{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1712935,
        "msgid": "reconstructing-may-day-the-labour-movement-1777636395",
        "date": "2026-05-01 18:01:15",
        "title": "Reconstructing May Day: The Labour Movement",
        "author": "",
        "source": "DETIK",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Anthropology",
        "summary": "This article explores the historical origins of May Day, commemorating the execution of revolutionary labour leaders in 1886 Chicago, where police provocation framed anarchists as threats to society. Drawing from Benedict Anderson's work, it traces anarchism as a militant anti-colonial nationalism that flourished post-Marx through global networks, influencing figures like Jose Rizal and Indonesian nationalists such as Soekarno and Soe Hok Gie. Ultimately, it portrays anarchism not as chaos but as a leaderless movement fostering class consciousness and self-leadership, offering timeless lessons for social resistance and personal reconstruction.",
        "content": "<p>That is why on the day known as May Day, the international working\nclass commemorates the revolutionary labour leaders who were arrested\nand sentenced to death for causing chaos in society. Although there was\nno evidence to implicate their involvement, 200 people were injured by\npolice gunfire, which ultimately revealed that it was the police agents\nthemselves who had thrown the bomb into the midst of the police forces\nguarding the peaceful labour demonstration. Ironic, isn\u2019t it? For the\nworkers who were sacrificed in the name of security and order were\nexploited as the ones to be blamed and punished, even while disregarding\nthe applicable laws. In this context, the engineered riot to disperse\nthe labour demonstration was simultaneously used to mark the danger\nposed by anarchists. The group that had previously escaped the attention\nof security forces began to be viewed on par with rebels or terrorists.\nIn other words, as stated by the New York City police in the United\nStates during their duty to guard the 2004 Republican National\nConvention, \u201cThe threat does not come from communists, nor from Muslim\nfanatics, but from anarchists.\u201d In other words, anarchists have received\na stigma they never imagined before. The question is, who exactly are\nthese anarchists? What is the historical trajectory of their steps on\nthe map of social movements to date? Are there lessons that can be\nreconstructed, or even deconstructed, from the history of anarchists for\nour society today? In his book titled Under Three Flags: Anarchism and\nthe Anti-Colonial Imagination (Serpong, South Tangerang: Marjin Kiri,\n2015), Benedict Anderson explains that anarchism is not merely acts of\ndestruction, arson, or even murder. Rather, it is militant nationalist\naction as fierce as that of radical left groups (Marxists) against\nimperialism and colonialism. Thus, anarchism grew and developed after\nKarl Marx\u2019s death in 1883 through local nationalist figures in Cuba\n(1895), the Philippines (1896), and South Africa. What and who did they\nfight against? Of course, the imperialist and colonial rulers such as\nBritain, France, and Russia, plus Germany, the United States, Italy, and\nJapan. How did they fight? During the era known as the \u201cfirst\nglobalisation\u201d at the end of the 19th century, anarchists utilised\nvarious cross-continental communication media such as telegrams,\nletters, magazines, newspapers, photographs, and books. Moreover,\nsupported by railway networks that penetrated national and imperial\nborders, they could move more freely and quickly without much time and\neffort. That is why anarchists are true polyglots (mastering many\nlanguages) since there was no \u201cinternational language\u201d yet. Only in that\nway could the struggle against colonialism be disseminated widely,\nalthough it was not easy to carry out and often failed. Up to this\npoint, anarchists appear more as activists in social movements behind\nthe scenes. In other words, they are often called \u201cthink tanks\u201d in\nsocial movements but can take the stage if truly needed. Jose Rizal is\none example of such an activist who was eventually sentenced to death on\n30 December 1896 and elevated as the \u201cFather of Nationalism\u201d in the\nPhilippines. In Indonesia, nationalist figures like Soekarno, Hatta,\nSjahrir, and Amir Sjarifuddin actually belonged to this group as well.\nThe same goes for Soe Hok Gie, who became one of the key figures in the\n1966 student movement. Their struggles initially were not to urge the\nmasses to \u201ctake up arms,\u201d but rather to ignite the spirit of resistance\nthrough people\u2019s organisations or movements. For example, through\ntrading associations, education, or health groups that helped society\nmeet daily needs independently and selflessly. This is essentially what\nthe anarchists did from one end of the world to the other. Therefore, at\nits core, anarchists do not pretend, let alone intend, to change the\nworld. In this context, it is not a \u201cclassless society,\u201d as formulated\nby Marx, that anarchists aspire to, but merely \u201cclass consciousness,\u201d\nthat is, being alert and vigilant to always be sensitive and caring\nabout the fate of fellow human beings. This is the essence of the\ncritique that Marx originally directed at philosophers for being adept\nonly at interpreting the world without changing anything. Thus, it is no\ncoincidence that Rizal, who was initially a novelist with his famous\nworks Noli Me Tangere (Touch Me Not) and El Filibusterismo (The Reign of\nGreed), was tempted to become a political activist and failed to\ncomplete his third novel. Historically, anarchists at their core are\nmerely a \u201cnameless movement.\u201d However, that movement is still capable of\nechoing global resistance. That means they are not a movement that\nproduces chaos, but rather invites and helps anyone to always be radical\nand nationalist. That is why, as a movement, anarchists fundamentally\nalways stand on the guideline of \u201corganise without leaders.\u201d With that\nguideline, it is clear enough that the demands and guidance of the\nanarchist movement are to become a leader for and of oneself. In other\nwords, becoming an anarchist is not about changing anything or anyone.\nBut it is oneself that must first and foremost be reconstructed and\ndeconstructed so as not to act without control.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reconstructing-may-day-the-labour-movement-1777636395",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}