Errico Malatesta
A Project of Anarchist Organisation
(1927)
I recently happened to come across a French pamphlet (in Italy today [1927], as
is known, the non-fascist press cannot freely circulate), with the title
'Organisational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Project)'.
This is a project for anarchist organisation published under the name of a
'Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad' and it seems to be directed particularly at
Russian comrades. But it deals with questions of equal interest to all
anarchists; and it is, clear, including the language in which it is written,
that it seeks the support of comrades worldwide. In any case it is worth
examining, for the Russians as for everyone, whether the proposal put forward is
in keeping with anarchist principles and whether implementation would truly
serve the cause of anarchism.
The intentions of the comrades are excellent. They rightly lament the fact that
until now the anarchists have not had an influence on political and social
events in proportion to the theoretical and practical value of their doctrines,
nor to their numbers, courage and spirit of self-sacrifice - and believe that
the main reason for this relative failure is the lack of a large, serious and
active organisation.
And thus far I could more or less agree.
Organisation, which after all only means cooperation and solidarity in practice,
is a natural condition, necessary to the running of society; and it is an
unavoidable fact which involves everyone, whether in human society in general or
in any grouping of people joined by a common aim.
As human beings cannot live in isolation, indeed could not really become human
beings and satisfy their moral and material needs unless they were part of
society and cooperated with their fellows, it is inevitable that those who lack
the means, or a sufficiently developed awareness, to organise freely with those
with whom they share common interests and sentiments, must submit to the
organisations set up by others, who generally form the ruling class or group and
whose aim is to exploit the labour of others to their own advantage. And the
age-long oppression of the masses by a small number of the privileged has always
been the outcome of the inability of the greater number of individuals to agree
and to organise with other workers on production and enjoyment of rights and
benefits and for defence against those who seek to exploit and oppress them.
Anarchism emerged as a response to this state of affairs, its basic principle
being free organisation, set up and run according to the free agreement of its
members without any kind of authority; that is, without anyone having the right
to impose their will on others. And it is therefore obvious that anarchists
should seek to apply to their personal and political lives this same principle
upon which, they believe, the whole of human society should be based.
Judging by certain polemics it would seem that there are anarchists who spurn
any form of organisation; but in fact the many, too many, discussions on this
subject, even when obscured by questions of language or poisoned by personal
issues, are concerned with the means and not the actual principle of
organisation. Thus it happens that when those comrades who sound the most
hostile to organisation want to really do something they organise just like the
rest of us and often more effectively. The problem, I repeat, is entirely one of
means.
Therefore I can only view with sympathy the initiative that our Russian comrades
have taken, convinced as I am that a more general, more *united,* more enduring
organisation than any that have so far been set up by anarchists - even if it
did not manage to do away with all the mistakes and weaknesses that are perhaps
inevitable in a movement like ours - which struggles on in the midst of the
incomprehension, indifference and even the hostility of the majority - would
undoubtedly be an important element of strength and success, a powerful means of
gaining support for our ideas.
I believe it is necessary above all and urgent for anarchists to come to terms
with one another and organise as much and as well as possible in order to be
able to influence the direction the mass of the people take in their struggle
for change and emancipation.
Today the major force for social transformation is the labour movement (union
movement) and on its direction will largely depend the course events take and
the objectives of the next revolution. Through the organisations set up for the
defence of their interests the workers develop an awareness of the oppression
they suffer and the antagonism that divides them from the bosses and as a result
begin to aspire to a better life, become accustomed to collective struggle and
solidarity and win those improvements that are possible within the capitalist
and state regime. Then, when the conflict goes beyond compromise, revolution or
reaction follows. The anarchists must recognise the usefulness and importance of
the union movement; they must support its development and make it one of the
levers in their action, doing all they can to ensure that, by cooperating with
other forces for progress, it will open the way to a social revolution that
brings to an end the class system, and to complete freedom, equality, peace and
solidarity for everybody.
But it would be a great and a fatal mistake to believe, as many do, that the
labour movement can and should, of its own volition, and by its very nature,
lead to such a revolution. On the contrary, all movements based on material and
immediate interests (and a big labour movement can do nothing else) if they lack
the stimulus, the drive, the concerted effort of people of ideas, tend
inevitably to adapt to circumstances, they foster a spirit of conservatism and
fear of change in those who manage to obtain better working conditions, and
often end up creating new and privileged classes, and serving to uphold and
consolidate the system we would seek to destroy.
Hence there is an impelling need for specifically anarchist organisations which,
both from within and outside the unions, struggle for the achievement of
anarchism and seek to sterilise all the germs of degeneration and reaction.
But it is obvious that in order to achieve their ends, anarchist organisations
must, in their constitution and operation, remain in harmony with the principles
of anarchism; that is, they must know how to blend the free action of
individuals with the necessity and the joy of cooperation which serve to develop
the awareness and initiative of their members and a means of education for the
environment in which they operate and of a moral and material preparation for
the future we desire.
Does the project under discussion satisfy these demands?
It seems to me that it does not. Instead of arousing in anarchists a greater
desire for organisation, it seems deliberately designed to reinforce the
prejudice of those comrades who believe that to organise means to submit to
leaders and belong to an authoritarian, centralising body that suffocates any
attempt at free initiative. And in fact it contains precisely those proposals
that some, in the face of evident truths and despite our protests, insist on
attributing to all anarchists who are described as organisers. Let us examine
the Project.
First of all, it seems to me a mistake - and in any case impossible to realise -
to believe that all anarchists can be grouped together in one 'General Union' -
that is, in the words of the Project, In a *single,* active revolutionary body.
We anarchists can all say that we are of the same party, if by the word 'party'
we mean all who are *on the same side,* that is, who share the same general
aspirations and who, in one way or another, struggle for the same ends against
common adversaries and enemies. But this does not mean it is possible - or even
desirable - for all of us to be gathered into one specific association. There
are too many differences of environment and conditions of struggle; too many
possible ways of action to choose among, and also too many differences of
temperament and personal incompatibilities for a *General Union,* if taken
seriously, not to become, instead of a means for coordinating and reviewing the
efforts of all, an obstacle to individual activity and perhaps also a cause of
more bitter internal strife.
As an example, how could one organise in the same way and with the same group a
public association set up to make propaganda and agitation, publicly and a
secret society restricted by the political conditions of the country in which it
operates to conceal from the enemy its plans, methods and members? How could the
*educationalists,* who believe that propaganda and example suffice for the
gradual transformation of individuals and thus of society, adopt the same
tactics as the *revolutionaries,* who are convinced of the need to destroy ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go to the beginning of the document
Go to previous page
Go to next page
Go to the end of document
