The Complete Works of Malatesta Vol. III. Errico MalatestaЧитать онлайн книгу.
the results that we could achieve are all the greater and more authentic for it!
From a Matter of Tactics to a
Matter of Principles
Translated from “Da una questione di tattica ad una questione di principii,” L’Agitazione (Ancona) 1, no. 3 (March 28, 1897).
We received the following article from Saverio Merlino under the title above and we are pleased to publish it.
Merlino may rest assured that in us he will always encounter the level-headedness and unbiased love of truth that he wishes. Moreover, we agree with him that anarchists have often shown themselves to be intolerant and too quick to anger and to entertain suspicions, but in the enthusiasm of the mea culpas, there is no need to take all the blame ourselves and to forget that others most often set the example and provocation for us. Without harking back to Bakunin’s day and the infamous slanders and far-fetched lies with which youngsters unfamiliar with our history are still being regaled, we need only remember the conduct of the democratic socialists at recent international congresses vis à vis the anarchists, and certain articles carried, not so long ago, in the social democratic press in several countries.
In any event, whatever our adversaries may do and say, let us strive, if we may, to be fair.
Here is Merlino’s article:
Let us see if a continued debate free of anger and suspicion, such as it started out, is possible. It would be something of a novelty and such a good omen that I would rejoice at having offered my friends the chance to demonstrate that the anarchist party is beginning to educate itself in the observance of the principles that it professes.
And first of all, am I an anarchist?
My answer: if abstentionism is a dogma of anarchist faith, no. But then I do not believe in dogmas. The defense and exercise of our rights—no matter how slight—I do not believe to be at odds with our principles. I do not believe that in exercising the right to vote, which we have been granted, we are giving up on greater rights, which are denied us and which we should be demanding.
I believe that electoral agitation offers us the means and opportunity for propaganda, which would be folly to renounce especially in this hour and in Italy where virtually every other form of affirmation is banned, and I believe that the advocacy of abstention prevents us from best profiting from that opportunity. (We have seen this tested lately here in Rome where, by standing Galleani as a candidate, we were able to hold rallies, distribute manifestos, and win the sympathies of many who were hostile or indifferent to us—which we would never have been able to do had we remained abstentionists.) Besides, I do not believe in capturing public office: I contend that both the fight for freedom and the fight for economic emancipation have to be waged primarily outside of Parliament. I contend that the efforts of socialist and revolutionary labor deputies are useful, not per se, but in support of the extra-parliamentary struggle. And if, in thinking along such lines, I am not in perfect agreement with either the anarchists or the social democrats, I am honestly sorry for it, but can I unsay it?
It seems to me that by now pretty much everything that there is to say for and against participating in elections has been said. So, I am pleased that the issue has been hoisted by Malatesta on to a plane of principle, and partly for that reason, I am not at all sorry that I raised it.
There can be no denying that our principles—which are, if properly construed, true—are surrounded by a seething mess of mistakes and sophisms.
One of these is that men ought to do everything for themselves, individually; that one man should not have another represent him; that minorities should not defer to majorities (it being likelier that the latter are deluded than the opposite); that in the society to come, men will miraculously see eye to eye, or, if not, the dissidents will break away and each will act as he sees fit; that any other behavior would be contrary to our principles.
Here I should like to repeat verbatim the very fair and clear-sighted remarks that Malatesta makes (not for the first time, either) in the first issue of L’Agitazione against placing such a construction upon Anarchy, concluding with the words:
“So in all matters not amenable to several solutions running simultaneously, or where differences of opinion are not so great as to make it worthwhile parting company, with each faction doing as it will, or where the duty of solidarity imposes unity, it is reasonable, fair, and necessary for the minority to defer to the majority.”145
I must take issue with him on two counts, however. For one thing, Malatesta seems to believe that the matters upon which agreement is necessary—for the various reasons he puts forward—are all of little consequence. This is apparent from the examples he cites. I drop in at the café; I find the best seats taken: I have to make do with standing in the doorway or go away. I see some people talking in muffled tones: unless I want to be indiscreet I have to move away, and so on. I, on the other hand, believe (and Malatesta may well believe although he does not say) that among the matters on which agreement will be needed and, therefore, on which, unless we can get agreement from everybody, a compromise will have to be thrashed out, there are some very serious ones: and all matters relating to the overall organization of society and all major public interests fall under that heading. In a society, there may be somebody who thinks that revenge is just, but the majority is entitled to decide that it is unjust and to prevent it. There might be a minority that would rather organize the rail transport sector on a cooperative, collectivist, or communist basis, or on some other basis, but since there can be only one organization, the view of the greater number must prevail. There might be someone who finds oppressive the measures taken to prevent the spread of some contagious disease, but society is entitled to protect itself from outbreaks of disease.
The second point of disagreement between Malatesta and me is this: that I do not feel that I can prophesy that in the society of the future the minority will always and in every instance gladly defer to the opinions of the majority. Whereas Malatesta states:
“But the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity.”
And what if the will is not there? What if that awareness of a necessity is not to be found in the minority? What if the minority is, rather, persuaded of its duty to resist? Plainly the majority, unwilling to defer to the wishes of a minority, will lay down the law and give executive effect to its own resolution (as Malatesta says apropos of congresses).
And Malatesta says more than that: in regards to somebody who finds his preferred seat in a café taken, or who has to step away from a confidential conversation, he says: “If I were to act otherwise, those whom I annoy would very soon give me to understand in one way or another what disadvantages there are in being illbred.” Lo and behold, coercion. And the examples quoted relate to individual relations and matters of small consequence. Imagine if a serious matter of public interest was at stake, such as the ones I referred to above!
Indeed, coercion should be kept to a minimum; if possible, it should be moral rather than physical; the rights of minorities should be respected; and in some instances dissenting minorities should even be allowed to secede. But ultimately, these are questions of degree, of modalities and not of principles.
When it is useful and necessary, I would say, it does not conflict with anarchist principles either to have recourse to a vote or to give course to the motions passed; and when these things cannot be done (for reasons of numbers or capability) by those directly concerned, it is not against anarchist principles to delegate them to others, once proper precautions have been taken against possible abuse.
Therefore, I conclude:
— Either we believe in the providential harmony that would prevail in the society of the future, in which case Malatesta is wrong and the individualists are right.
— Or Malatesta is right, in which case we are no longer entitled to say that any representation, any act whereby the people entrust the safekeeping of their interests to others, is contrary to our principles.
This, it seems to me, is a dilemma that is hard to wriggle out of.
Saverio