Borrowed words

Imprecision of terms is an elementary flaw in Indonesia's sociopolitical discourse. It is, for example, simply counterproductive to borrow a word but ditch half the meaning in the process. It is also characteristic of the Indonesian ideology's reluctance to undertake rigorous analyses. Ghalib didn't do it. "Anarchist", "communist" and "secular" are words with complex meanings and longish histories. It is distressing to see them rendered respectively as something like a "lunatic who smashes and burns," "lunatic who smashes and burns when the party tells him to", and "the anti-Allah".

I'll elaborate on one -- anarchism. Anarchism has -- to speak indefensibly, simplistically -- two forms: left wing and right wing. Those with an actual and theoretical knowledge of left anarchism know its exponents to be, generally, disciplined and educated people. An article of Noam Chomsky's recently graced your paper -- he's a left anarchist.

Conversely, I suggest that Indonesia got where it is today by dint of a philosophy of a somewhat right-anarchist nature. Right anarchism, in its guises -- such as (anarcho) capitalism, is deeply antisocial, and antisocial is what is going on here. (Yes, capitalism is anarchic). Right anarchism is the rich blocking public streets with their vehicles; it is the disdain of public health shown by the indicative male legions of Indonesian smokers; it is doing something not because it is right or wrong, but because you can do it. Sound familiar?

MARK BLAIR

Jakarta