Читать книгу The Complete Works of Malatesta Vol. III - Errico Malatesta - Страница 38

Translated from “Poche parole per chiudere la polemica,”

L’Agitazione (Ancona) 1, no. 6 (April 18, 1897).

I.

We are coming around to each other, it seems to me.

In a society run in accordance with the principles of anarchist Socialism, in grave matters of indivisible common concern, minorities will have to defer to the opinion and even the will of majorities; but the majorities must not misuse their power by trampling on the rights of the minorities. In the absence of a compromise of this sort, coexistence would not be possible.

Thus far, we are in agreement.

But what if a minority should not be willing to defer to the opinion of the majority in respect to one of the aforementioned matters? You say that in that case, Anarchy will be out of the question. So the wishes of a tiny minority, indeed, of one single person, will suffice for Anarchy—as you understand it—to be ruled out. A handful of scoundrels or reactionaries or eccentrics or neurotics, even a single person, will be able to thwart the operation of the anarchist system, simply by nay-saying, by declining to defer willingly to the majority. And since there is always going to be some curmudgeon in any society, the upshot of your reasoning is that Anarchy is all well and good but will never come to pass.

I, on the other hand, have a less absolute understanding of Anarchy. I do not go for the ultimatum you posit. As I see it the anarchist idea will begin to be acted out long before men attain a state of perfection, whereby, won over to the benefits of association, they willingly defer to one another. Starting right now, this idea ought to suggest to us ways and means of providing for our common interests and resolving such conflicts as may arise, without authority or centralization, without some established authority within society that has the capability of imposing its own wishes and its own interests upon the mass of its subjects.

That is the only practicable Anarchy and it is an imminently practicable Anarchy: the only sort worth bothering ourselves about.

Let us look at the examples you have cited. You say:

In an anarchist society there cannot be any police. In order to dispense with police, though, men must respect one another and a gentleman should be able to walk the streets without fear of being assaulted, or at least, with the assurance that his neighbors and passersby will come to his defense, should he be attacked by someone stronger than him. If the weak were in fear of being mugged, they would cry out for a police force to protect them, and Anarchy would be done for.

Therefore you pose a dilemma: either no form of social or collective defense against crime, except the casual defense by the crowd—or police, Government, the existing state of affairs.

In contrast, I believe that between the current system and the one that presupposes the end of crime, there is room for intermediate forms—for a social defense that is not a function of a Government, but that is practiced in each locality under the gaze and control of the citizens just like any public health or transport service, etc., and that therefore cannot degenerate into a means of oppression and domination.

Preparing for such forms and ensuring their success over the present authoritarian practice or the like constitutes the very mission of anarchist socialists. But they will not be carrying out that mission if they say that anarchy is only feasible once society has no further need of protection against crime—in that no more crimes will be committed.

Of the relations between one people and another you say: These days States make peace and war, abide by certain standards of justice in their dealings (people’s rights, etc.) without a Government, a Parliament, or an international police force. Why don’t you realize that there is a Government of Governments, that is, that Power or those Powers that command the greatest number of cannons and the largest numbers of men to load and defend them? And how can you not realize that the relations between people at present are in the embryonic stage and that trade treaties, postal, health and monetary conventions, and the so-called law of nations are the first sketch of an organization of international interests that will carry on expanding after today’s states have ceased to exist?

We should see to it that such organization takes place along federative, libertarian lines rather than deny its necessity and usefulness. Frankly, it seems to me that you still stand halfway between Individualism and socialism.

II.

And now let me return from the issue of principles to that of tactics.

In the editorial of no. 3, you turn to the recent elections and say:

“Frankly, we are greatly delighted by the socialists’ successes, because, no matter etc., it still goes to show that the idea of Socialism is gaining ground, that the numbers rebelling against the orders of master, priest, and policeman are on the rise and that, after all, this Italy is not really the land of the dead that it had appeared to be in recent years.”166

A valuable admission, which really surprises me. You abstentionists—who preach that a people that votes is surrendering its sovereignty into the hands of a few, now view the recent vote by Italian electors, no less, as a rebellion against the orders of master, priest, and the powers-that-be—such a significant assertion of the rights and aspirations of the people that you can merrily exclaim that said elections have demonstrated that Italy is not the land of the dead she had seemed to be in recent years.

Does that assertion seem a trifling matter to you?

You chalk up the compromises, the watering down of programs, corruption, etc. to parliamentarism. But such woes can never outweigh the enormous benefit of having felt the throbbing heart of a people that, as you say, looked as if they were dead and consigned to the stillness of the grave.

Now, if it is all right for you to say after the elections that they turned out to be a splendid affirmation of Socialism, I could scarcely be prohibited from saying, in advance of those elections, that we ought to see to it that they would amount to just such an affirmation. If there is no impediment in anarchist principles to your rejoicing in the socialists’ successes, there should likewise be no impediment to my declaring that I was yearning for that. Your rejoicing would never have come about had someone not worked towards socialism’s triumph in the elections. And I am not wrong to persist in arguing that anarchists can do rather better than act as onlookers and rejoice in the success of others.

For Government to endure, rather more than the material force of the bayonet is required; it also needs a moral force that it expects from elections—a semblance of popular endorsement. And we should challenge its attainment of such moral force; because, if it can be whittled down to material force alone, we will be able to combat it successfully at the earliest opportunity.

One last word. You claim that all anarchists are abstentionists. How wrong you are! The fiercest abstentionists vote for the republicans, for the socialists, for their personal friends, not to mention the Azzarrettis, which are quite a few! What is gained by abstentionist tactics is to take part in elections not in the name of our own principles, but under a false name and to the advantage of other parties.

Saverio Merlino

Merlino is developing an odd approach to debate. From what is said to him he picks out some phrase that he then wrenches out of its context, toying with it and twisting it and, because he then ignores the context, he manages to depict you as saying whatever suits him. Besides, he never answers questions put to him nor replies to rebuttals; but swoops on some incidental example or detail and addresses it, ignoring the essential point at issue; so that the subject of contention is never the same from one response to the next.

And actually, who could guess that we were in the throes of debating whether parliamentarism is or is not compatible with anarchy?

If things carry on like this, we can spend a good century arguing without ever discovering whether we agree or not.

Anyway, let us follow where Merlino leads.

Why is Merlino saying that “we are gradually becoming closer?”

Is it because we concede the need for cooperation and agreement between the component members of society and because we defer to conditions outside of which cooperation and agreement are not possible? But, sure, that is socialism and Merlino knows perfectly well that we have always been socialists and therefore always very “close.”

The point, now, is whether socialism is to be anarchist or authoritarian, that is, whether agreement should be voluntary or imposed.

And what if people refuse to agree? Well, in that case, there will be tyranny or civil war, but not anarchy. Anarchy is not brought about by force; force can and should be used to sweep away the material stumbling blocks and allow the people a free choice as to how they wish to live; but, beyond that, it can achieve nothing.

So, if “a handful of good-for-nothings or hotheads, or even a single individual pig-headedly say no, is anarchy then to be ruled out?” Damn it! Let’s not bandy phoney arguments. Such individuals are free to say no, but they will not be able to stop others from pushing for yes—and so they will have to fit in as best they can. And if “good-for-nothings and hotheads” were sufficiently numerous as to be in a position to seriously thwart society and prevent it from blithely functioning, then… sad to say, anarchy would still be a way off.

We do not depict anarchy as some idealized paradise indefinitely postponed precisely because it is too beautiful.

Men are too flawed, too used to competing with and hating one another, too brutalized by suffering, too corrupted by authority for a re­arrangement of society to be likely to turn them all, overnight, into ideally good and intelligent beings. But no matter the measure of the impact we can expect that rearrangement to produce, the system needs changing and, in order to change it, we must bring about the essential preconditions that allow for such change.

Our reckoning is that anarchy is feasible in the near future, because we think that the requisite conditions for it to exist are already embedded in the social instincts of men today; so much so that, one way or another, they keep society afloat in spite of the disruptive, anti-social operations of government and property. And we reckon the remedy and bulwark against the noxious tendencies of some and against the dangers posed by the conflicts of interests and inclinations, is not government, whatever its hue, but freedom; being made up of men, any government cannot help but tilt the scales in favor of the interests and tastes of those who are in government. Freedom is the great reconciler of human interests, as long as it is rooted in equality of conditions.

Whilst we want to see anarchy made a reality, we are not waiting for crime or the possibility of crime to be banished from the face of society; but we want no police because we do not believe they have the ability to prevent crime or clear up after it, whereas the police themselves are the source of a thousand woes and a standing menace to freedom. Social defense must be taken care of by the whole society; if arms must be taken up in order to defend ourselves, we want to see everyone armed rather than a number of us constituted as some praetorian guard. We remember only too well the fable of the horse that submitted to the bridle and let itself be mounted by a man, the better to hunt the stag—and Merlino is well aware of how much of a lie there is in talk of “oversight by the citizenry,” when those in need of such oversight are the very ones who command strength.

Nor is Merlino any more rigorous when he borrows our example of the “European Entente.” We have never claimed that equality and justice were features of present day relations between states, any more than we have denied the need for a federative, libertarian orchestration of international interests. We merely said that the violence and injustice, which prevail in relations between states today, would not be remedied by some international government or Parliament. Greece today is under the yoke of the Great Powers and she resists it; if she was represented in some world Parliament and had agreed to abide by the determinations of the majority of that Parliament, she would be subject to an equal or greater violence, and would have no right to resist it.

Moreover, what is Merlino talking about when he says that we are midway between Individualism and Socialism?

Individualism is either a theory of struggle, “every man for himself and devil take the hindmost,” or it is a teaching that everyone should think for himself and do as he pleases without a care for others, out of which universal harmony and happiness emerge, as if by some law of nature.

In either sense, we are the polar opposites of individualists, every bit as much as Merlino may be. The issue between him and us is an issue of freedom or authority and, to be quite frank, it strikes us that he has reached (or, rather, has strayed to) a position midway between authoritarianism and anarchism.

* * *

We come now to the matter of tactics.

Merlino is astounded that we should have rejoiced at the socialists’ success. We find his astonishment truly odd.

We rejoice when democratic socialists get one over on the bourgeois, just as we would celebrate if republicans got one over on the monarchists, or the liberal monarchists on the clericals.

We would be a lot happier still if we had managed to convert to anarchism those who cast their votes for the socialists, and had we managed to ensure that not a single vote was cast for the socialists. But in the present instance, had the hundred thousand-odd voters who did cast their votes for the socialists not done so, that would not have been because they were anarchists but because they would either have been various shades of conservatives, or folk who abstained out of sheer indifference, or who cast their votes indiscriminately for whoever was paying, promising, or threatening the most. And Merlino is astounded that we should rather know them to be socialists, or half-baked socialists?

Good and evil are quite relative; and a reactionary party may well represent a step forwards in comparison with an even more reactionary one.

We are always delighted to see a clerical turn into a liberal, a monarchist into a republican, a fence-sitter into something; but it does not follow from that that we—whose thinking is streets ahead of theirs—must become monarchists, liberals, or republicans.

Take an example: given the current status of the southern provinces, it would have been an excellent sign if the supporters of Cavallotti quite simply had met with success on a wide scale; and we would have rejoiced at that, just as we reckon the democratic socialists would have as well. But that is not to say that the socialists and anarchists should have championed Cavallotti’s supporters in southern Italy. Instead, the socialists stand their own candidates everywhere, even if that might lessen the chances of the less reactionary candidate—whereas we lobby everywhere for deliberate abstention, not bothered by whether or not it might favor this candidate or that. For us, it is not the candidate that counts, insofar as we do not see the point of having “good deputies”; what matters is some indication of people’s frame of mind; and of the thousand and one bizarre frames of mind in which the voter may be found, the best is the one that opens his eyes to the pointlessness and dangers of returning someone to Parliament, and the one that impels him to work directly for what he wants through joining forces with all whose wishes are the same as his.

* * *

Finally, what possessed Merlino to finish his letter with innuendoes that are, to say the least, in poor taste, given the current status of his relations with anarchists? Merlino claims that he is still an anarchist and strives to get us to think of anarchy in his terms and to have us embrace his tactics; which he is entitled to do. But why adopt that tone, which may well be appropriate in dealings with an opponent that he does not care about wounding, but which is out of place towards comrades he is out to persuade and win over?

Some time ago, in responding in Il Messaggero to Malatesta who had talked about the anarchist party’s “incipient reorganization” Merlino was poking fun, while he knew that the anarchists actually were reorganizing and had already produced results, very modest results to be sure, but real for all that. And now here he is dredging up the history of self-styled abstentionist anarchists who vote; here he is, casting Azzaretti up to us, the very same Azzaretti we ourselves denounced in these columns.167

Well, if there are “abstentionists” who vote—and we know that, actually, there are—that means that they are not fully aware of the views they profess; or else that they cannot find in the anarchist ranks the strength needed to stand up to outside influences; the cure lies, not in all of us abjuring our program or adding to the causes of confusion and weakness, but in nurturing individuals’ consciousness and bolstering the party’s organization.

And if, after that, there are still knaves who sell out, it merely remains for them to be unmasked and driven out.

166 See “The Election Results,” p. 36 of this volume.

167 See “Filth,” p. 45 of this volume.