Errico Malatesta
Anarchy: a pamphlet
Anarchy is a word that comes from the Greek, and signifies, strictly
speaking, "without government": the state of a people without any constituted
authority.
Before such an organization had begun to be considered possible and
desirable by a whole class of thinkers, so as to be taken as the aim of a
movement (which has now become one of the most important factors in modern
social warfare), the word "anarchy" was used universally in the sense of
disorder and confusion, and it is still adopted in that sense by the ignorant
and by adversaries interested in distorting the truth.
We shall not enter into philological discussions, for the question is not
philological but historical. The common interpretation of the word does not
misconceive its true etymological signification, but is derived from it, owing
to the prejudice that government must be a necessity of the organization of
social life, and that consequently a society without government must be given up
to disorder, and oscillate between the unbridled dominion of some and the blind
vengeance of others.
The existence of this prejudice and its influence on the meaning that the
public has given to the word is easily explained.
Man, like all living beings, adapts himself to the conditions in which he
lives, and transmits by inheritance his acquired habits. Thus, being born and
having lived in bondage, being the descendant of a long line of slaves, man,
when he began to think, believed that slavery was an essential condition of
life, and liberty seemed to him impossible. In like manner, the workman, forced
for centuries to depend upon the goodwill of his employer for work, that is, for
bread, and accustomed to see his own life at the disposal of those who possess
the land and capital, has ended in believing that it is his master who gives him
food, and asks ingenuously how it would be possible to live, if there were no
master over him?
In the same way, a man whose limbs had been bound from birth, but who had
neverless found out how to hobble about, might attribute to the very bands that
bound him his ability to move, while, on the contrary, they would diminish and
paralyze the muscular energy of his limbs.
If then we add to the natural effect of habit the education given to him by
his master, the parson, the teacher, etc., who are all interested in teaching
that the employer and the government are necessary, if we add the judge and the
policeman to force those who think differently -- and might try to propagate
their opinion -- to keep silence, we shall understand how the prejudice as to
the utility and necessity of masters and governments has become established.
Suppose a doctor brought forward a complete theory, with a thousand ably
invented illustrations, to persuade the man with bound limbs that, if his limbs
were freed, he could not walk, or even live. The man would defend his bands
furiously and consider anyone his enemy who tried to tear them off.
Thus, if it is believed that government is necessary and that without
government there must be disorder and confusion, it is natural and logical to
suppose that anarchy, which signifies absence of government, must also mean
absence of order.
Nor is this fact without parallel in the history of words. In those epochs
and countries where people have considered government by one man (monarchy)
necessary, the word "republic" (that is, the government of many) has been used
precisely like "anarchy," to imply disorder and confusion. Traces of this
meaning of the word are still to be found in the popular languages of almost all
countries.
When this opinion is changed, and the public are convinced that government
is not necessary, but extremely harmful, the word "anarchy," precisely because
it signifies "without government," will become equal to saying "natural order,
harmony of needs and interests of all, complete liberty with complete
solidarity."
Therefore, those are wrong who say that anarchists have chosen their name
badly, because it is erroneously understood by the masses and leads to a false
interpretation. The error does not come from the word, but from the thing. The
difficulty which anarchists meet in spreading their views does not depend upon
the name they have given themselves, but upon the fact that their conceptions
strike as all the inveterate prejudices which people have about the function of
government, or "the state," as it is called.
Before proceeding further, it will be well to explain this last word (the
"State") which, in our opinion, is the real cause of much misunderstanding.
Anarchists generally make use if the word "State" to mean all the
collection of institutions, political, legislative, judicial, military,
financial, etc., by means of which management of their own affairs, the guidance
of their personal conduct, and the care of ensuring their own safety are taken
from the people and confided to certain individuals, and these, whether by
usurpation or delegation, are invested with the right to make laws over and for
all, and to constrain the public to respect them, making use of the collective
force of the community to this end.
In this case the word "State" means "government," or, if you like, it is
the abstract expression of which government is the personification. Then such
expressions as "Abolition of the State," or "Society without the State," agree
perfectly with the conception which anarchists wish to express of the
destruction of every political institution based on authority, and of the
constitution of a free and equal society, based upon harmony of interests, and
the voluntary contribution of all to the satisfaction of social needs.
However, the word "State" has many other meanings, and among these some
that lend themselves to misconstruction, particularly when used among men whose
sad social position has not afforded them leisure to become accustomed to the
subtle distinction of scientific language, or, still worse, when adopted
treacherously by adversaries, who are interested in confounding the sense, or do
not wish to comprehend it. Thus the word "State" is often used to indicate any
given society, or collection of human beings, united on a given territory and
constituting what is called a "social unit," independently of the way in which
the members of the said body are grouped, or of the relations existing between
them. "State" is used also simply as a synonym for "society." Owning to these
meanings of the word, our adversaries believe, or rather profess to believe,
that anarchists wish to abolish every social relation and all collective work,
and to reduce man to a condition of isolation, that is, to a state worse than
savagery.
By "State" again is meant only the supreme administration of a country, the
central power, as distinct from provincial or communal power, and therefore
others think that anarchists wish merely for a territorial decentralization,
leaving the principle of government intact, and thus confounding anarchy with
cantonical or communal government.
Finally, "State" signifies "condition, mode of living, the order of social
life," etc., and therefore we say, for example, that it is necessary to change
the economic state of the working classes, or that the anarchical State is the
only State founded on the principles of solidarity, and other similar phrases.
So that if we say also in another sense that we wish to abolish the State, we
may at once appear absurd or contradictory.
For these reasons, we believe that it would be better to use the expression
"abolition of the State" as little as possible, and to substitute for it
another, clearer, and more concrete --"abolition of government."
The latter will be the expression used in the course of this essay.
We have said that anarchy is society without government. But is the
suppression of government possible, desirable, or wise? Let us see.
What is the government? There is a disease of the human mind, called the
metaphysical tendency, that causes man, after he has by a logical process
abstracted the quality from an object, to be subject to a kind of hallucination
that makes him take the abstraction for the real thing. This metaphysical
tendency, in spite of the blows of positive science, has still strong root in
the minds of the majority of our contemporary fellowmen. It has such influence
that many consider government an actual entity, with certain given attributes of
reason, justice, equity, independent of the people who compose the government.
For those who think in this way, government, or the State, is the abstract
social power, and it represents, always in the abstract, the general interest.
It is the expression of the rights of all and is considered as limited by the
rights of each. This way of understanding government is supported by those
interested, to whom it is an urgent necessity that the principle of authority
should be maintained and should always survive the faults and errors of the
persons who exercise power.
...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the beginning of the document
Go to previous page
Go to next page
Go to the end of document
