Latest / Logic Library / 05 - Anarchy - Errico Malatesta
Transcript
- All that you have said may be true. Say some anarchy may be a perfect form of social life, But we have no desire to take a leap in the dark. Therefore, tell us how your society will be organized. Then follows a long string of questions, which would be very interesting if it were our business to study the problems that might arise in an emancipated society, but of which it is useless and absurd to imagine that we could now offer a definite solution. According to what method will children be taught? How will production and distribution be organized? Will there still be large cities? Or will people spread equally over all the surface of the earth. Will all the inhabitants of Siberia winter at nice? Will every one dine on partridges and drink champagne? Who will be the miners and sailors? Who will clear the drains? Will the sick be nursed at home or in hospitals? Who will arrange the railway time table? What will happen when if the engine driver falls ill while the train is on its way, And so on without end? As though we could prophesy all the knowledge and experience of the future time, or could in the name of anarchy, prescribe for the coming man what time we should go to bed, and on what days he should cut his nails. Indeed, if our readers expect from us an answer to these questions, or even to those among them really serious and important, which cannot be anything more than our own private opinion, at this present hour, we must have succeeded badly in our endeavor to explain what anarchy is. We are no more profits than other men. And should we pretend to give an official solution to all the problems that will arise in the life of the future society, we should have, indeed a curious idea of the abolition of government. We should then be describing a government dictating, like the clergy, a universal code for the present and all future time. Seeing that we have neither police nor prisons to enforce our doctrine, humanity might laugh with impunity at us and our pretensions. Nevertheless, we consider seriously all the problems of social life which now suggest themselves, on account of their scientific interest, and because, hoping to see anarchy realized, we wish to help towards the organization of the new society. We have therefore our own ideas on these subjects ideas which are to our minds likely to be permanent or transitory according to their respective cases, and did space permit, We might add somewhat more on these points. But the fact that we to day think in a certain way on a given question is no proof that such will be the mode of procedure in the future. Who can foresee the activities which may develop in humanity when it is emancipated from misery and oppression, when all are the means of instruction and self development, when the strife between men with the hatred and rancored breeds will be no longer a necessary condition of existence. Who can foresee the progress of science, that new sources of production, means of communition, et cetera. The one essential is that a society be constituted in which the exploitation and domination of man by man are impossible. That the society, in other words, be such that the means of existence and development of labor be free and open to every one, and all be able to co operate according to their wishes and their knowledge in the organization of social life. Under such conditions, everything will necessarily be performed in compliance with the needs of all according to the knowledge and possibilities of the moment, and everything will improve with the increase of knowledge and power. In fact, a program which would touch the basis of the new social constitution could not do more, after all, than indicate a method. And method, more than anything else, defines parties and determines their importance in history. Method apart. Everyone says he wishes for the good of mankind, and many do truly wish for it. As parties disappear, every organized action directed to a definite end and disappears. Likewise, it is therefore necessary to consider anarchy as above all a method. There are two methods by which the different parties not anarchistic expect or say they expect to bring about the greatest good of each and all. These are the authoritarian or state socialist and the individualist methods. The former entrusts the direction of social life to a few, and it would result in the exploitation and oppression of the masses by that view. The second party trusts to the free initiative of individuals and proclaims, if not the abolition the reduction of government. However, as it respects private property and is founded on the principle of each for himself, and therefore on competition. Its liberty is only the liberty of the strong, the license of those who have to oppress and exploit the weak, who have nothing. Far from producing harmony, it would tend always to augment the distance between the rich and the poor, and end also through exploitation and domination in authority. This second method, individualism is, in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism. It is therefore no better than a lie, because liberty is not possible without equality, and true anarchy cannot be without solidarity without socialism. The criticism which individualists pass on government is merely the wish to deprive it of certain functions, to virtually hand them over to the capitalist. But it cannot attack those repressive functions which form the essence of government, For without an armed force, the proprietary system could not be upheld. Nay, even more, under individualism, the repressive power of government must always increase in proportion to the increase by means of free competition. Of the want of equality and harmony, anarchists present a new method, the free initiative of all and free agreement. Then, after the revolutionary abolition of private property, everyone will have equal power to dispose of social wealth. This method, not admitting the re establishment of private property, must lead, by means of free association, to the complete triumph of the principles of solidarity. Thus we see that all the problems put forward to combat the anarchistic idea are on the contrary arguments in favor of anarchy, because it alone indicates the way in which, by experience, those solutions which correspond to the dicta of science and to the needs and wishes of all, can best be found. How will children be educated? We do not know what. Then, the parents, teachers, and all who are interested in the progress of the rising generation will meet, discuss, agree and differ, and then divide according to their various opinions, putting into practice the methods which they respectively hold to be best. That method, which, when tried, produces the best results, will triumph in the end. And so for all the problems that may arise. According to what we have so far said, it is evident that anarchy, as the anarchists conceive it, and as alone it can be comprehended, is based on socialism. Furthermore, were it not for that school of socialists who artificially divide the natural unity of the social question considering only some detached points, and were it not also for the equivocations with which they strive to hinder the social revolution, we might say right away that anarchy is synonymous with socialism, because both signify the abolition of exploitation and of the domination of man over man, whether maintained by the force of arms or by the morapolization of the means of life. Anarchy, like socialism, has for its basis and necessary point of departure, equality of conditions. Its aim is solidarity, and its method liberty. It is not perfection, nor is it the absolute ideal, which, like the horizon, always recedes as we advance towards it. But it is the open road to all progress and to all improvement made in the interest of all humanity. There are authoritarians who grant that anarchy is the mode of social life which alone opens the way to the attainment of the highest possible good for mankind, because it alone can put an end to every class interested in keeping the masses oppressed and miserable. They also grant that anarchy is possible because it does nothing more than release humanity from an obstacle government against which it has always had to fight its painful way to its progress. Nevertheless, these authoritarians, re enforced by many warm lovers of liberty and justice in theory, retire unto our last entrenchments, because they are afraid of liberty and cannot be persuaded that mankind could live and prosper without teachers and pastors. Still hard pressed by the truth, they pitifully demand to have the reign of liberty put off for a while, indeed, for as long as possible. Such is the substance of the arguments that meet us at this stage. A society without a government, which would act by free, voluntary cooperation, trusting entirely to the spontaneous action of those interested, and founded altogether on solidarity and sympathy, is, certainly, they say, a very beautiful ideal, But like all ideals, it is a castle in the air. We find ourselves placed in a human society which has always been divided into oppressors and oppressed. And if the former are full of the spirit of domination and have all the vices of tyrants, the latter are corrupted by servility, and have those still worse vices which are the result of enslavement. The sentiment of solidarity is far from being dominant in man at the present day. And if it is true that a different class masses of men are becoming more and more unanimous among themselves, it is nonetheless true that that which is most conspicuous and impresses itself most on human character to day is the struggle for existence. It is a fact that each fights daily against everyone else, and competition presses upon all workmen and masters, causing every man to become a wolf towards every other man. How can these men, educated in a society based upon antagonism between individuals as well as classes, be transformed in a moment and become capable of living in a society in which each shall do as he likes and as he should, without external coercion, caring for the good of others simply by the impulse of their own nature. And with what heart or what common sense can he trust to a revolution on the part of an ignorant, turbulent mass, weakened by misery, stupefied by priestcraft, who are to day blood sandronary, and to morrow will let themselves be humbuged by any knave who dares to call themselves their master? Would it not be more prudent to advance gradually towards the anarchistic ideal, passing through republican, democratic, and socialistic stages. Will not an educative government composed of the best man be necessary to prepare the advancing generations for their future destiny. These objections also ought not to appear valid if we have succeeded in making our readers understand what we have already said, and in convincing them of it. But in any case, even at the risk of a repetition, it may be as well to answer them. We find ourselves continually met by the false notion that government is in itself a new force sprung up. One knows not whence which of itself add something to the sum of the force and capability of those whom it is composed of and of those who obeyed. While on the contrary, all that is done is done by individual men, the government as a government adds nothing save the tendency to monopolize for the advantage of certain parties or classes, and to repress all initiative from beyond its own circle. To abolish authority or government does not mean to destroy the individual or collective forces which hard work in society, nor the influence men exert over one another. That will be to reduce humanity to an aggregate of inert and separate atoms, an impossibility which, if it could be performed, would be the destruction of any society, the death blow to mankind. To abolish authority means to abolish the monopoly of force and of influence. It means to abolish that state of things by which social force, that is, the collective force of all in a society, is made the instrument of the thought, will and intrance of a small number of individuals. These, by means of the collective force, suppressed the liberty of every one else to the advantage of their own ideas. In other words, it means to destroy a mode of organization by means of which the future is exploited between one revolution and another to the profit of those who have been the victors of the moment. Mihail Bakunnen, in an article published in eighteen seventy two, asserts that the great means of action of the International, with the propagating of their ideas and the organization of the spontaneous action of its members in regard to the masses. He then adds, to whoever might pretend that action so organized would be an outrage on the liberty of the masses, or an attempt to create a new authoritative power, we would reply that he is a sophist and a fool. So much the worse for those who ignore the natural social law of human solidarity. To the extent of imagining that an absolute mutual independence of individuals and of masses is a possible or even desirable thing to desire, it would be to wish for the destruction of society. For all, social life is nothing else than this mutual and incessant interdependence among individuals and masses. All individuals, even the most gifted and strongest, indeed most of all the most gifted and strongest, are, at every moment of their lives at the same time, produces and products equal liberty. For every individual is only the resultant, continually reproduced of this mass of material, intellectual, and moral influence exercised on him by all the individuals around him, belonging to the society in which he was born, has developed and dies to wish to escape this influence in the name of a transcendental liberty, divine, absolutely egoistic, and sufficient to itself, is the tendency to annihilate. To refrain from influencing others would mean to refrain from all social action, indeed, to abstain from all expression of one's thoughts and sentiments, and simply to become non existent, this independence so much extolled by idealists and metaphysicians. Individual liberty conceived in this sense would amount to self annihilation in nature, as in human society, which is also a part of this same nature. All that exists lives only by complying with the supreme conditions of interaction, which is more or less positive and potent with regard to the lives of other beings according to the nature of the individual. And when we vindicate the liberty of the masses, we do not pretend to abolish anything of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert upon one another. What we wish for is the abolition of artificial influences, which are privileged, legal, and official. Certainly, in the present state of mankind, oppressed by misery, stupefied by superstition, and sunk in degradation, the human lot depends upon a relatively small number of individuals. Of course, all men will not be able to rise in a moment to the height of perceiving their duty or even the enjoyment of so regulating their own action that others also will derive the greatest possible benefit from it. But because nowadays the thoughtful and guiding forces at work in society are few, that is no reason for paralyzing them still more, and for the subjection of many individuals to the direction of a few. It is no reason for constituting society in such a manner that the most active forces, the highest capacities, are in the end found outside the government and almost deprived of influence on social life. All this now happens owing to the inertia that secured positions foster to heredity, to protectionism, to party spirit, and all the mechanisms of government. For those in government office, taken out of their former social position, primarily concerned in retaining power, lose all power to act spontaneously and become only an obstacle to the free action of others. With the abolition of this negative potency constituting government, society will become that which it can be with the given forces and capabilities at the moment. If there are educated men desires of spreading education, they will organize the schools and will be constrained to make the use and enjoyment to be derived from education felt. And if there are no such men, or only a few of them, a government cannot create them. All it can do, as in fact it does nowadays, is to take these few away from practical, fruitful work in the sphere of education, and put them to direct from above what has to be imposed by the help of alice system. So they make out of intelligent and impassionate teachers mere politicians who become useless parasites, entirely absorbed in imposing their own hobbies and in maintaining themselves in power. If there are doctors and teachers of hygiene, they will organize themselves for the service of health. And if there are none, a government cannot create them. All that can do is to discredit them in the eyes of the people, who are inclined to entertain suspicions sometimes only too well founded, with regard to everything which is imposed upon them. If there are engineers and mechanics, they will organize the railways et cetera. And if there are none, a government cannot create them. The revolution, by abolishing government and private property, will not create force which does not exist, but it will leave a free field for the exercise of all available force and of all existent capacity. While it will destroy every class interested in keeping the masses degraded, it will act in such a way that everyone will be free to work and make his influence felt in proportion to his own capacity, and in conformity with its sentiments and interests. And it is only thus that the elevation at the masses is possible. For it is only with liberty that one can learn to be free, as it is only by working that one can learn to work. A government, even had it no other advantages, must always have that of habituating the government to subjection, and must also tend to become more oppressive and more necessary in proportion as its subjects are more obedient than docile. But suppose government with the direction of affairs by the best people, who are the best? And how shall we recognize their superiority? The majority are generally attached to old prejudices, and have ideas and instincts already outgrown by the more favored minority, but not the various minorities, who all believe themselves in the right. As no doubt many of them are in part which shall be chosen to rule, and by whom and by what criterion, Seeing that the future alone can prove which among them is the most superior. If you choose a hundred partisans of dictatorship, you will discover that each one of the hundred believes himself capable of being, if not sole dictator, at least of assisting very materially in the dictatorial government. The dictators would be those who, by one means or another, succeeded in imposing themselves on society, and in course of time, all their energy would inevitably be employed in defending themselves against the attacks of their adversaries, totally oblivious of their desire, if ever, they had had it to be merely an educative power. Should government be, on the other hand, elected by universal suffrage, and so be the emanation more or less sincere of the wish of the majority. But if you consider these worthy electors as incapable of providing for their own interests, how can they ever be capable of themselves choosing directors to guide them wisely? How solve this problem of social alchemy? To elect a government of geniuses by the votes of a mass of fools, and what will be the lot of the minority who are the most intelligent, most active, and most advanced in society? To solve the social problem to the advantage of all. There is only one way to expel the government by revolutionary means, to expropriate the holders of social wealth, putting everything at the disposition of all, and to leave all existing fools, capacity, and good will among men free to provide for the needs of all. We fight for anarchy and for socialism because we believe that anarchy and socialism ought to be brought into operation as soon as possible, which means that the revolution must drive away the government, abolish private property, and entrust all public service, which will then embrace all social life to the spontaneous, free, unofficial, and unauthorized operation of all those interested, at all those willing volunteers. There will certainly be difficulties and inconveniences, but the people will be resolute, and they alone can solve all difficulties anarchically, that is, by direct action of those interested and by free agreement. We cannot say whether anarchy and socialism will triumph after the next revolutionary attempt. But this is certain that if any of the so called transition programs triumph, it will be because we have been temporarily beaten, and never because we have thought it wise to leave in existence any one part of that evil system under which humanity groans. Whatever happens, we shall have some influence on events by our numbers, our energy, our intelligence, and our steadfastness. Also, even if we are now conquered, our work will not have been in vain. For the more decided we shall have been in aiming at the realization of all our demands, the less there will be of government and of private property in the new society, and we shall have done a great work. For human progress is measured by the degree in which government and private property are administered. If to day we fall without lowering our colors, our cause is certain of victory tomorrow. End of Section five, End of Anarchy by Erco Mala Testa