Anarchic update news all over the world - Part one - 1.08.2018

Today's Topics:

   
1.  Indonesia: Solidarity Update on the Trial of the Four
      Anarchist Prisoners in Yogyakarta [machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
2.  anarkismo.net: A spectre is haunting us: it's the past
      weighing like a nightmare on the present by Shawn Hattingh
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
3.  anarkismo.net: An Anarchist View of the Class Theory of the
      State by Wayne Price (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
   
4.  Holand, ag amsterdam: Direct Action Rewards! Cleaning lady
      of AirB & Bs takes 2, 500.00 (nl) [machine translation]
      (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1






26.07.18: The trial has begun for the 4 anarchist prisoners of war who were transferred to 
Cebongan Prison for the Yogyakarta M1 (May Day) ---- case. ---- The four imprisoned 
comrades are: ---- - Azhar M. Hasan (Azhar) ---- - Zikra Wahyudi (Zikra) ---- - Muhammad 
Ibrahim (Boim) ---- - Muhammad Edo Asrianur (Edo) ---- The anarchist action commemorating 
M1 is entering a new phase. The 4 anarchist prisoners of war who took part in the 
demonstrations at the intersection outside UIN Yogyakarta (e Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic 
University) underwent a preliminary trial hearing at the Sleman District Court on July 
26th. ---- The first preliminary trial hearing consisted of the prosecutor reading the 
indictment against the comrades. The prosecutor stated that this trial should take place 
separately from the criminal case and called for a split hearing.

The trial is taking place in sequential order. Azhar and Zikra are Case Number 
306/Pd.B/2018/PNSmn, while Edo and Boim are Case Number 305/Pid.B/2018/PNSmn. So it is a 
split case file, however it the trial will still take place in the same court room.

A split hearing was called for because the defendants are each facing different 
indictments from open trials. In the indictment that was read out there is material 
presented relating to violence and destruction against public facilities.

This is in accordance with evidence already gathered by the police and the prosecution.

Based on the criminal charges, the 4 anarchist prisoners of war are being threatened with 
either Article 170, paragraph (1) which carries a maximum sentence of 5 years 
imprisonment, or Article 406 of the Criminal Code which carries a maximum sentence of 2 
years imprisonment. There was also evidence attached that alleges that the 4 comrades 
committed a criminal act during M1. The four prisoners of war did not enter a plea.

More information,

Instagram account: @palang__hitam
Website: palanghitam.noblogs.org
Email: civilrebellion@riseup.net

https://palanghitam.noblogs.org/category/kabar/

------------------------------

Message: 2





The context we now exist in is one that is defined by glaring contradictions everywhere, 
its fractured, changing, unstable and confrontational. It is a time of despair, but also 
pockets of hope. ---- On the one hand, a spectre is haunting us, but it is not the one 
that Marx spoke of. Rather an authoritarian and extreme right wing form of capitalism, 
last seen on extensive scale in the 1930s, is rearing its hideous ghost-like head. ---- 
This right wing extremism has become an ‘acceptable' form of politics amongst some people 
in the context of the unresolved capitalist crisis. It is the ‘solution' amongst sections 
of ruling classes in many countries to a crisis that is not going away. As part of this, 
many states are passing laws attacking basic rights that oppressed classes have won 
through decades and even centuries of struggle (including in South Africa); states are 
beginning to bare their teeth more often rather than being in a position to rule by 
consent; toxic nationalisms based on exclusionary racial, ethnic and religious identities 
(including within sections of the population in South Africa) have once again become 
acceptable and even embraced by sections of the population (giving rise to the likes of 
Trump, Le Pen and Duterte and xenophobia and other ills in South Africa); and bigotry and 
hate are back.

Yet there is also hope. In many parts of the world, sections of the working class have 
fought back. This has seen movements of protests in some parts, attempts to revive unions 
in others and in some cases the re-emergence of left political parties and projects. But 
it is also a restructured working class, a working class that is fundamentally different 
from even the 1970s. New or different forms of organising happen next to the old. It is 
thus also a working class in which the past weighs like a nightmare on the present in 
organisational terms; experimenting with the new and different ways of organising, but 
also falling back into the old.

Unresolved capitalist crisis
It is clear that the capitalist crisis is not over. It has its origins in the problems of 
over- production and over-accumulation that arose initially in the 1930s. The problem was 
exacerbated in the 1970s with the implementation of neoliberal policies and the rise of 
financialisation, as ruling classes across the globe, including in South Africa, attempted 
to restore profit rates-something which has not happened.
But the rise of financialisation has made the system extremely unstable. By some accounts 
there have been over 70 different ‘financial' crises in various parts of the world since 
1970, with the biggest being in 2008/09.

The reality is that the legacy of 2008/09 is still firmly with us. Despite bailing out 
corporations and undertaking Quantative Easing (QE), the underlying problems of 
over-accumulation and over-production have not been solved. Hence, all the money 
corporations have received from states has been used to continue to speculate-as this is 
the only ‘profitable' outlet for their vast surpluses.

Growth has, therefore, been anemic in most parts of the world over the last ten years. 
Some countries, such as Greece and Venezuela, have experienced conditions akin to the 
Great Depression. In South Africa growth has often hovered below 1%, and in the last 
quarter the economy contracted by 2%.

In the last few months, countries such as South Africa, have in fact become extremely 
vulnerable. The money provided to financial institutions via QE and bailouts was used to 
speculate on bonds in so-called emerging or developing markets. With interest rates rising 
in the U.S.-under the guise of controlling inflation, but in reality to keep wages low-and 
with the tapering and ending of QE, speculators have been returning their money to the 
U.S. and dumping bonds of so-called emerging markets. This has led to the Rand dropping in 
the last two months and a full-blown crises in countries such as Argentina.

We are in a context, therefore, where the bubbles that have been created, and that have 
led to minimal growth at best, will burst-it is not a matter of if, but when. When they 
do, it is states such as South Africa that could be worst hit. This is not a reason for 
celebration: the social, politcal and economic consequences for the working class could be 
catastrophic. Misery does not lead like a straight line to revolution or even resistance.

An unraveling of traditional parties of the ruling classes
The fact that the capitalist crisis has been unresolved has led sections of the ruling 
classes in countries such as the US, Britain, Italy, Philippines, Hungary and France to 
begin to look for political alternatives to the status quo. That traditional parties of 
the ruling classes, including social democratic and national liberations parties, have 
imposed neoliberalism and austerity means they have also lost credibility in the eyes of 
working class voters, meaning they cannot keep neoliberalism and austerity going by consent.
Sections of the ruling classes in a number of countries have come to realise this and have 
begun to build and promote alternatives to these parties and politicians. Most, but not 
all, have been extremely right wing parties and politicians, which these sections of the 
ruling classes are hoping can restore profits through authoritarianism. This has led to 
the rise of Duterte, Trump, the Front Nationale, Lega, Jobbik and the Five Star 
Movement-politicians and parties that were solidly on the fringe as recently as a decade 
ago. They portrayed themselves as outside the so-called ‘establishment,' and as defenders 
of the interests of the ordinary people. In reality they push a strongly pro-ruling class 
agenda, including massive tax cuts for corporations and the rich. Some of these parties 
and politicians, such as Lega and Jobbik, are neo-fascist; others, like the Five Star 
Movement and Trump, have been described as right-wing ‘populists'.

In South Africa too we have seen that in the context of the unresolved capitalist crisis, 
the unraveling of the party of the ruling class since 1994, the ANC, has also occurred to 
a degree. This has seen other parties, such as the Democratic Alliance (DA) and to a 
lesser degree the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), increasing the percentage of the vote. 
The reality is that under this, the ANC could turn to some populist measures, whilst 
maintaining the core of neoliberalism, to maintain its share of the vote. But should its 
decline continue, and should Ramaphosa fail to revive the ANC, sections of the ruling 
class too in South Africa will begin looking for an alternative that can shore up the 
system. Already aspirant sections of the black middle class and black capitalists are 
looking to the EFF as an alternative to the ANC, with the EFF being sold as a party that 
will further the interests of the black working class, when in reality if it is in power 
its agenda may be very different.

The rise of toxic nationalisms as a ‘solution'
To shore up the agendas of these parties and politicians-and to try and win over sections 
of the working class-there has been an appeal to nationalisms based on exclusionary 
notions of race, religion and ethnicity in many parts of the world. In the U.S., France, 
Italy, and Britain there a rise in a form of white supremacist Christian nationalism and 
even neo- fascism. Immigrants from Africa, the Middle East and Latin America have been 
scapegoated as being the cause of the pressure and attack working and middle class people 
face as a result of the capitalist crisis and the actions of states-in the form of 
austerity to protect the interests and wealth of the ruling classes.
This to some degree has worked, as sections of the working and middle classes have bought 
into these narratives. This has become possible partly because under neoliberalism, class 
as a notion and form of politics has been under relentless attack from the ruling class, 
the media and sections of academia. Linked to this, politics based on identity have been 
promoted within public discourse-with the unintentional consequences in reality being an 
opening of space for nationalism based on essentialised notions of race and 
ethnicity-defined by the ideology that everyone belonging to certain race or ethnic groups 
share the same innate characteristics. Few would have believed such overt racist politics 
could and would become popular again, but sadly it is a spectre that has arisen from the 
grave.

Along with this, postmodernism has also inadvertently opened space for demagogy. Blatant 
lying, character assassination and scapegoating are the order of the day in such 
‘populist' politics, with facts at best being relative or not important at all. This too 
has filtered into some of the politics in South Africa from the national level right down 
to even sections of grassroots politics. Indeed, battles around positions in local 
councils for example involve this type of politics and more frighteningly actual 
assassinations.

This poses a major challenge for progressive politics, including in South Africa. The 
reason is, it avoids dealing with the root causes of the problems faced within society, 
namely class rule and capitalism. In fact, various nationalisms based on race and 
ethnicity have once again risen to prominence in South Africa. A white form a nationalism 
remains popular amongst large sections of white capitalist, middle, and working 
classes-and it was the basis around which apartheid was built. Using identity based on 
race and religion, a false cross- class alliance was built supposedly based on whiteness, 
and the legacy of this remains in place. Today remnants of this politics influence 
sections of the DA and groups such as Afriforum. This is stirring increased racial 
tensions in South Africa with potentially explosive consequences.

The reality is that the class consciousness that underpinned sections of the 
anti-apartheid struggle has been severely eroded in South Africa over the last 20 years, 
partly due to the ideology of neoliberalism. In the mainstream media, academia and amongst 
sections of the NGO sector, class has become something that is dismissed, denied and 
downplayed; while identity politics has been elevated.

In this context, where class politics is extremely weak, sections of the black working 
class too (but by no means a majority) are turning to nationalisms based on supposed 
ingrained race and ethnic identities in the face of exploitation and oppression. This too 
has lead some to adopt a toxic form of politics, including xenophobia. Indeed, 
sections-but certainly not the whole of the working class-sometimes turn to blaming 
‘foreigners' from other parts of Africa for their oppression-instead of the ruling class 
and the capitalist system. This has led to instances of violence towards people from other 
parts of Africa. This is not surprising as the ruling class in South Africa has been 
promoting xenophobia for decades now. It is not an accident that the vast majority of 
refugees seeking asylum in South Africa are turned down, and so-called illegal immigrants 
from the rest of Africa are effectively imprisoned in horrendous conditions by the state 
before being deported.

We also see a toxic form of nationalism beginning to be expressed by political parties 
such as the EFF whose leadership often subjects South African people of Indian decent to 
racial slurs and insult. Likewise, sections of the so-called ‘coloured' working class have 
also begun to mobilise around a supposed shared ethnic identity against a so-called ‘black 
African' section of the working class. In KwaZulu-Natal, the remnants of the IFP, the Zulu 
royal family, so-called traditional leaders and a faction around Zuma, have also been 
stirring up the spectre of Zulu nationalism. Apartheid created fertile ground for such 
forms of politics and in the recent period-marked by a profound social, political and 
economic crisis-this is gaining ground unfortunately even amongst a minority of the 
working class.

Internationally these toxic forms of nationalism, especially of the neo-fascist variety, 
are also appealing to false mythic histories and ‘traditions,' which incorporate 
patriarchy and indeed embrace it, despite some of the extreme right-wing parties in Europe 
having women leaders, such as Marine Le Pen.

The resurgence of imperialist rivalries
With extreme right wing nationalist politicians and parties gaining power in key 
states-such as the U.S.-the push for yet more austerity has only strengthened. Under 
Trump, social protection and welfare for the working class has been gutted-it was already 
eroded under neoliberalism, but this has now deepened.
It has, however, not just been right-wing parties and politicians that have imposed 
austerity but all parties that have been head of, or have come to head, states in this 
period of crisis. For example, despite claiming left credentials, when in power and under 
pressure from finance capital and EU institutions, Syriza in Greece has been imposing 
harsh austerity. In South Africa too, the ANC has capped the state's national budget, it 
has reduced transfers to local government (where services are delivered) and has even 
proportionately reduced its spending on housing over the last few years. This despite 
undertaking its own populist actions like expanding free education to a degree, and under 
pressure from #FeesMustFall. Thus growing austerity on state spending on the working class 
is escalating, shifting the burden even more onto the shoulders of working class women in 
terms of the reproduction of the class.

As the capitalist crisis has continued, rivalries amongst imperialist states has also 
intensified at the behest of sections of the ruling classes of the most powerful states. 
This has seen the U.S. begin to implement a form of protection, in terms of trade tariffs, 
against up and coming rivals such as China and even its erstwhile allies in the EU. 
Politically this has enabled the U.S. state, for example, to please sections working and 
middle class people-who fear the loss of their jobs in terms of offshoring and competition 
from imports-whilst still implementing austerity.

The Chinese ruling class for its part has responded to the U.S. state's tariffs with their 
own. In fact, China is attempting to build a trade block with countries, such as South 
Africa, Brazil and even the EU, outside the influence of the US. The growing rivalry 
between the U.S. state and the Chinese state is one of the key features internationally. 
In Europe, sections of the ruling class, such as in France and Germany, are attempting to 
ensure so-called Free Trade remains in place, but they too are reluctantly being drawn 
into the possibility of a trade war by the onslaught of the Trump regime.

As inter-imperialist rivalries have intensified or renewed in the context of a capitalist 
crisis, proxy wars-such as that in Syria-have become more vicious. These proxy wars have 
and will destroy the lives of millions of people-forcing them to immigrate not so much for 
a better life, but to survive. It is these refugees that are being scapegoated by the 
extreme right in Europe.

The restructured working class
It is now common knowledge amongst progressive forces that the working class 
internationally and in South Africa has been restructured under neoliberalism. Permanent 
nine to five jobs, with the same employer for years, are becoming ever scarcer. Under lean 
production, more and more jobs have been outsourced, shift work has become a feature of 
production and precarious work has arisen. In South Africa too, labour brokering has 
become very common.
Globally, structural unemployment has been on the rise, especially amongst youth. This is 
the case even amongst states in Europe, such as Spain, where youth unemployment stands at 
35%. In South Africa, the problem of structural unemployment has been in place for almost 
two decades-with the expanded unemployment rate hovering between 35 and 40 percent over 
that period. There are in fact, some sections of the working class that have come to exist 
outside of the relations of production, not because they don't want to sell their labour, 
but rather because they will never be able to.

Under this onslaught, wages for those who are employed have tended to stagnate and lose 
value in real terms. To try and maintain a semblance of a decent lifestyle, sections of 
the working and lower middle classes have become extremely indebted. This has been a 
feature of financialisation and it has been a key weapon that the ruling classes 
internationally have used to extract wealth from the working class. It has also been 
ideologically seen as a way to explicitly discipline the working class-the notion being 
workers that are heavily indebted are less likely to strike.

The burden of the reproduction of the working class-as noted above-has also fallen more 
and more upon working class women. The days of states providing education, electricity, 
water and decent housing for the working class as social services have gone. They were won 
in struggle by the working class over decades; they have now been take away by the ruling 
classes through their own political struggle against the oppressed and exploited. Today's 
services, including housing, have been commercialised or hollowed out at best-they are an 
avenue for actual and potential profits for corporations. Those without money don't get 
the services and it is generally women that have to step in to ensure families can survive.

This state of affairs has been rationalised through the promotion of the ideology of 
neoliberal restructuring. The state and sections of the media strongly reinforces 
individualist ideology, which has consequently taken hold in sections of the working 
class. Class consciousness has been eroded and even traditional social organisations of 
the working class, such as sports clubs and workers' clubs, have been undermined globally. 
The goal is to atomise the working class and to break it into sections so that organising 
becomes increasingly difficult, leaving workers disunited, fragmented and, therefore, more 
controllable.

With the unresolved capitalist crisis, the restructuring of the working class by the 
ruling classes and their states has continued apace. As part of this, growing automation 
and mechanisation-which is also a response to workers' militant struggles in countries 
such as China-has accelerated. This attack by the ruling classes has been camouflaged 
under the ideological notion of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution.

It is more of the same
A number of states in the last few years too have attacked the rights workers have won. In 
the U.S. the state has passed laws allowing greater over-time and in France the state 
attempted to severely curtail rights. In South Africa too we have seen the state 
attempting to amend the labour laws to undermine the right to strike and to curtail the 
length of strikes. Ruling classes, using their control over states, are rolling out such 
laws in an attempt to restore profits in manufacturing and mining and it is a feature of 
the current context.
Likewise, most states are also strengthening their law enforcement arms and many, 
including South Africa, have used the supposed threat of terrorism to do so. In the 
process, human rights, won through decades and centuries of struggle by the oppressed 
classes, are being rolled back at an ever alarming rate by many states in the context of 
the capitalist crisis. This is so whether states are governed by extreme right wing 
politicians and parties, traditional parties of the ruling class or so-called social 
democratic and even leftist parties (such as Syriza)-the only thing that does differ is 
the pace at which it is happening with the extreme right moving more swiftly under the 
cover of nationalism.

The reality is that sections of the working class have resisted both the attacks and the 
shift rightwards in many parts of the world. Prime examples of this have been the earlier 
struggles of the Arab Spring, the occupy movement, the uprisings in Greece, and strike 
waves in China. In South Africa we have also seen resistance at the point of production 
and within communities. This has included Marikana and the continuing wave of community 
protests against a lack of urban land, housing, water and electricity.

Many of the people involved in these protest movements have tried to find 
ways-unconsciously-to organise in a new or different way to the traditional vehicles of 
working class organisations, in terms of political parties and trade unions. As part of 
this, these initiatives have tended to use direct action as their most potent weapon. It 
must be stressed through that it has often not been a conscious choice to organise 
differently, but was rather done out of necessity.

Part of the reason for the arise of new or different forms of organising is because left 
parties and trade unions have proved to be largely ineffective in resisting neoliberalism, 
let alone new challenges such as the rise of extreme right wing nationalisms and even 
neo-fascism. But these experiments with new or different forms of organising have largely 
not been sustained. The mass assemblies and protest movement, which was the Arab Spring 
for example, was crushed by a counter-revolution throughout the Middle East. In South 
Africa, in the face of the labour law and state repression, the workers at struggles-such 
as Marikana-drifted back into a union, AMCU, despite it being as equally bad as NUM.

A problem which also plagued many of the experiments with new or different forms of 
organising internationally is that progressive alternative politics did not fully 
emerge-it existed only amongst small sections of these movements and never became 
hegemonic-and neither did a counter-culture to capitalism fully emerge. This was a 
weakness that had consequences, including the fact that in some cases initiatives, such as 
the Arab Spring, could not be held together and lost momentum in the face of electoral 
politics and state repression.

On the other hand, when sections of the working class have drifted into parties, militancy 
has tended to decline-for example in Greece. While the protest movement to a degree gave 
birth to Syriza, once in the state power-defined by the pressures of the state's 
hierarchical structure, its bureaucracy and under pressure from capital-its leadership 
capitulated, were co-opted and in reality abandoned their political principles. Indeed, a 
class that needs to desperately go beyond old ways of organising often can't seem to 
escape the hangover of the past, resorting to what is known, despite the glaring limitations.

It is clear, new or different forms of organising are vital to working class resistance 
under the current context and given the classes' restructuring. But there are also 
challenges in creating these for activists and those that wish to support them, including:

? The question of how to begin to sustain these or even should there be attempts to make 
such forms lasting (or are they forms that by definition only arise when there is mass 
struggle and hence will rise and fall with the rhythms of struggle?)

? The need to begin to bring class analysis back in to such movements and re-build 
progressive class politics as a force in the face of a context where it has become 
extremely marginalised-this too is vital even for the co-ordination of struggles in 
cities, let alone provincially or nationally

? The need to explore how to build a working class counter-culture in a context where it 
has been decimated

? The need to build and contest space for a progressive anti-capitalist politics, 
principles and visions that not only inform the future, but how we build movements, 
practice politics and conduct ourselves in the present.

https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31079

------------------------------

Message: 3





A Libertarian Socialist Defense of the Class Theory of the State ---- In order to 
understand government politics, it is necessary to have a theory of the state. The essay 
reviews classical anarchist and Marxist views of the class-based, pro-capitalist, nature 
of the state. But there are also non-class and non-capitalist influences on the state. 
These need to be integrated into a class theory of the state. ---- For anarchists and 
other radicals to really understand the Trump administration, and what is generally 
happening in U.S. politics, requires an analysis of the U.S. government. This, in turn, 
requires a theoretical understanding of the state, the basic framework of government. Yet, 
as Kristian Williams writes, in Whither Anarchism? "For a group so fixated on 
countering...the state, it is surprising how rarely today's anarchists have bothered to 
put forward a theory about[it]....The inability or unwillingness to develop a theory of 
the state (or more modestly, an analysis of states)...has repeatedly steered the anarchist 
movement into blind alleys." (Williams 2018; 26-7)

Of the theories which place the state within the context of the capitalist economy and all 
other oppressions (patriarchy, racism, ecological destruction, etc.), anarchism and 
Marxism stand out. Yet few Marxists know anything of the anarchist view of the state, and 
few anarchists know anything of Marxist state theory. (For that matter, as Williams 
implies, few anarchists know much of any state theory.) For example, most Marxists believe 
that anarchism denies that class factors are important for the state-and that it 
contradicts anarchism to believe that they are. They see anarchism as focused solely on 
the state, ignoring factors of class and political economy. Meanwhile, many anarchists 
believe that Marxists see the state as simply a reflex of the wishes of the capitalist 
ruling class, with no independent interests of its own and no reaction to other class and 
non-class forces.

I am going to review the classical anarchist and Marxist theories about the nature of the 
state and its relationship to classes and political economy. By "classical anarchism," I 
mean essentially the views of J-P Proudhon, Michael Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin (and not 
the views of individualists, Stirnerites, or "post-left"/"post-anarchists"). By "classical 
Marxism," I mean the views of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (and not the views of social 
democratic reformists or Stalinists).

When writing of "the state," I do not include any and every means of social coordination, 
collective decision-making, settling of differences, or protection from anti-social 
agression. Humans lived for tens of thousands of years in hunter-gatherer societies (also 
called "primitive communism") and early agricultural villages. They provided themselves 
with social coordination, etc., through communal self-management. What they did not have 
were states. The state is a bureaucratic-military institution, dominating a territory 
through specialized armed forces (police and military) and bureaucratic layers of people 
who make decisions, ruling over-and separate from-the rest of the population.

"The State...not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also 
of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many 
functions in the life of societies....A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has 
to be developed...."
(Kropotkin 2014; 254) The state is a "public force[which]consists not merely of armed men 
but also of material appendages, prisons, and coercive institutions of all kinds...organs 
of society standing above society...representatives of a power which estranges them from 
society...." (Engels 1972; 230-1) This is the view of both Kropotkin and Engels. When 
speaking of the end of the state under socialism/communism, they did not mean the end of 
all collective decision-making, etc., but the end of this bureaucratic-military, 
socially-alienated, elite institution.

The Views of the Classical Anarchists

The first person to call himself an "anarchist," Proudhon, wrote, "In a society based on 
inequality of conditions, government, whatever it is, feudal, theocratic, bourgeois, 
imperial, is reduced, in last analysis, to a system of insurance for the class which 
exploits and owns against that which is exploited and owns nothing." The state "finds 
itself inevitably enchained to capital and directed against the proletariat." (Proudhon 
2011; 18)

Bakunin, who as much as anyone initiated anarchism as a movement, wrote, "The State has 
always been the patrimony of some privileged class: the sacerdotal class, the nobility, 
the bourgeoisie-and finally...the class of bureaucracy...." And "Modern capitalist 
production and banking speculations demand for their full development a vast centralized 
State apparatus which alone is capable of subjecting the millions of toilers to their 
exploitation." (quoted in Morris 1993; 99)

Kropotkin elaborated anarchist theory: "All legislation made within the State...always has 
been made with regard to the interests of the privileged classes....The State is an 
institution which was developed for the very purpose of establishing monopolies in favor 
of the slave and serf owners, the landed proprietors,...the merchant guilds and the 
moneylenders, the kings, the military commanders, the ‘noblemen,' and finally, in the 
nineteenth century, the industrial capitalists, whom the State supplied with ‘hands' 
driven from the land. Consequently, the State would be...a useless institution, once 
these[class]monopolies ceased to exist." (2014; 186-8)

In brief, the classical anarchists saw a direct connection between the state and 
exploitative class society, serving the various upper classes as they lived off the lower, 
working, classes. This is the "class theory" of the state, also called the "materialist" 
or "historical materialist" state theory.

The class theory of the state is frequently criticized as a "reductionist," 
"instrumentalist," theory, which crudely reduces all government activity to the desires of 
the capitalist class. It is criticized for allegedly ignoring conflicts within that class, 
the pressures of other classes (such as lobbying by unions), and non-class forces. 
Non-class forces include all subsystems of oppression: sexism, racism, sexual orientation, 
national oppression, etc.-each, in its own way, maintained by the state. There are other 
pressures on the state, such as by the churches. As an institution, with its personnel, 
the state has its own interests. Supposedly, the materialist or class state theory ignores 
all this. In my opinion, it is this criticism which is itself oversimplified, as I will 
try to show.

The Views of the Classical Marxists

As with the anarchists, the Marxist form of the class theory of the state has been accused 
of being class reductionist, oversimplified, and mechanical.
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote, "The executive of the modern State is 
but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." (in Draper 
1998; 111) Draper calls this sentence, "the most succinctly aphoristic statement by Marx 
of his theory of the state." (same; 207)

This is often taken to mean that the state is merely a passive reflex of the capitalist 
class, with all the influence going from the bourgeoisie to the state. In fact, the 
sentence says that the state-or rather its executive branch-actively manages the interests 
of the bourgeoisie, as opposed to merely reflecting them. In any case, it is a brief and 
condensed ("succinctly aphoristic") statement, by no means a whole exposition of a theory.

Over the years, Marx and Engels developed their analysis of the state (an excellent 
overview is in Draper 1977). Marx's major work on the state appears in The Eighteenth 
Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. It was written in 1852 and covered French politics leading up 
to the elected president, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte (nephew of the Emperor Napoleon), 
seizing power and establishing his dictatorship (Marx 2002). Here and in other works he 
goes into the details of French politics. It become clear that Marx regards the state as 
full of conflicts among classes, fractions of classes, and agents of fractions of classes.

He uncovered the political-economic conflicts among the financial aristocracy (who 
supported one claimant to the monarchy), the large landowners (who supported another), the 
manufacturing bourgeoisie, the "republican" bourgeoisie (an ideological current within the 
bourgeoisie), the "democratic-republican" petty-bourgeoisie, and, below them all, the 
proletariat (mostly passive due to a recent major defeat), and the peasantry (who gave 
their support to the conman Louis-Napoleon, partially due to his name). There were splits 
within each of these forces. Marx also included the government officials and the army 
officers (all seeking money). He was clear that there were personal hostilities, 
ideological commitments, prejudices, and ambitions through which these conflicts worked 
themselves out.

Applying this approach to the current U.S. government would analyze the differing 
fractions of the capitalist class and its ideological and political agents and hangers-on, 
in their conflicting relations with each other and with sections of the middle and working 
classes.

The other main theme of Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire is the increasing independence of the 
state from all classes, including all sections of the bourgeoisie. Balancing between 
conflicting class forces, the executive branch of the state tends to rise above them all. 
Marx called this "Bonapartism," and it has been discussed as the "relative autonomy" of 
the state. With the dictator's abolition of the legislature and its political parties, as 
well as censorship over political discussion, the bourgeoisie lost direct control over the 
government. The capitalists were made to focus on running their businesses and making 
money, while Louis Bonaparte ran the state (declaring himself the new "Emperor"). This he 
did through the state bureaucracy, the army, and a quasi-fascist-like mass movement, as 
well as with popular support from the peasants.

In Defense of the Class Theory of the State

So, there are many fractions of the capitalist class, other classes, and non-class forces 
all competing for state influence. And the state itself has its own interests and a degree 
of autonomy from even the bourgeoisie. Does this mean that the class theory of the state 
is wrong?

I do not think so. In itself, that there may be multiple determinants of something does 
not decide the relative weights or importance of each determinant. There are many 
influences on the state, all of which may have some effect. Still, the overall need of a 
capitalist society is to maintain the capitalist economy, the growth and accumulation of 
capital, the continued rule of the capitalist class. Without the surplus wealth pumped out 
of the working population, the state and the rest of the system cannot last. This is the 
primary need of the society and the primary task of the state. Even if the bourgeoisie has 
little or no direct control of the government (as under Bonapartism or fascist 
totalitarianism), the state must keep the capitalist system going, the capitalists driving 
the proletariat to work, and profits being produced. The extreme example of this was under 
Stalinist state capitalism (in the USSR, Maoist China, etc.). The stock-owning bourgeoisie 
was abolished, yet the collective state bureaucracy continued to manage the accumulation 
of capital through state exploitation of the working class. (That is, until it fell back 
into traditional capitalism.)

This has been elaborated by Wetherly (2002; 2005). The class theory "involves a claim that 
the capitalist class is able to wield more potent power resources over against pressure 
from below and the capacity for independent action on the part of the state itself....The 
political sway of the capitalist class[is]not exclusive but predominant." (Wetherly 2002; 
197) "It does not claim that the economic structure exclusively explains the character of 
the state, but it assigns these other influences a minor role....Economic causation plays 
a primary role in explaining state action to sustain accumulation as a general feature of 
capitalist society. The state normally sustains accumulation and this is largely explained 
by the nature of the economic structure." (same; 204-5)

Others have theorized the interactions and overlapping of oppressions with each other and 
with class exploitation as "social reproductive theory" (Bhattacharya 2017). The different 
oppressions are not simply separate while occasionally intersecting; rather, they 
co-produce each other, within the overall drive of the whole system to reproduce and 
accumulate capital. For example, the oppression of women is directly related to the need 
for the system to reproduce the labor power of all workers (a necessity for capitalist 
production), which is done through the family. Similarly, Africans were enslaved to create 
a source of cheap labor. African-Americans remain racially oppressed in order to maintain 
a pool of cheap (super-exploited) labor, as well as to split and weaken the working class 
as a whole through white racism. (These factors are not the whole of sexism or racism, but 
are their essential overlap with capitalist exploitation.)

The state is not something added onto the capitalist economy, but a necessity if the 
capital/labor process is to go (relatively) smoothly-just as (reciprocally) the efficient 
functioning of the capitalist production process is necessary for the state to exist.

Primitive Accumulation and the State

The classical bourgeois economists, such as Adam Smith and David Riccardo, had speculated 
that capitalism began by artisans and small merchants gradually building up their capital, 
until they had enough to hire employees. This was called "primitive (or primary) 
accumulation." Marx rejected this fairy tale, showing how the state and other non-market 
forces played major roles in the early accumulation of wealth. There was state-supported 
dispossession of European peasants; slavery of Africans and Native Americans; looting of 
Ireland, India, and South America; piracy; and plunder of the natural environment. In 
Capital, Marx wrote of "the power of the state, the concentrated and organized force of 
society, to hasten, hothouse fashion, the process of transformation of the feudal mode of 
production into the capitalist mode....Force is...itself an economic power." (Marx 1906; 
823-4)

Kropotkin criticized Marx's concept of primitive accumulation-not because he disagreed 
that state coercion played a major role in the development of capitalism! He completely 
agreed with Marx on that point. Rather, Kropotkin insisted that state support for 
capitalism had never stopped; there was no distinct period of early accumulation, followed 
by a period of state non-intervention in the economy.

"What, then, is the use of talking, with Marx, about the ‘primitive accumulation'-as if 
this ‘push' given to capitalists were a thing of the past?....The State has always 
interfered in the economic life in favor of the capitalist exploiter. It has always 
granted him protection in robbery, given aid and support for further enrichment. And it 
could not be otherwise. To do so was one of the functions-the chief mission-of the State." 
(Kropotkin 2014; 193)

Similarly, the Marxist feminist Silvia Federici writes, "The need of a gendered 
perspective on the history of capitalism...led me, among others, to rethink Marx's account 
of primitive accumulation....Contrary to Marx's anticipation, primitive accumulation has 
become a permanent process...." (2017; 93)

However, Marx had expected that once capitalism had reached its final development, its 
epoch of decline, it would once again rely heavily on non-market and state forces. In his 
Grundrisse, he wrote, "As soon as[capital]begins to sense itself as a barrier to 
development, it seeks refuge in forms which, by restricting free competition...are...the 
heralds of its dissolution ...." (quoted in Price 2013; 69)

In any case, no one could deny today that government intervention is an essential part of 
the economy-from massive armaments expenditures to central banks to regulation of the 
stock exchange, etc. The key point is that the state is not an institution truly distinct 
from the capitalist economy. On the contrary, it is a central instrument in the creation, 
development, accumulation, and eventual decay of capitalism. "Force is itself an economic 
power."

Disagreement between Anarchists and Marxists on the State

Revolutionary anarchists and Marxists agree that the working class and the rest of the 
exploited and oppressed should overturn the power of the capitalist class. The workers and 
their allies should dismantle the capitalist state, capitalist businesses, and other forms 
of oppression, and organize a new society based on freedom, equality, and cooperation.

But they draw different conclusions from the class theory of the state. Marxists say that 
since the state is the instrument for a class to carry out its interests, then the workers 
and their allies need their own state. They need it in order to overthrow the capitalists 
and create a new socialist society of freedom and solidarity. The new state will either be 
created by taking over the old state (perhaps by elections) and modifying it, or by 
overthrowing the old state (through revolution) and building a new one. Over time, 
Marxists say, the task of holding down the capitalists and their agents will become less 
important, as the new society is solidified. Then the state will gradually decline. There 
may still be a centralized public power for social coordination, but it will become 
benevolent and no longer have coercive powers.

However, anarchists have a different conclusion. Since the state is a 
bureaucratic-military elite machine for class domination, it cannot be used for 
liberation. Such a supposed "workers' state," however it comes into existence, would only 
result in a new ruling class of bureaucrats, exploiting the workers as if the state was a 
capitalist corporation or set of corporations. This was predicted by Proudhon, Bakunin, 
and Kropotkin, way back in the beginning of the socialist movement. History has more than 
justified the prediction.

Instead, the anarchists propose that the workers and oppressed organize themselves through 
federations and networks of workplace assemblies, neighborhood councils, and voluntary 
associations. They should replace the police and military with a 
democratically-coordinated armed population (a militia), so long as this is still 
necessary. Such associations would provide all the coordination, decision-making, 
dispute-settling, economic planning, and self-defense necessary-without a state. It would 
not be a state, because it would not be a bureaucratic-military socially-alienated machine 
such as had served ruling minorities throughout history. Instead it would be the 
self-organization of the working people and formerly oppressed.

Conclusion

The class theory of the state claims that the bureaucratic-military social machine of the 
state exists primarily to develop and maintain capitalism, the capitalist upper class, and 
capital's drive to accumulate. There are also other influences on the state. These include 
factional conflicts within the capitalist class, demands by the working and middle 
classes, pressures to maintain other oppressions (race, gender, etc.) and resistance by 
these oppressed, other non-class forces, ideologies, and also the self-interest of the 
state itself and its personnel. Yet these myriad forces work out within the context of the 
need for capitalism to maintain itself and to expand. Therefore the political sway of the 
capitalist class is not exclusive but it is predominant. The fight against the state, 
against capitalism, and against all oppressions is one fight. It is a struggle for a 
society of freedom, individual self-development, the end of the state and of classes, 
self-determination and self-management in every area of living.

References
Bhattacharya, Tithi (2017) (ed.). Social Reproductive Theory; Remapping Class, Recentering 
Oppression. London: Pluto Press.

Draper, Hal (1977). Karl Marx's Theory of Revolution, Vol. 1; State and Bureaucracy. NY: 
Monthly Review Press.

Draper, Hal (1998) (ed.). The Adventures of the Communist Manifesto. Berkeley CA: Center 
for Socialist History.

Engels, Friedrich (1972). The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (Ed.: 
E. Leacock). NY: International Publishers.

Federici, Silvia (2017). "Capital and Gender." In Reading Capital Today; Marx After 150 
Years. (Eds.: I. Schmidt & C. Fanelli). London: Pluto Press. Pp. 79-96.

Kropotkin, Peter (2014). Direct Struggle Against Capital; A Peter Kropotkin Anthology 
(Ed.: Iain McKay). Oakland CA: AK Press.

Marx, Karl (1906). Capital; A Critique of Political Economy; Vol. 1 (Ed.: F. Engels). NY: 
Modern Library.

Marx, Karl (2002). "The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" (Trans.: T. Carver). In 
Cowling, M., & Martin, J. (eds.). Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire; (Post)modern 
Interpretations. London: Pluto Press. Pp. 19-109.

Morris, Brian (1993). Bakunin; The Philosophy of Freedom. Montreal/NY: Black Rose Books.

Price, Wayne (2013). The Value of Radical Theory; An Anarchist Introduction to Marx's 
Critique of Political Economy. Oakland CA: AK Press.

Proudhon, Pierre-Joseph (2011). Property is Theft; A Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Anthology 
(Ed.: Iain McKay). Oakland CA: AK Press.

Wetherly, Paul (2002). "Making Sense of the ‘Relative Autonomy' of the State." In Cowling, 
M., & Martin, J. (eds.). Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire; (Post)modern Interpretations. London: 
Pluto Press. Pp. 195-208.

Wetherly, Paul (2005). Marxism and the State; An Analytical Approach. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Williams, Kristian (2018). Whither Anarchism? Chico CA: To The Point/AK Press.

*written for www.Anarchism.net


https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31082

------------------------------

Message: 4





In February 2018 we as AGA (Anarchist Group Amsterdam) came in contact with a Spanish 
woman who cleaned AirB & Bs in Amsterdam through the Cleaning company Cleaning Support BV. 
This company is located at Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 330 in Amsterdam. ---- She had noticed 
a whole range of misconduct, with her schedule, her travel time from location to location, 
not paying out vacation days, structurally fewer hours on her payslip than what she had 
actually worked, content insurance premiums and so on. ---- Together with her, we have 
made a plan of action, on the one hand exhibiting the company that is the rig and carrying 
out actions and on the other hand through a sympathetic work rights office in Amsterdam 
asking for legal support and possibly starting a lawsuit (getting a labor dispute in court 
well and half years to 1 year, often longer even)

On Sunday, March 18 it was so far and we were at the door with a dozen people, handing out 
pamphlets, calling slogans, putting in a banner, and taking the opportunity to put all the 
letter busses in the neighborhood in a flyer. A report of that action can be found here:
http://www.agamsterdam.org/protest-bij-schoonmaak-support-bv-amsterdam/

The Spanish woman had to return to Spain due to family circumstances, we continued to 
support her and her lawyer continued to represent her business. The lawyer had made 
several wage claims and started a procedure to get the case to court. But before a session 
came, 2,500, - was deposited into the account of the cleaning lady through the dirty 
cleaning of Cleaning Support. Why is paid now is unclear, perhaps the pressure and 
lawsuit? perhaps the pressure of actions that took place and whether they would still take 
place? we are groping in the dark. One thing is clear and that is that you do not have to 
be turned upside down by the bosses!

If you want to fight back, you can. The best ingredients for a victory are that you are 
very angry at first. Then 2 or 3 friends / comrades who support you for fat and thin, and 
finally a good plan of action in which you have informed yourself well to get the boss on 
your knees. A good dose of perseverance is also recommended!

So do not be a pancake and turn back!
Break the power of the bosses!
Always in solidarity with working in conflict!

Victory-FESTIVITIES
On Saturday, August 4 from 4:00 PM there are alcohol free drinks and cake!
In the Anarchist Library Bollox
Address Eerste Schinklestraat 14-16 in Amsterdam
https://agamsterdam.org/anarchistische-bibliotheek/

Do you work? Do you ever have problems with wages, unpaid vacation days, not paid when you 
are ill? and you live in Amsterdam?

take a look at https://labourrights.vrijebond.org/

Especially for people who can not speak Dutch and you know that they have problems please 
inform them on this website. The basic labor rights in the Netherlands are available in 10 
different languages.

Is it special that anarchist groups do this kind of action?

No, not at all, the anarchist movement stems from the militant workers movement of the 
beginning of the 20th century, so there is ample experience but the struggle between labor 
and capital has, in our opinion, escaped a bit of attention lately.

A good example outside the Netherlands is for example in the English city of Brighton. 
There, there is the local group of the Solidarity Federation (an anarcho-syndicalist trade 
union), they do many successful campaigns against bosses and small house farmers. A sector 
in which they are specifically very active and successful is the so-called "hospatlity" 
sector. That's everyone who works in cafes, restaurants, hotels, etc. Here's a nice video 
how they work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N21jhKs1joc

And here is a list of campaigns that they have won.
http://www.brightonsolfed.org.uk/bhw

But closer to home you also have several initiatives, such as the Work Group Work Group of 
the Free Association. see here for more info https://www.vrijebond.org/arbeid/

And of course the people from Vloerwerk, who have already had several successful campaigns 
and squeezed thousands and thousands of euros in arrears from the bosses.
https://vloerwerk.org/

So are you being fired by the boss? do not go deprivate netflixing with your dull head!

Direct Action Sets the Moods!!!

Anarchist Group Amsterdam
https://agamsterdam.org/

http://www.agamsterdam.org/direct-actie-loont-schoonmaakster-van-airbbs-pakt-2-50000/

------------------------------