-a-growing-global-trend-235738 https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/illiberal-democracy-and-the-struggle-on-the-right/?ref=redandblackanarchists.com.au Politics, Tansey and Jackson Democracy, Zack

redandblackanarchists.com.au

안드리 유누스, 군국주의, 그리고 국가 테러리즘

활동가에게 산성 액체을 뿌리는 것은 용감한 자들에 대항하는 겁쟁이들의 방식이다 #WeStandWithAndrieYunus 민주주의를 위한 변호팀(TAUD)에 소속된 시민사회 운동가들이 처음부터 안드리 유누스에 대한 산성 테러 사건을 단순한 폭력이나 상해 행위가 아닌 계획적인 살인 미수로 간주해야 한다고 주장한 데에는 그만한 이유가 있다. 산성 액체는 그 엄청난 파괴력과 치사율로 인해 많은 국가에서 살인 수단으로 지정되었다는 사실 외에도, 가해자들이 신체의 다른 부위가 아닌 얼굴을 겨냥해 분사했다는 점은 이 공격의 목적이 단순히 피해자에게 고통을 주는 것이 아니라 죽음에 있었다는 것을 시사한다. 눈, 콧구멍, 구강은 내부 장기로 통하는 입구이며, 부식성 강산이 이 문을 통해 침투한다면 그 누구라도 목숨을 잃게 될 것이다. 안드리 유누스는 2025년 3월 12일 자정 무렵 오토바이를 타고 가던 중 산성 테러를 당했다. 이 공격으로 인해 안드리는 눈, 얼굴 일부, 가슴, 양손을 포함해 전신의 24%, 즉 거의 4분의 1에 달하는 화상을 입었다. CCTV 영상에는 오토바이를 탄 두 명이 뒤에서 그를 추격하는 모습이 포착되었으며, 이들은 안드리를 앞지르자마자 즉시 방향을 돌려 그의 얼굴에 산성 액체를 뿌렸다. 그 이후로, 이번 사건이 단순 사고였다는 가정은 즉각 깨졌다. 안드리는 명백히 표적이었고, 이번 공격은 확실히 계획된 것이었다. 게다가 산성 액체은 구하기 쉬운 물건이 아니다. 가해자들은 우선 이를 구매해야 했고, 자신들이 다치지 않게 액체를 운반할 방법을 궁리하며 준비해야 했다. 공격이 발생하고 3주 뒤, TAUD가 수행한 독립적인 조사 결과 새로운 사실들이 밝혀졌다. 남부 자카르타에 위치한 인도네시아군(TNI) 관사가 이번 공격을 계획하고 조직한 본거지일 가능성이 매우 높다는 것이다. **국가 테러리즘과 정치적 의지로서의 침묵 강요** 사건 발생 24시간도 채 지나지 않아, 다양한 각도에서 촬영된 CCTV 영상 여러 개가 대중에게 유포되었다. 이 영상들은 소셜 미디어를 통해 빠르게 퍼져나갔으며 공격의 순간을 선명하게 담고 있었다. 예를 들어 한 영상에서는 안드리가 카메라 프레임에 나타나고, 뒤이어 오토바이 두 대가 그를 추월한 뒤 유턴하여 안드리 유누스(Andrie Yunus)의 얼굴에 액체를 뿌리는 모습이 찍혀 있다. 2분이 넘는 이 영상에서 사건은 불과 몇 초 만에 일어났다. 영상의 나머지 부분은 오토바이에서 뛰어내려 헬멧을 벗어 아스팔트에 내동댕이치고, 옷을 벗어 던진 채 무엇인지 알 수 없는 고통에 몸부림치는 안드리 유누스의 끝없고 가슴 아픈 비명소리로 채워져 있었다. 안드리 유누스를 개인적으로 아는 사람들에게 이 영상은 눈물을 참을 수 없게 만든다. 그를 개인적으로 알지 못하는 사람들에게는 이 영상이 국가를 지나치게 비판할 때 감수해야 할 위험을 상기시킨다. 소셜 미디어 댓글란에 올라온 글들은 안드리 유누스를 향한 동정의 메시지 외에도 두려움을 담고 있다. 당시 CCTV 영상을 입수한 곳은 TAUD 팀과 경찰 측, 단 두 곳뿐이었다. TAUD는 당연히 영상이 퍼지는 것을 원치 않았다. 테러를 확산시키고 싶지 않은 이유도 있었지만, 영상의 유포가 수사에 방해 요소가 될 수도 있었기 때문이다. 따라서 영상을 유포한 주체에서 TAUD는 제외될 수 있으며, 남은 곳은 단 한 곳뿐이다. 공격이 발생한 바로 다음 날, 프라보워 대통령은 정부의 성공을 달가워하지 않고 애국적이지 않은 관찰자들을 '통제'하겠다고 발언했다. 그는 자신을 자주 비판하는 관찰자들에 대한 정보 데이터를 가지고 있으며, 비판 뒤에 숨겨진 모든 동기와 비판자들을 지원하는 배후까지 파악하고 있다고 주장했다. 프라보워의 발언을 정부에 비판적인 사람이라면 누구든 침묵시키겠다는 신호로 본다면, 안드리 유누스는 분명 그가 침묵시키려는 대상에 포함될 것이다. 안드리 유누스는 지난 몇 년간 인권 옹호 활동에 삶을 바쳐온 인권 활동가다. 대학 시절부터 LBH 자카르타의 공익 변호사로 활동하기까지, 그리고 현재 콘트라S의 부조정관으로서 그는 권력 남용과 온갖 형태의 국가 권위주의에 맞서는 옹호 활동에 깊이 관여해 왔다. #비상경고(#EmergencyWarning), #어둠의인도네시아(#DarkIndonesia), #TNI법반대(#TolakRUUTNI)와 같은 수많은 시위 물결과 2025년 8월에서 9월까지 이어진 마지막 시위에서 안드리 유누스는 TAUD와 함께 체포되고 경찰에게 구타당하며 범죄자로 낙인찍힌 수많은 시위대(아나키스트 포함)의 석방을 위해 앞장섰다. 특히 마지막으로 언급된 시위에서는 진상조사위원회의 일원으로서 국가 공무원의 위법 행위와 과도한 물리력 사용에 대한 독립적인 조사를 수행하기도 했다. 따라서 이러한 사실의 파편들을 그저 우연으로 치부한다면 너무 순진한 생각일 것이다. 안드리 유누스에 대한 공격, 다른 목소리를 "통제"하고 싶다고 공공연히 밝힌 프라보워의 발언, 그리고 공포를 조성하기 위해 의도적으로 퍼뜨린 테러는 국가 테러리즘을 영속화하려는 국가 관리들의 정치적 태도이며, 사회 정의가 아닌 국가 권위주의에 대한 그들의 결탁을 보여주려는 더 큰 정치적 의지의 일환이다. 즉, 국가를 절대적이고 반박 불가능한 단일체로 만들고자 하는 욕망인 것이다. 국가가 경찰과 군을 통해 만들어낸 것은 두려움 외에도 혼란스러운 정보의 혼재였다. 공격이 발생하고 약 일주일 후, 경찰과 군은 각각 별도의 수사를 진행했다고 밝혔으나 그 결과는 완전히 달랐다. 경찰은 가해자가 2명이라고 발표한 반면, 군은 가해자가 4명이라고 밝혔으며 두 발표의 가해자들은 서로 완전히 다른 인물들이었다. 경찰에 따르면 가해자의 이니셜은 BHC와 MAK였다. 반면 군에 따르면 가해자는 군 정보기관(BAIS) 소속 현역 군인인 NDP, SL, BWH, ES였으며, 놀랍게도 이들을 구금하고 있으며 군사재판에 회부할 것이라고 밝혔다. 이러한 조치는 대중을 기만하려는 시도다. 일부는 군이 소속 인원의 연루를 인정하고 군사재판에 회부하는 결단을 내린 것을 잘한 일이라고 믿는다. 그러나 적지 않은 이들이 이를 군 기관에 오랫동안 뿌리 깊게 박혀 있던 불처벌의 관행을 되풀이하려는 시도로 보고 있다. 첫째, 비공개로 진행된 내부 조사는 4명의 용의자가 실제로 연루되었는지 여부를 우리가 알 수 없게 만든다. 둘째, 내부 기밀을 방패 삼는 군사재판 역시 비공개로 진행되기에 그 과정과 결과를 확인할 길이 없다. 이러한 모든 내부 메커니즘은 사건을 조작하고 사건 배후의 진짜 몸통을 숨기기에 최적화된 구조다. 대중의 감시가 부재한 탓에 군사재판에서 다뤄지는 사건들은 종종 가벼운 처벌로 끝나고 군 기관의 불처벌 상황을 고착화한다. 바로 이러한 상황이 반군국주의 이념을 계속해서 표명해야 하는 이유 중 하나다. **군국주의와 반복되는 폭력** 역사는 군국주의가 시대에 걸쳐 심각한 문제였음을 기록하고 있다. 적어도 1965년 신질서 정부(수하르토 정권) 출범 이후, 군은 인권 유린의 주범으로서 국가 이익에 반한다고 판단되는 수천 명의 사람을 파괴해 왔다. 국가의 안정을 위협하는 자에 대한 국가 차원의 암살 시도는 역사 속에서 끊임없이 발생했다. "정치적 안정" 또는 "국가 안정"이라는 변명은 국가에 대한 비판을 허용하지 않는 구실이 되어, 불협화음으로 간주되거나 자본과 권력 소유자의 이익에 부합하지 않는 목소리를 침묵시키는 데 사용되었다. 안타깝게도 지금까지 이러한 시도들은 대체로 성공적이었다. 적어도 1965년부터 현재까지, 권력에 맞서려 했다는 이유로 수많은 사람이 목숨을 잃었음을 역사는 기록하고 있다. 그 사례 중 하나가 1965년 대학살이다. 이는 인도네시아 공산당(PKI)이 육군 장성 6명 살해에 연루되었다는 서사를 당시 수하르토가 지휘하던 육군이 장악하고 그 역사를 조작하면서 시작되었다. 이들은 공산주의자로 간주되는 모든 사람에 대한 증오를 조장하여, 그들에 대한 살인, 추방, 각종 인권 유린과 차별을 정당화했다. 이 사건은 PKI 및 그 산하 조직과 연관되었다고 여겨지는 50만 명에서 300만 명에 이르는 사람들에 대한 학살로 기록되었다. 이는 법적 절차 없는 투옥, 수천 명의 부루섬 강제 이주, 해외 체류자의 귀국 금지 및 해외 정치 망명 생활 강요 등은 포함하지 않은 수치다. 1965년 대학살은 육군 장성이었던 수하르토가 대통령이 되는 계기가 된 사건이었다. 이 사건 이후, 인도네시아 국정 운영에서 군부의 특권은 더욱 공고해졌다. 1982년부터 1985년까지 군은 국가 안정을 명목으로 '미스터리 총격’ 작전을 수행했다. 이는 범죄자로 간주되는 이들을 사살하는 초법적 살인 형태였다. 사법 절차 없이 오로지 외양만 보고 범죄 여부를 판단했는데, 긴 머리나 문신을 한 사람들이 주된 표적이었다. 정확한 사망자 수는 결코 알 수 없다. 일부 소식통은 군이 수행한 이 작전으로 2,000명에서 8,000명이 살해된 것으로 추정한다. 1989년에 발생한 탈랑사리 사건은 헨드로프리오노가 지휘하는 군인들이 람풍의 이슬람 집단을 살해하고 고문한 사건이다. 이 사건은 "국가 이념의 근간"인 판차실라를 단일하게 해석하는 수하르토의 P4 프로그램의 발현이었다. 여기서 비판적인 이슬람 집단은 판차실라에 반하는 이슬람주의자로 간주되어 제거 대상으로 지목되었다. 본질적으로 탈랑사리 사건은 수하르토가 자신의 정부에 비판적이고 반대하는 사람들을 제거하여 "정치적 안정"을 도모하려 했던 시도였다. 위의 사건들은 인권위원회(Komnas HAM)가 군을 책임 당사자로 지목한 수십 건의 심각한 인권 유린 사례 중 일부에 불과하며, 그들에게는 항상 면책이 책임 회피의 수단이 되어왔다. 불처벌의 가장 야만적인 징후는 과거 현역 군 장교 시절 최소 두 건의 인권 유린에 가장 큰 책임이 있어야 할 인물이 현재 대통령이 되었다는 사실이다. 프라보워는 1991년 티모르 레스테(당시 인도네시아 공화국의 일부)의 산타크루즈 묘지에서 발생한 수백 명의 동티모르 시민 학살 사건의 가장 유력한 책임자로 지목되는 인물이다. 프라보워는 또한 신질서 체제 붕괴 직전 13명의 민주화 운동가 납치 사건과 1998년 5월 폭동에 대해서도 책임을 져야 할 인물이다. 그가 2024년 대통령이 될 때까지 4번이나 선거에 출마할 수 있었던 원동력은 바로 면책이었다. 위의 사례들은 군국주의에 대한 저항이 새로운 것이 아님을 보여준다. 1998년 개혁은 인도네시아군(ABRI)을 해체하고 TNI와 경찰(Polri)을 분리하는 데 성공했기에 군국주의에 대한 승리로 여겨졌지만, 2025년 TNI법 개정을 통해 군을 다시 민간 영역으로 끌어들이려는 시도는 그 승리의 전환점이 되었다. 이는 본 웹사이트의 이전 기사에서도 확인할 수 있듯 시민사회의 저항을 불러일으켰다. TNI법 개정안 비준을 통해 군을 민간 영역으로 복귀시키려는 시도는 노동자 계급의 삶에 직접적인 영향을 미치기 때문에 시민사회의 다양한 요소들로부터 반대에 부딪히고 있다. 그중 하나로, 일자리 기회가 제한적인 상황에서 TNI법 개정안이 비준되면 현역 군인들이 민간인에게만 개방되어야 할 일자리까지 차지할 수 있는 길이 열리게 된다. 안드리 유누스는 법 개정을 반대하며 목소리를 높여온 인물 중 한 명이다. 산성 액체 테러를 당하기 직전, 안드리 유누스는 "재군사화와 TNI법의 사법 심사"라는 제목의 팟캐스트 녹음을 마친 상태였다. 1년 전에는 2025년 초 TNI법 개정안 비준을 논의하기 위해 의회(DPR)가 개최한 비공개 회의에 난입하기도 했다. 그 이후로 그와 콘트라S는 법안 반대 활동과 관련하여 잦은 협박과 위협을 받아왔으며, 결국 이것이 그에 대한 살인 미수 사건으로 이어진 것으로 보인다. PPAS의 연대 성명을 참조하자면, 스스로를 아나키스트라고 규정하지 않더라도 노동자 계급을 옹호하고 민간인과 노동자 계급의 지위를 약화하는 규정을 거부해 온 안드리 유누스의 일관된 행보는 아나코-생디칼리슴의 투쟁 핵심 원칙인 노동자 계급의 이익을 수호하는 활동으로 보아야 한다. 결국, 안드리 유누스에 대한 암살 시도가 개인적인 이유가 아닌 그의 활동 때문이라는 점에 동의한다면, 이번 암살 시도는 경찰의 잔혹성과 군국주의에 저항하는 활동을 암살하려는 시도였다고 할 수 있다. 군국주의는 자본 소유자의 이익과 노동자 계급에 대한 착취를 영속화하기 위해 국가가 항상 사용해 온 도구이기 때문이다.

redandblackanarchists.com.au