đŸ Archived View for library.inu.red âș file âș errico-malatesta-between-peasants.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:40:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
âĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Between Peasants Author: Errico Malatesta Date: 1884 Language: en Topics: anarcho-communism, introductory, Elephant Editions Source: *Fra Contadini* published by Elephant Editions. https://325.nostate.net/library/fra-contadini-malatesta.pdf][325.nostate.net]] & [[https://archive.elephanteditions.net/library/fra-contadini Notes: Published by Elephant Editions. First English edition printed Catania 1981. Original title: Fra Contadini: Dialogo sullâanarchia. Edizioni âLa Fiaccolaâ, Ragusa 1972. Translated by Jean Weir.
The numerous editions and translations of this pamphlet by Errico
Malatesta all over the world have already demonstrated that its
importance and relevance have been universally recognized.
Fra Contadini shares the modest tone of Malatestaâs other writings, more
obvious here through the use of dialogue. It is in fact a chat which two
peasants, one more politicised than the other, could very well have had
in the north of Italy at the end of the last century. It manages to
avoid the affectation which often harms literary works whichâlike this
oneâdo not conceal their intent to educate, because in reality this is a
didactic piece of work. Malatestaâs intention is to supply the anarchist
movement (then the international socialist anarchist revolutionary
party) with an agile instrument of propaganda for the peasants and small
artisans, groups that were in the phase of proletarianisation. In other
words for the starving masses who swelled the major Italian cities at
the end of the last century drawn by the mirage of work in developing
industry.
The Florence of 1884 had not changed much from that which had known the
revolutionary work of Bakunin twenty years previously. Urbanisation had
become a visible phenomenon, with a whole store of indescribable
miseries for the poor people emarginated by the mechanism of capitalist
exploitation. The phase of the building of the monopolies which the
young Italian bourgeoisie accomplished with ease immediately after the
Unification, was followed by a period of deflation. Poverty increased
and wealth assumed a demonic glare in the rebellious dreams of the
hungry.
Among Malatestaâs aims not the least is that of insurrection. The study
of particular problems is never an end in itself. It is not a question
of a utopian vision of what anarchist society will be after the social
revolution, but of violent expropriation, the recurring question that
Malatesta continually draws our attention back to: the taking of wealth
by the poor and their management of it in common.
â... We shall kindle the fire that is smouldering among the masses, take
advantage of the discontent, the movements, the revolts, and strike a
vigorous blow. We are not afraid, and soon the bourgeois catastrophe
will go up in smoke and the reign of wellbeing begin.â These words mark
the maximum point of Malatestaâs analyses contained in the present
pamphlet. The individual arguments faced, the various theoretical
questions take on a different meaning and perspective in the light of
this phrase. Taken individually problems such as production, machinery,
work, planning, price mechanisms, Government, the State, the revolution
considered in abstract terms, can each be treated with that detached
perspective which so many comrades have substituted for the true meaning
of anarchism. Here these problems take on a different hue. Malatestaâs
intent is not to convince a bourgeois liberal in the throes of his
guilty conscience, he is not interested in getting into a learned
argument with an economist who is still suffering indigestion from Marx,
just as he is not interested in putting a sociologist in difficulty
concerning the possibility of social organisation without government or
State. His aim is to convince the peasant, the worker, the emarginated
âlumpenâ proletarian reader, of the mechanism of exploitation and
repression, of the system of ideological and political swindling, with
the aim of pushing them to rebel in the struggle against the class
enemies, and, ultimately, to insurrection. Whoever does not bear this
objective in mind falsifies the profound meaning of this pamphlet. It is
not possible to read truly revolutionary literature in the same key as
one would read a sociological treatise.
The importance of an argument based on the limitations of the solutions
proposed by Malatesta diminishes in this way. Clearly his singularly
acute and lucid analyses such of those of monopoly and inflation find
themselves alongside others whose contradictions Malatesta was not able
to overcome, such as that which concluded with the inevitability of an
anarchist society, or where he foresees the need for planning, etc.. To
âupdateâ Malatestaâs work would be senseless, as would be any attempts
of those who would highlight its contradictions in order to declare it
âout of dateâ. Taken as a whole it is still functional and admirably
suited to the aim for which it was written: to push the most backward
strata of the exploited to insurrection. It is an instrument of
struggle, not a manual of anarchist theory. The clarity of vision that
emanates from this pamphlet should not culminate in more fruitless
theorising, therefore, but in practical insurrection and expropriation.
Alfredo M. Bonanno
3 May 1981
Bert: Ah! George, is that you? Iâm glad to see you. Iâve been wanting to
talk to you for a while. O, George! George! Iâve been hearing so many
things about you! When you lived in the country you were a good lad,
quite an example to the young people of your age...If your poor father
were alive...
George: Bert, whatâs wrong? What have I done to deserve this? And why
would my poor father have been dissatisfied with me?
Bert: Donât be offended, George. Iâm an old man, and speaking for your
own good. Besides, I was a close friend of old Andrew your father and it
upsets me as if you were my own son to see you turned out so badly,
especially when I think of the hopes your father had for you and the
sacrifices he made to give you a good upbringing.
George: But what are you talking about? Am I not an honest worker? Iâve
never done anyone any harm. On the contrary, Iâve always done what
little good I could, so why would my father have been ashamed of me? I
do my best to learn and improve, and try together with my comrades to do
something about the evils that afflict us all. So why are you getting at
me like this?
Bert: Ah, thatâs just it! I know quite well that you work and help your
neighbours. Youâre a good lad, everybody in the area says so. But
havenât you been in prison several times, and itâs said the police keep
an eye on you and that only to be seen talking to you is enough to get
one in to trouble. But Iâm fond of you, and Iâll speak to you in spite
of that. George, take the advice of an old man: leave politics to the
gentry who have nothing to do, and think of getting on in life. Thatâs
the only way to get on in peace and in the grace of God; if you donât
youâll lose body and soul. Listen: stop hanging around in bad company.
Everybody knows theyâre the ones that are leading the sons of the poor
astray.
George: Believe me, Bert, my comrades are all honest people. The bread
they eat is paid for in sweat and tears. Leave the bosses, men who would
suck the last drop of our blood then call us hooligans if we as much as
grumble, and criminals if we try to improve our situation and escape
from their tyranny to speak ill of them. Itâs true that my companions
and I have been in prison, but we were there for the right reasons.
Weâll end up there again, or perhaps even worse things will happen to
us, but it will be for the good of all, because we want to destroy all
the injustice and poverty. And you, whoâve worked all your life and gone
hungry tooâand who might end up in some hospice when youâre old and no
longer able to workâyou at least ought not to put yourself on the side
of the landlords and government that come down on those who are trying
to improve the lot of the poor.
Bert: My dear boy, I know well enough the worldâs not right, and that to
put it in order would be well nigh impossible. So letâs take things as
they come and pray to God we never want for a crust of bread at least.
There always have been rich and poor, and we who were born to work
should be content with what God gives us. Thatâs the only way to live in
peace and save our honour.
George: You talk about honour! Look at the landowners. Theyâve taken
everything from us after making us work like beasts for a crust of
bread, then, squandering in wealth and debauchery, they say that we, to
be honest men, must put up with all this with a smile and watch them
grow fat on our backs without even complaining. If we donât, and remind
ourselves that we are men too and that whoever works has the right to
eat, they say weâre a bad, dishonest lot and get their police to throw
us in prison, and the priests to send us to hell.
Hear me out Bert, youâre a worker, and have never tried to exploit your
fellow man. The scoundrels, the men of no honour, are those living off
injustice after taking possession of everything under the sun and
reducing people through poverty to a flock of sheep who calmly allow
themselves to be shorn and slaughtered. And you join them in criticising
us? Itâs not enough for them to have their own government made up of the
gentry for the gentry. They also need the workers, our brothers, to turn
against us because we want them to have bread and freedom as well.
Ah! if it wasnât due to centuries of poverty and ignorance due to forced
slavery, Iâd say those with the least dignity of all are the poor who
support the oppressors of humanity, and not us at all. We are risking
the miserable crust of bread and shred of freedom we have so that we can
reach the stage where everyone will live well.
Bert: Yes, yes, these are fine words. But nothing can be done properly
without the fear of God. You canât convince me. Iâve heard the parish
priest say you and your comrades are a bunch of heretics. Father
Anthony, who has studied and reads the newspapers, says youâre all mad
hooligans, that you donât want to work for a living and that instead of
doing the workers any good youâre preventing the landlords from doing
the best they can for us.
George: Now Bert, if we want to talk reasonably, letâs leave God and the
saints out of it, because the name of God is used as a pretext and
justification by all those who want to deceive and oppress their fellow
men. Kings say God gave them the right to reign, and when two kings
contest the same country, both say they have been sent by God. God is
always on the side of those who have most soldiers and the best weapons.
The property owner, the profiteer, the monopolist, all speak of God. And
the catholic, protestant, Jewish and Turkish priests and ministers each
say they are Godâs representative, and in the name of God make war on
each other and try to feather their own nests. No one bothers about the
poor.
To hear them, God has given them everything and condemned us to poverty
and grinding toil. They are to have paradise in this world and the next
as well while weâre condemned to hell on this earth and paradise only in
the world of yonder, and only then if weâve been obedient slaves...and
if they allow us a place.
Listen: I donât want to go into problems of conscience, everyoneâs free
to think what they like. But as far as Iâm concerned, I donât believe in
God or any of the stories the priests tell us, because whoever tells
them always has a vested interest in doing so, and because there are so
many religions each one of whose priests claim to have the truth, shows
that no one has it. I too could invent a world of fairy stories and say
that whoever didnât believe me would be condemned to eternal fire. If I
did youâd say I was an imposter. But if I got hold of a child and told
him the same thing without anyone else contradicting me, once he grew up
heâd believe me just as you believe the priest.
In any case, youâre free to believe what you like, but donât come
telling me that your God wants you to go hungry, wants your children to
grow up sick and stunted due to lack of food and medical care, and your
daughters to be exposed to becoming the mistresses of your perfumed
young masters. Because then Iâd say your Godâs an assassin.
If there is a God, heâs never told anyone what he wants. So letâs get on
with doing good for ourselves and others in this world. In the next, if
there is a God and he is just, weâll find ourselves all the better off
for having struggled to do good than if we caused suffering or continued
to allow others to do so as, according to the parish priest, weâre all
brothers and Godâs creatures.
Take my word for it: today God condemns you to toil because you are
poor. If tomorrow you in some way succeeded in getting a lot of money
together, no matter how you did it, youâd immediately acquire the right
to do no work, ill-treat the peasants, usurp the honour of poor girls
...and God would let you carry on just as he lets your employers carry
on.
Bert: Gracious me! Ever since you learned to read and write you could
confuse a lawyer with your talk. Youâve said things that send shivers
down my spine. Iâve seen the way the landlordâs sonâs eyes light up when
he looks at my daughter Rosina... Oh! if my Rosina...Ah! letâs change
the subject.
Iâm old and I know that this is a vile, miserable world, but thatâs no
reason to become rogues too. But tell me: is it true that you want to
take property from everyone that has it?
George: Youâre right! Thatâs just what we want! When you want to know
something that concerns the poor, never ask the landowners. Theyâll
never tell you the truth, because no one ever speaks against his own
interests. If you want to know what anarchists want, ask me and my
comrades, not priests like Father Anthony. Instead, when the priest
starts to talk about such things, ask him why it is that youâre eating
potatoes (when there are any) and he, who spends the whole day doing
nothing with a finger inside a half-shut book, is eating roast beef with
his...niece. Ask him why he always keeps in with the landowners and only
comes to us when there is something to swallow. Ask him why he always
says the landlords and police are right, and why, instead of taking
bread from the mouths of the poor people with the excuse of praying for
the souls of the dead, he doesnât do something to help the living a bit,
and stop living at others expense. Next time you see Father Anthony, who
is young and strong, and who has studied and spends his time in the cafe
playing cards or working out fiddles with the town council, tell him
that before talking about us, heâd better stop fooling about and learn a
bit about hard work and poverty.
Bert: Youâre right there. But letâs get back to what we were talking
about. Is it or isnât it true that you want to take other peopleâs
property?
George: Itâs not true. We donât want to take anything for ourselves, we
want the people to take the land back from the landowners and put it in
common for the use of everyone.
If they did this, people wouldnât be taking other peopleâs property but
taking what belongs to them by right.
Bert: So the land really belongs to us?
George: Of course, it belongs to everybody. Who gave it to the
landowners? What did they do to earn it? What right did they have to
take possession of it and what right do they have to keep it?
Bert: Their ancestors left it to them.
George: And who gave it to their ancestors? Certainly, some men,
stronger and more fortunate than others, took possession of everything
that exists. They forced others to work for them and, not content with
living in idleness, oppressing and starving the great mass around them,
they left the property theyâd stolen to their children and their
childrensâ children, condemning the whole of future humanity to being
the slaves of their descendants now weakened by idleness and able to do
what they like without having to answer to anyone. If it wasnât for the
fact that theyâve everything in hand and want to hold on to it by force
as their fathers did weâd almost feel sorry for them.
Does all that seem right to you?
Bert: If they took the land unjustly, yes. But the landlords say they
worked for the land, and it doesnât seem right to me to take away from
someone what theyâve achieved by their own efforts.
George: Ah yes! the same old story! Those who donât work and whoâve
never worked always speak in the name of work.
Now, you tell me where metal, coal, stone and so on come from. They were
either made by God or were the spontaneous work of nature. Certainly, we
all found them when we came into the world, so they should be available
to everybody. What would you say if the landowners wanted to take the
air for themselves and only allow us a little of the most putrid of it ,
making us pay for it with our sweat and toil? The only difference
between the air and the earth is that theyâve found a way to divide up
the earth and not the air. If they find a way, theyâll do the same with
the air as theyâve done with the earth.
Bert: True, that seems right to me. The earth and all the things of
nature should belong to everyone...But not everything was found right
there in front of us.
George: Of course, many things have been produced by the work of human
beings, in fact the earth itself wouldnât be worth much if it hadnât
been reclaimed and cultivated by human effort. By rights these things
should belong to whoever produced them. How is it that they find
themselves in the hands of precisely those who have done nothing at all
to produce them?
Bert: But the landlords say their ancestors worked and slaved.
George: But they should say that their ancestors forced others to work
for them without pay exactly as they are doing today. History shows that
the workersâ conditions have always been miserable and that, exactly as
now, whoever has worked without exploiting others, not only has never
been able to save, but hasnât even had enough to satisfy his own hunger.
Look at the example you have before your very eyes. Doesnât everything
the workers produce end up in the hands of the bosses who just stand
looking on?
Today they buy a piece of marshland cheap. They put men on it and give
them barely enough to prevent them from dying of hunger, then go and
idle their time away in the city. A few years later, this useless piece
of land becomes a garden worth a hundred times what it cost to start
with. The sons who inherit this treasure will say theyâre benefiting
from the work of their fathers, and the sons of those who really worked
and suffered will continue to work and suffer. What do you think?
Bert: But...if the world really has always been as it is now, then
nothing belongs to the landlords at all.
George: All right then, Iâll try to put everything in favour of the
landowners. Letâs suppose they were all sons of men who, in the past had
worked and saved, and the workers were all lazy squanderers. You can see
that what Iâm saying is absurd, but all the same, even if this was the
case, would the present social organisation be any more fair? If you
work and Iâm a layabout, itâs only right that I should be punished for
my laziness, but itâs not right that my children should be punished as
well or that they should have to kill themselves with work or die of
hunger in order to keep your children in wealth and plenty.
Bert: These are fine thoughts, and I canât say youâre wrong, but in the
meantime the landlords have the land, and in the long run we should be
grateful to them, for without them we wouldnât have the means to live.
George: Yes, they have the land because they took it with violence, and
theyâve flourished by taking the fruit of othersâ labour for themselves.
But just as they took it, so they can give it back.
Up until now men have made war against each other. Theyâve tried to
snatch the bread from each otherâs mouths and done everything they could
to keep their fellow down in order to use him like they would a beast.
But itâs time to put an end to this. Nothing can be gained by war and
throughout time man has known poverty, slavery, crime, prostitution,
and, from time to time, blood-lettings called wars or revolutions. By
getting on well, loving and helping each other, we would no longer have
so many ills or those who have all and others who have nothing, and
everyone would do the best he could.
I know well enough that the rich, who are used to commanding and to
living without working, donât want to change the system. Weâll listen
though to what they have to say. If they decide to understand, either
through love or fear, that thereâs to be no more hatred and injustice
among men and that everyone should take a share of the work, so much the
better. On the other hand, if they want to hold us down so they can go
on enjoying the results of their and their ancestorsâ violence and
theft, then so much the worse for them. Theyâve taken all that they have
by force, and by force we shall take it back from them. If the poor
would only agree, itâs we who are the strongest.
Bert: But if there were no landlords any more how would we live? Whoâd
give us work?
George: I canât believe it! Look! you see it every day. Itâs you who
till the soil, sow the seeds, reap the harvest, grind and carry the
wheat to the barn. Itâs you who make the wine, the oil, the cheese, and
you ask how you could live without the landlords? Ask rather how the
landlords would survive if it wasnât for us poor fools, workers of the
land and the city, who feed and clothe them and provide for their
children so that they can have a good time.
A few minutes ago you wanted to thank your bosses because they give you
the means to live. Donât you see that itâs they who live off your toil,
every piece of bread they put in their mouths has been stolen from our
children, every present they give their women represents the poverty,
hunger, cold, perhaps the prostitution of ours?
What do the landlords produce? Nothing. So everything they consume has
been stolen from the workers.
Just imagine that tomorrow all the labourers were to disappear from the
fields: there would be no one left working on the land and the
landowners would go hungry. If the cobblers disappear, no more shoes
will be made; if the builders disappear, no houses could be built, and
so on. For every class of workers that disappears, a branch of
production will disappear and people will have to go without all useful
and necessary things.
But what damage would be done if the landlords were to disappear? It
would be like a plague of locusts disappearing.
Bert: Yes, itâs true that we are the ones that produce everything, but
how can I grow corn if I have no land, animals, or seeds? I tell you,
thereâs no way out, we have to work under the bosses.
George: Oh, Bert, do we agree or donât we? We must take what we need
from the landownersâthe land, the tools, the seeds and everything.
For as long as the land and the machinery for working it is in the hands
of the landowners, the workers will always be held down and know nothing
but poverty and slavery. So, remember, the first thing to be done is to
take the land back from the landowners, otherwise nothing will ever
change.
Bert: Youâre right, Iâve already said so. But what do you want, all this
is so new to me, my headâs reeling.
But explain to me what you want to do. What would be done with this land
thatâs to be taken from the landlords? It would be a lot for one person
wouldnât it?
George: No! when you hear it said that we want a share for ourselves,
that we want half and so on, remember, whoeverâs saying so is either
ignorant or in bad faith.
Bert: But then? I donât understand at all.
George: Look, itâs quite simple. We want to put everything in common,
starting from the principle that everybody should do some work and all
should live as well as possible. Itâs not possible to live in this world
without working, so if one person doesnât do anything he has to live at
the expense of others, which is unfair and harmful. Obviously when I say
that everybody should work I mean all those that are able to, and do the
amount suited to them. The lame, the weak and the aged should be
supported by society, because it is the duty of humanity that no one
should suffer. Weâll grow old too, or could become crippled or weak,
just as those dearest to us might.
Now, if you think carefully youâll see that all the wealth, everything
that exists for the use of human beings, can be divided into two parts.
One part, which includes the land, machinery, tools, means of transport,
natural resources and so on, is indispensable and must be put in common
for everybody to use. As far as the way of organising the way of
employing all this, i.e. work, is concerned, that is something that
would be decided by all. The best solution would be to work in common,
because more could be produced with less effort. In fact, work in common
would be welcomed by everybody, because for each person to work for
themselves would mean doing without machines that reduce work to
something light and pleasant, and because when people no longer need to
snatch the bread from each othersâ mouths theyâll stop acting like cats
and dogs and will enjoy living together and doing things in common. In
any case, even if some people preferred working in isolation, there
would be no problem about that. The essential thing is that no one lives
without working or by forcing others to work for them. This would no
longer happen because each person, having the right to what he needs,
would not need to work under somebody else.
The second part of social wealth includes the things that man consumes
directly such as food, clothing and housing. Of these, what already
exists must undoubtedly be put in common and distributed in such a way
as to enable us to go ahead to a new harvest, and wait until new goods
are produced by industry. What is produced after the revolution, when
there are no longer idle employers living off the toil of the hungry
working people, will be distributed as the workers of each area desire.
Working together and putting everything in common would be best: in that
way production could be regulated so as to guarantee everyone the
maximum enjoyment possible, and that would be that. Otherwise, an
account could be kept of what each person produced, so that each one
could take goods equivalent to the amount of work they did. This would
be difficult to calculate. In fact I think it would be impossible. But
because of that, when the difficulties of proportional distribution are
understood, the idea of putting everything in common will be more easily
accepted.
In any case everyone must be assured of the basic needs such as bread,
housing, water and so on, independently of the quality of work each one
is able to do. No matter what form of organisation be adopted, heredity
should no longer exist because itâs wrong that some people find every
comfort at birth and others find hunger and want, that some be born rich
and others poor. And even if the idea were accepted that each person
owned what he produced and could save, on his death all his savings
would return to the community.
Meanwhile, the young should be brought up and taught at everybodyâs
expense, in such a way as to ensure they develop to the height of their
capabilities. Without this there would be neither justice nor equality,
and the principle of each person having an equal right to the
instruments of work would be violated because learning and moral
strength are true instruments of work, and it wouldnât be enough to give
everyone the land and machinery if they werenât able to use them to the
best of their ability.
I shall say nothing of woman, because for us woman must be equal to man,
and when we say man, we mean human being, without distinction of sex.
Bert: There is something though. To take property from the landlords
whoâve robbed and starved the poor is fair enough. But if someone has
managed through hard work and saving to put money aside and buy himself
an acre or two, or a small shop, by what right could this be taken away
from him?
George: That would be very difficult. Today, where the capitalists and
government have taken the best of the product, itâs impossible to save
out of oneâs own labour. You know yourself, after years of hard work you
are still as poor as before. Moreover Iâve already said that each person
has a right to raw materials and tools, so if someone had a small field
that heâd earned himself with his own hands, he could very well hold on
to it. Over and above that heâd be given perfected tools, manure and
anything else he needed to get the best possible use out of the earth.
Of course, it would be best for him to put everything in common, but
there would be no need to force anyone to do this because self interest
would indicate the advantage of a communal system to everyone. Each
person would be so much better off working the land in common than doing
so alone and, especially with the invention of new machinery, isolated
work would become less and less fruitful.
Bert: Ah! machines. They should all be destroyed! They are what are
ruining the labourers and taking away work from the poor people. Here in
this area you can see. Each time a new machine arrives our pay is
reduced and some of us are laid off and forced to go away and die of
hunger somewhere. Theyâre even worse in the town. At least if there
werenât any machines the landlords would have more need of our labour,
and weâd be a bit better off.
George: Youâre right, Bert, to believe that machines are one of the
causes of poverty and lack of work, but this is because they belong to
the bosses. If, on the other hand, they belonged to the workers, it
would be quite the opposite; theyâd become the main source of human
wellbeing. In fact, machines, basically, only work instead of us and
more quickly than we do. Thanks to them man will no longer have to work
hours on end to serve his needs or have to make superhuman efforts! If
machines were used in all branches of production and belonged to
everyone, all the requirements of consumption could be satisfied with a
few hours of light, healthy and pleasant work, and each worker would
have time to study, cultivate friendships, in a word, to live and enjoy
life, benefiting from all the conquests of science and civilisation. So
remember, the machines shouldnât be destroyed, but taken over. But, be
warned, the landlords will defend their machines, or rather have them
defended, just as much against those who want to take them over as from
those who want to destroy them. So, the risk being equal, it would be
really stupid to destroy them instead of taking them over. Would you
destroy grain and houses because in the hands of the landowners they
mean so much poverty and slavery, while in our hands theyâd be wealth
and freedom?
Bert: But everybody would have to be willing to go ahead with this
system if it were to work, wouldnât they?
George: Of course.
Bert: And if there are some who want to live for nothing without doing
any work? Work is hard and nobody likes it.
George: Youâre confusing society as it is today with the one thatâll
exist after the revolution. You said nobody likes hard work. But would
you be able to spend days on end doing nothing?
Bert: Not me, because Iâm accustomed to hard work, and when Iâve got
nothing to do I donât know what to do with my hands. But there are many
people that spend the whole day in the pub playing cards or showing off.
George: Today, yes, but after the revolution it wonât be like that any
longer, and Iâll tell you why. Today work is heavy, badly paid and
scorned by all. Whoever works today has to wear himself out, go hungry
and be treated like a beast. The working man has no hope, and knows
heâll end up in hospital or even in prison. He canât care for his family
as heâd like to. He gets no enjoyment out of life and suffers continual
ill treatment and humiliation. Those who donât work, on the other hand,
and get others to work for them, enjoy all possible ease and are highly
esteemed. It even happens among the workers themselves that those who do
the lighter cleaner jobs and earn more money are more highly thought of.
What wonder then that people work against their will and try to avoid it
as much as they can?
But when work is done in humane, hygienic conditions with the help of
machines, and the worker knows heâs working for his own good and that of
his dear ones and the whole community, when it is the indispensable
condition for being esteemed in society and idleness is scorned just as
spies and pimps are scorned today. Who then would give up the joy of
knowing himself to be loved in order to live in idleness? Even today,
apart from a few rare exceptions, everybody feels indescribable
repugnance for the profession of spy or pimp. Yet in these abject
trades, where little or no work is involved and where more or less
direct protection is given by the authorities, more money can be earned
than in tilling the soil! But these are vile occupations because they
are a sign of profound moral degradation and only produce suffering and
evil: and almost everyone prefers poverty to shame. There are obviously
exceptions, there are weak and corrupt men who prefer baseness, but itâs
always a question of choosing between shame and poverty. But who would
ever choose a vile tormented life if by working he would be sure of
wellbeing and the esteem of oneâs fellows? If it did happen, it would be
quite contrary to manâs normal character and would be considered and
treated as a case of madness.
And have no doubt about it. Public resistance to idleness certainly
wouldnât be lacking, because work is the basic need of every society. A
lazy person would not only harm everybody by living off othersâ produce
without contributing to it, but would break the harmony of the new
society and be one of a few discontented people who might desire a
return to the past. Collectivities are like individuals: they love and
honour whoever is, or they believe to be, useful. They can make
mistakes, but in our case error isnât possible because itâs all too
clear that whoever doesnât work is eating and drinking at the expense of
others.
Try the test of joining with others to do a job of work and divide the
product into equal parts. Youâd make allowances for the weak and
incapable, but for the unwilling youâd make life so hard theyâd either
leave you or decide to work. This is what would happen in society as a
whole if the indifference of a few was able to cause noticeable damage.
And then, when everything was held up because of those who didnât want
to work, the remedy would be easily found. Theyâd be expelled from the
community and reduced to having only the right to raw materials and
tools, so theyâd have to work if they wanted to survive.
Bert: Youâre beginning to convince me ...but tell me, would everybody
have to work the land then?
George: Why? We donât only need bread, wine and meat. We need housing,
clothes, roads, books, in fact everything that the workers of all trades
produce. And no one can provide everything he needs alone. Apart from
working the soil, isnât there a need for the smith to make the tools,
the miner to mine the iron, the builder to build the house and barns and
so on? So itâs not a question of everybody working the land, but of
everybody working to do something useful.
The variety of occupations would make it possible for each person to
choose what best suited his inclinations and so, at least as far as
possible, work would become a form of exercise, a much desired
recreation.
Bert: So each person would be free to choose the job he wanted?
George: Yes, but taking care that there are not too many people working
in one kind of job, and scarcity in others. Because the work is done in
the interests of all it must be done in such a way that all needs are
catered for, reconciling as far as possible the general interest with
individual preference. Youâd see that each would do for the best when
they were no longer bosses making us work for a few crumbs.
Bert: You say everybody would make an effort, but I think that nobody
would want to do the heavy jobs, theyâd all want to become lawyers and
doctors. Whoâd till the land then? Whoâd want to risk their health and
life down the mines? Whoâd want to get dirty in sewers and manure?
George: As far as lawyers are concerned, letâs leave them aside. They
are gangrene like the priests. The social revolution would get rid of
them completely. Letâs speak of useful work and not that done to harm
oneâs neighbour. Even the street assassin, who often has to put up with
great suffering, becomes a worker too if we donât.
Today we prefer one job to another, not because itâs more or less suited
to our faculties or corresponds more to what we want to do, but because
it is easier for us to learn, we can earn more money doing it, and only
secondly because the work is lighter than another kind. Especially when
the choice is imposed from birth by chance and social prejudice.
For instance, no town dweller would stoop to till the soil, not even the
poor among them. Yet thereâs nothing inherently repulsive about
agriculture, and life in the fields is not devoid of pleasure.
On the contrary, if you read the poets youâll find theyâre full of
enthusiasm for rural life. But the truth is that poets, who publish
books, have never tilled the soil, and those who really till it kill
themselves with fatigue, die of hunger, live worse than beasts and are
considered worthless people, so much so that the last city tramp would
consider it an offense to be referred to as a peasant. How do you want
people to work the land willingly? We ourselves, who were born here,
stop as soon as we can, because we are better off and more highly
thought of no matter what else we do. But who of us would leave the
fields if we worked for ourselves and found in working the land
wellbeing, freedom and respect?
It would be the same for all trades. The way things are today, the more
a job is necessary the worse it is paid, the more tiring and inhuman the
conditions, and the more it is treated with disdain. For instance, go
into a goldsmithâs workshop and youâll find that at least compared to
the disgusting hovels we live in, the place is clean, well aired and
heated in winter. The working day is not excessively long and the
workers are reasonably well paid. The evenings are then spent relaxing,
when they have taken off their working clothes they can go where they
like without people staring at them and making a fool of them. On the
other hand, go down a mine, you will see poor people working underground
in pestilent air, consuming their lives in a few years for a derisory
wage. And then, if after work the miner dared to frequent the same
places as the gentry, heâd be lucky to get away with being mocked. Why
should we be surprised then if someone prefers to be a goldsmith to a
miner?
Not to mention those who know no tools but the pen. Think of it! someone
who possibly knows nothing but puns and sugary sonnets earns ten times
more than a farm worker and is considered to be above every honest
labourer.
Journalists, for example, work in elegant offices, cobblers in filthy
basements; engineers, doctors, artists, and teachers, when they have
work and know their job well, live the life of the gentry while
builders, nurses, artisans, and you could also add general practitioners
and primary teachers, are going hungry and even killing themselves
through overwork. Be careful, by this I donât mean that only manual
labour is useful. On the contrary, study gives man the way to win over
nature and civilise himself and gain more freedom and well-being, and
the doctors, engineers, chemists and schoolmasters are just as useful
and necessary to human society as farm workers and other workers. Iâm
just saying that all useful jobs should be appreciated equally and be
carried out in such a way that the workers feel equal satisfaction in
doing them, and that intellectual work, which is in itself a great
pleasure and gives man great superiority over whoever doesnât work with
his mind and remains ignorant, must be accessible to all and not the
privilege of a few.
Bert: But if you yourself say that working with the mind is a great
pleasure and gives advantage over those who are ignorant, obviously
everyone would want to study, and Iâd be the first. So whoâd do the
manual work then?
George: Everyone. Because everyone, at the same time as they cultivate
letters and science, should do some manual work; everyone should work
with their heads and their hands. Those two kinds of work, far from
prejudicing each other, help each other because for a man to be healthy
he needs to exercise all his organs, the brain as well as the muscles.
Whoever has a developed intelligence and is used to thinking, also gets
on better in manual work; and whoever is healthy, as one is when one
exercises oneâs strength in hygienic conditions, also has a more agile
and penetrating mind.
Moreover, because the two kinds of work are necessary, and one is more
pleasant than the other and is the road to awareness and dignity, itâs
not right for some to be condemned to exclusively manual work, leaving
others the privilege of science, and therefore of command. So I repeat,
everybody should do some manual and some intellectual work.
Bert: I can understand that, but there is manual work that is hard and
manual work that is easy, some is unpleasant, some pleasant. Now who
would be a miner, for instance, or a scavenger?
George: My dear Bert, if only you knew what inventions and research are
going on every day, youâd see that even now, if the organisation of work
didnât depend upon people who are not working themselves and so donât
care about the comfort of the workers, all manual labour could be
carried out under decent conditions. So there would always be some
workers who preferred them. And that is today. Just think what itâll be
when, everybody having to work, the efforts and study of all are
directed towards making work lighter and more pleasant!
And even if some jobs persisted in being harder than others, one would
try to compensate the differences through special advantages. And we
must take into account that when everyone is working together for the
common good, a spirit of brotherhood and compliance is born, just like
in a family, where each individual tries to take the heaviest jobs upon
himself.
Bert: Youâre right. But if all this doesnât come about, whatâll we do?
George: Well, if in spite of everything some necessary work remained
undone and no one wanted to do it of their own free will, then weâd all
do it, a bit each one, working for example one day a month, or a week
out of every year, or some other way. And if something is really
necessary for everyone, donât worry, a way to get it done will always be
found. Donât we become soldiers today for the pleasure of others and
donât we go and fight against other people whom we donât know and whoâve
done us no harm, or against our own brothers and friends?
It would be better, it seems to me, to do work for our own pleasure and
for the good of everyone.
Bert: Do you know, youâre beginning to convince me? But thereâs
something that I still canât get the hang of. That business about taking
everything from the gentry? I donât know but...couldnât we avoid that?
George: And how would you like to do it? So long as the landowners have
everything in hand itâll be they who command and look after their own
interests without caring about us just as theyâve done since time began.
But then, why shouldnât we take everything from the landowners? Maybe
you think it would be unfair, an evil deed?
Bert: No. Really, after all youâve told me, it seems to me rather that
it would be a blessing, because if we took property from the landlords
weâd be taking back our blood that theyâve been sucking for so long...
And then, if we take it from them, itâs not to take it for ourselves.
Itâs to put it in common for the good of everyone, isnât it?
George: Of course. In fact, if you really think about it youâll see that
the landowners themselves would benefit by it. Certainly, theyâd have to
give up commanding, being arrogant and lazy. Theyâd have to work, but
the work, when done with the help of machines and taking great care of
the workersâ well-being, would be reduced to a light, pleasant exercise.
Donât they go hunting? Donât they run, do gymnastics and so many
exercises demonstrating that muscular work is a necessity and a pleasure
for all healthy well-fed men? So, itâs a question of doing for
production the work that they do today as a pastime. And how many
advantages would the same gentlemen feel from the general wellbeing and
improved civilisation! Look in our own village for instance: the few
landowners there are are rich and act like little princes. But at the
same time the roads are just as ugly and dirty for them as they are for
us. The foul air from our houses and neighbouring swamps affects them
too. Our ignorance is such that they are also brutalised. How could they
improve the countryside, make roads and light them, with their private
wealth? How can they avoid the adulteration of consumer goods? How can
they benefit from all the progress of science and industry? All things
that when done through the collaboration of all would be quite simple.
And their very vanity, how can it be satisfied when their society is
shrinking?
And all this without taking into account the constant danger of gunshots
from behind a barricade and the fear of a revolution, the thought of a
disaster which would reduce them to poverty and expose their families to
hunger, crime or prostitution as ours are? By taking property from those
who own it, not only are we giving them their due, weâre also doing them
a great favour.
Itâs true that the landlords donât understand nor ever will, because
they want to command, and that they believe that the poor are made of
different stock. But what can we do? If they donât want to get on with
good people, so much the worse for them: we shall get on with the bad.
Bert: Thatâs all very well. But it wouldnât be easy to make it happen.
Couldnât things be done gradually? Letâs leave the land to those who
have it, on condition that they increase wages and treat us like human
beings. Then we could gradually save up and buy a piece of land too, and
then when we are all landowners we can put everything in common as you
say. I once heard a fellow suggesting something like that.
George: Listen: thereâs only one way to put things right, and thatâs to
persuade the landlords to give up their land, because when someone gives
something thereâs no need to use force. But thereâs no chance of that
happening, you know that as well as I do.
For as long as private property exists, as long as the land and
everything else belongs to this or that person instead of belonging to
everybody, there will always be poverty, in fact things will go from bad
to worse. With private property each one tries to draw the water to his
own mill, and the landowners donât only try to give the workers as
little as possible, they are always fighting among themselves. Generally
speaking each one tries to sell his goods for as much as he can get and
buy for as little as possible. So what happens? As the landowners,
manufacturers and large merchants, can produce and buy goods wholesale,
provide themselves with machines and take advantage of favourable market
conditions and wait for the right moment to sell, or even sell at a loss
for a time, they end up ruining the weaker proprietors and shopkeepers.
The latter gradually sink into poverty and they or their children are
forced to do casual labour (this is something we see every day). In this
way, the men who work alone or with a few journeymen in small workshops
are obliged, after a bitter struggle, to shut shop and go to look for
work in the big factories. The small proprietors, who cannot even manage
to pay their taxes, must sell their houses and fields to the large
proprietors and so on. In this way, even if some good-hearted employer
wanted to improve his workersâ conditions, heâd only be ruined by
competition and would most certainly go bankrupt.
On the other hand the workers, driven by hunger, must compete against
each other, and as there are more hands available than demands for work
(not because there isnât work that needs doing, but because the bosses
only employ the number of men that suits them), so they have to snatch
the bread from each otherâs mouths, and no matter how little you are
prepared to work for, there will always be someone willing to work for
less.
In this way, every step towards progress becomes a disaster. A new
machine is invented: right away large numbers of workers are put out of
work, stop earning, cannot consume and therefore indirectly also take
work away from others. In America wide expanses of land are cultivated
and much grain is produced. The landowners send their grain to Europe to
get a higher price for it, without caring whether the people in America
have enough to eat. Here the grain costs less, but the poor are worse
off instead of better, because the European landlords stop cultivating
the land as the price of grain is so low itâs no longer worth it; or
they cultivate only a small part of it where the earth is most fertile,
so a large number of peasants are put out of work. Bread is cheap,
thatâs true, but the poor people donât even earn the little necessary to
buy it.
Bert: Ah! now I see. Iâve heard that they didnât want grain from abroad,
and it seemed criminal to refuse Godâs blessing in that way. I thought
the landlords wanted to starve the people, but now I see they had a good
reason for what they were saying.
George: No, no, because if grain doesnât arrive itâs bad from another
point of view. The landlords then, not fearing competition from outside,
sell the stuff when it pleases them and...
Bert: So?
George: So? Iâve already said: everything should be put in common for
the good of everyone. Then, the more there is the better off weâll be.
If new machines are invented or production increases, or less work is
done, or whatever, it is always so much gained for everyone, and if they
had too much grain in one village for instance and sent some to us, weâd
send them some of what we produce. So everyone would gain something.
Bert: But...if we shared things with the landlords? If they contributed
the land and capital and we did the work, then weâd share the produce.
What do you think?
George: First, although you would be willing to share, your employer
certainly wouldnât. It would be necessary to use force, and as much
would be needed to make them share as to make them give everything up.
So why do things by half and be satisfied with a system which allows
injustice and parasitism to continue, and which blocks production?
Then I ask, what right have a few men to take half of what the workers
produce without doing any work themselves?
Besides, as Iâve already said, not only would half the produce go to the
landlords, but the total product would be of a far inferior quality than
what would be achieved if the work was done in common and guided by the
common interest of the producers and consumers. Itâs like trying to move
a boulder: one hundred men try one after the other and donât get
anywhere, nor would they if all tried together but each pulled for his
own gain and tried to counteract the othersâ efforts. On the other hand
three or four people combining efforts and using levers and other
suitable tools would lift it up easily. If you set out to make a pin,
who knows whether youâll finish it within the hour, whereas ten men
working together could make thousands and thousands of pins per day. And
as time goes on and more machines are invented more work will be done in
common if progress is to be enjoyed.
While weâre on the subject, I want to answer an objection that has often
been made.
Economists (who put together in the name of science a lot of nonsense
and lies to demonstrate that the gentry have the right to live off the
sweat of others), and all the learned people with full stomachs often
say that itâs not true that poverty is caused by the bosses taking
everything for themselves, but that production is limited and thereâs
not enough to go round. They end up saying that no one is responsible
for poverty, so thereâs no point in rebelling against it. The priest
keeps you docile and subjected, telling you everything is Godâs will;
the economists say itâs the law of nature. But donât believe a word of
it. Of course itâs true that what industry and agriculture produce today
isnât enough to supply everyone with the good food and comfort enjoyed
by only a few. But this is because of the present system, where the
bosses arenât concerned with the general interest and only produce when
and what suits them, often destroying goods to keep prices up. In fact,
at the same time as theyâre saying thereâs a shortage, they leave
extensive land uncultivated and many labourers out of work.
But then they reply that even if all the land were cultivated and
everyone worked using the best known methods, poverty would return all
the same because the productivity of the land is limited. People would
be in a condition to have more children so the production of foodstuffs
would remain stationary, while the population would continue to grow
indefinitely, and scarcity with it. So, they say, the only remedy for
social ills is for the poor not to have children, or at least only have
a few that they can bring up reasonably well.
So much could be said on the problem of the far distant future. There
are those who maintain, and with good reason, that the increase in
population finds a natural limit, without requiring artificial brakes,
voluntary or otherwise. It seems that with racial development the
heightening of intellectual faculties, the emancipation of woman and the
increase in general wellbeing, the generative need gradually diminishes.
But these are questions that are of no practical importance today, and
are not related to the present cause of poverty.
Today it is not a question of population but of social organization. And
the remedy of not having children would not cure anything. We see that
in countries where there is much land and a sparse population, there is
as much poverty as there is in the densely populated countries, often
far more. In spite of all the obstacles deriving from private ownership,
production grows more rapidly today than the population and the
worsening of poverty is caused by overproduction in relation to the
poorâs means for consumption. The workers are unemployed because the
warehouses are full of goods that have been produced and have not found
buyers. Cultivated land is left to grow wild because there is too much
grain. Prices are falling and the landlords are no longer finding it
profitable to sow crops, caring nothing that the peasants are out of
work and hungry.
So, first we need to change the social organization, cultivate all the
land, organize production and consumption in the interest of all,
leaving free reign to new methods and innovations, occupy all the
immense part of the world that is still uninhabited. Then, when in spite
of all the previsions the population is really seen to be too great, and
only then, will it be the case for the people living in that moment to
think of imposing a limit on their procreation. But this limitation
should be observed by everyone, with no exception for a restricted
number of people who, not content with living in abundance through the
work of others, would like the exclusive right to have unlimited
children. Moreover, for as long as there are poor people limits can
never be imposed on procreation because they cannot think about the
general scarcity of goods when they have the most immediate cause of
poverty before their eyes: the boss taking the lionâs share. The poorer
one is, the more uncertain one is of tomorrow, and naturally the more
short-sighted and uncaring. Only when everyone would suffer equally from
a food shortage could a voluntarily imposed limit succeed, which no
human power could impose by force.
But let us go back to the question of the division of the product
between owner and worker. What would you give to those who are not
working? The bosses, for as long as they remain such, cannot be forced
to employ people they donât need.
The system of division, called participation or metayage (crop sharing
system), once existed for work in the fields in many parts of southern
Europe, and still exists today in some parts of Italy such as Tuscany.
But this is gradually disappearing and will also disappear in Tuscany
because the landlords find it more profitable to use casual labour.
Today then, with machines, scientific agriculture and imports, it has
become a real necessity for landowners to employ labour, and those who
do not get there in time will be reduced to poverty through competition.
Finally, if we carry on with the present system weâll end up with
property still in the hands of a few, and the labourer thrown into the
gutter as a result of machines and accelerated production methods. In
this way weâll have a few large landowning bosses in the world, with a
few workers for the servicing of the machinery, then domestic servants
and police serving to defend the landlords. The masses will either die
of hunger or live off charity. We can see already. The small proprietor
is disappearing, the number of unemployed workers is increasing and the
landlords, through fear or pity for all those people who might die of
hunger, are organizing soup kitchens and other works of charity.
If people donât want to be reduced to begging a plate of soup from the
landlordsâ doors or from the municipality as theyâve done in the past at
the doors of convents, there is only one way: to take possession of the
land and machinery, and work for themselves. [1]
Bert: But if the government made new laws forcing the landlords not to
make the poor people suffer?
George: Weâre back in square one. The government is made up of
landlords, and they would never make laws against themselves. And if the
poor reach command, why do things by half and leave the landlords with
enough in hand as to allow them to dominate us again? Because, you see,
wherever there are rich and poor, the poor can shout for a while, at a
time of rebellion. But then it is always the rich who end up commanding.
So, if for a moment we manage to be the strongest, we must take the
property from the rich right away, and in such a way that they wonât be
able to put things back like before.
Bert: I understand everything. We must make a good republic. Everybody
equal, and whoever works eats and who doesnât work goes hungry...Ah! Iâm
sorry Iâm old. Lucky you youngsters who will see these great times.
George: Take it easy my friend. By republic you mean social revolution,
and so to someone who knows what youâre talking about, youâd be quite
right. But youâre expressing yourself badly, because republic doesnât
actually mean anything like what you have in mind. Get it well into your
head that a republic is a government just like what there is now, only
instead of there being a king thereâs a president and ministers who have
the same powers. The king removed, the government is still called a
republic, even if the inquisition, torture or slavery still exist! If
you want a republic as they say they do in Italy, you will have to add
the following changes: instead of two chambers, there would only be one,
the deputies, and instead of the vote being only for those who have
money or can read and write, would be for everyone.
And thereâs nothing more to it you know, because all the rest, such as
putting an end to military service, or lowering taxes, or providing
schools, or protecting the poor, are all promises that will be kept...
if it suits the landlord deputies. And when it comes to promising we
donât need republicans, because already now when candidates need to be
elected they promise heaven and earth and then, after they are elected,
no more is said on the subject.
However, thatâs all nonsense. So long as there are rich and poor, the
rich will always command. Whether there is a republic or a monarchy, the
consequences deriving from private property will always be the same.
Competition regulates all economic relations, therefore property is
concentrated in a few hands, machines take the place of workers, and the
masses will be reduced, as we have said, to dying of hunger or living
off charity.
We can see that now. There have been republics and many still exist, and
they have never improved the conditions of the people.
Bert: Well Iâm blowed! And I thought that the republic meant that
everybody would be equal!
George: Thatâs what the republicans say, and their argument is that the
members of parliament who make the laws are elected by the people, so
when the people are not happy, they send better M.P.s and everything
gets sorted out; in fact the poor are the great majority, and in the
last analysis it is they who command. But the truth is quite different.
The poor, who precisely because they are poor are also ignorant and
suspicious, vote as the priests and bosses want them to, and will
continue to do so as long as they donât have economic independence and a
clear awareness of their interests.
You and I, if we had had the extraordinary good luck of earning more and
were able to study a little, might be able to understand what our own
interests are and have the strength to face the landlordsâ vengeance.
But the great mass will never be able to do so as long as present
conditions continue. No, facing the ballot box is not the same as a
revolution, where one brave and intelligent man is worth a hundred timid
ones, and draws along behind him so many who alone would never have had
the energy to rebel. In the face of the ballot box what counts is
number, and so long as there are priests, landlords and governments, the
number will always be for the priests, who dispense hell and paradise,
for the landlords, who give and take bread as they please, and for the
government who have policemen to intimidate and employment to corrupt.
And donât you know? Today the majority of the electors are poor, yet
what do they do when they have to vote? Do they nominate the poor, who
know them and want to defend their interests?
Bert: What! they ask the landlord who they are to vote for and do what
he says. On the other hand, if they didnât, theyâd be sacked.
George: So you see. What do you want to know about universal suffrage
then? The people will send the landlords to parliament, and once theyâre
there they know to act so as to keep the people ignorant and enslaved as
they are now. And when they see theyâre not succeeding with the
republic, they have everything in hand to send it crashing headlong.
So thereâs only one way: to expropriate the landlords and give
everything to the people. When the people see that everything belongs to
them, and theyâre responsible for their own wellbeing, then theyâll know
how to enjoy the land, and will also know how to look after it.
Bert: I believe that! But by republic the peasants donât mean what
youâre saying it is. In fact, now I understand that what we call
republic is the same as what you call anarchy. But couldnât we call it
republic instead? What does the name matter! The main thing is that
things be done as they should be.
George: Youâre right. But thereâs one great danger. If the people
continue to believe that the republic is good for them, when the day
comes that they canât take any more and start the revolution, the
republicans will content them right away by proclaiming the republic and
saying that now they can go home and start nominating M.P.s, because
soon everything will be under control.
The people, credulous as always, will abandon their guns and give vent
to music and merrymaking. Meanwhile the landlords will all become
republicans, they will all be heartily for the people, lash out money
and organize great festivities. Theyâll pay the workers a little more,
and get themselves put in power. Then theyâll let the storm calm down
gradually and prepare the forces to keep a brake on the people, who will
one day realise that they spilt their blood for others, and that they
are worse off than before.
Instead, as it rarely happens that the people rebel and come out
victorious, they must take the first opportunity and apply communism
right away and not listen to promises. Take possession of property
directly, occupying the houses, the land and the factories. And whoever
speaks of republic should be treated as an enemy, otherwise the same
thing will happen as happened in â59 and â60.
Words donât seem to matter, but itâs always with words that the people
have been deceived and taken for a ride!
Bert: Youâre right. Weâve been sacrificed so often, and now itâs time we
opened our eyes.
But there will always be a need for a government. How would we get on
with nobody in command?
George: Why must we take orders? Why canât we manage our own affairs?
Whoever gives orders always does what he wants, and always, either
through ignorance or villainy, betrays the people. Power goes to
peopleâs heads, even among the best. Besides, we must stop being sheep.
The best reason for not wanting to take orders is that people must begin
to think and learn to recognise their own dignity and strength. The
command of a few educates others to obedience. And even if there was
such a thing as a good government, it would be more corrupting and
weakening than a bad one: a coup dâetat would be easier than ever,
destroying the improvements that had been achieved and re-establishing
privilege and tyranny. For people to become educated to freedom and the
management of their own interests, they must be left to act for
themselves, to feel responsibility for their actions in the good or bad
which comes from them. Theyâd make many mistakes, but theyâd understand
from the consequences where theyâd gone wrong and try out new ways. The
harm a people can do themselves when left to their own resources is only
a thousandth part of what the most benign government can do. For a child
to learn to walk he must be left to it and not be afraid of a few bumps
or falls.
Bert: Yes, but for a child to be put down to walk he must already have a
certain amount of strength in his legs, or stay in his motherâs arms.
George: Thatâs true. But governments are not in the least like mothers,
and theyâll never improve and strengthen the people. In fact social
progress is nearly always achieved against, or in spite of, governments.
The latter increasingly translate the needs and will of the masses into
law, so breaking them through the spirit of dominion or monopoly. Some
peoples are more advanced than others, but no matter what stage of
civilisation theyâre at, even in the primitive state, people would
always realise their interests better than any government they produced.
You believe what seems to be the case: that the government is made up of
the most intelligent and capable men, but thatâs not in fact true. They
are usually composed either directly or by delegation, of those who have
most money. But even if it were so that the government was composed of
intelligent people? If those of a higher capacity stay among the people,
they use it to the peopleâs advantage. If they go into government, they
no longer feel the peopleâs needs and are drawn into looking after those
interests created by politics, the desire to hold on to power rather
than look to the real needs of society. They are corrupted by lack of
competition and control, often distracted from the field of activity in
which they are really competent to dictate laws over things they had no
interest in at first. Even the best and most intelligent end up
believing in a higher nature, and form a caste who only look after the
people as far as is necessary to exploit them and hold them down.
It would therefore be better and surer if we were to look after our own
interests, starting from where we live and the jobs we know best, then
gradually getting into agreement with all the other trades and areas,
not only in Italy but all over the world. Men are all brothers, and have
an interest in loving each other and helping each other. Donât you think
so?
Bert: Yes, Iâm beginning to think youâre right. But the criminals, the
thieves, the vandals? What would happen to them?
George: First of all, when there is no longer poverty and ignorance
there wonât be all those hooligans any more. But even supposing there
were still some, is that a reason for having a government and a police
force? Wouldnât we be capable of putting those who donât respect others
in their place? We wouldnât torture them as is done now both with the
guilty and the innocent, but weâd put them in a position of not being
able to do any damage, and do everything to put them back on the right
road.
Bert: So, when there is anarchy, everyone will be happy and contented,
there will be no more poverty, hatred, jealousy, prostitution, wars or
injustice?
George: I donât know how far human happiness can go. But Iâm convinced
that we shall all be as well off as possible and will continually try to
improve and go forward. And the improvements will no longer be as they
are today, to the advantage of a few and the detriment of many, but will
be for the good of all.
Bert: I wish it were so! But when will this be? Iâm old and now that I
know that the world wonât always be like this, I donât want to die
without having seen at least one day of justice.
George: When will it be? How do I know? Itâs up to us. The more we do to
open peopleâs eyes, the sooner it will be done.
A good step has already been made. Whereas years ago the few who
preached socialism were treated as ignorant, mad or ruffians, today the
idea is known to many, and the poor, who once suffered in silence or
rebelled when they were pushed to by hunger, but without knowing the why
or wherefore of their ills, were killed or made to kill each other for
the landlords. Today there is agitation all over the world. People rebel
with the idea of getting rid of bosses and governments and count only on
their own strength, having finally begun to understand that all the
parties that the landlords are divided into are equally their enemies.
Let us bring propaganda into action now that the moment is ripe, and
draw close together, those of us who have understood the problem. We
shall kindle the fire that is smouldering among the masses, take
advantage of the discontent, the movements, the revolts, and strike a
vigorous blow. We are not afraid, and soon the bourgeois catastrophe
will go up in smoke and the reign of wellbeing begin.
Bert: Thatâs fine, but letâs be careful not to reckon without our host.
Itâs easy to say take the land from the landlords, but there are the
carabinieri, the police, the soldiers. And now that I think of it, Iâm
afraid that their handcuffs, swords and guns are made, more than
anything else, for precisely that: to defend the landlords.
George: We know that, my dear Bert. The police and army are there to
keep a brake on the people and assure the landownersâ tranquility. But
if they have guns and cannons, thereâs no reason why we have to fight
empty-handed. We know how to use guns too, and can get hold of them with
astuteness and courage. Then there is the powder, the dynamite and all
the explosive materials, the incendiary materials and a thousand tools
which if in the hands of the government serve to hold the people in
slavery, in the hands of the people will serve to conquer freedom.
Barricades, mines, bombs, fire, are the means with which we resist
armies, and weâll not need to be pressed to use them. It is well known:
the revolution can hardly be achieved with holy water and the litany.
On the other hand, if you consider that the poor are the immense
majority, and if they manage to understand and taste the advantages of
socialism, there will be no force in the world strong enough to make
them stay as they are. The poor are those who work and produce
everything, and if only a considerable part of them were to suspend work
there would be such a breakdown, such a panic, that the revolution would
immediately impose itself as the only possible solution. Think too that
the soldiers usually come from the poor, forced to become the pigs and
executioners of their brothers, and no sooner will they see and
understand what is happening than theyâll sympathize, first secretly,
then openly with the people and youâd persuade them that the revolution
is not as difficult as it might seem at first sight.
The essential thing is to remember that the revolution is necessary,
always to be ready to carry it out, and to be continually preparing
it... And donât doubt that the occasion, spontaneous or provoked, wonât
fail to present itself.
Bert: You say this, and I believe youâre right. But there are also those
who say that the revolution is no use, and that things mature by
themselves. What do you think?
George: You should know that from the moment socialism has gained
strength the bourgeoisie, that is the landlords, have really begun to be
afraid and are trying everything in order to avert the storm and deceive
the people. Now they are all socialists, even the emperors ...and you
can imagine what kind of socialism theyâve put together. Alas, some
traitors have emerged from among our own comrades, lured by the flattery
of the bourgeoisie in order to attract them, and by advantages they
could gain through abandoning the revolutionary cause. They put
themselves to preaching legal methods, elections, alliances with the
partiesâwhich they say are kindredâand so they get themselves a place
amidst the bourgeoisie and treat those who want revolution as mad or
worse. Many continue to say that they too want revolution, but, in the
meanwhile... they want to be nominated member of parliament.
When someone tells you that the revolution is not necessary, speaks to
you of voting for parties or local councillors, or agreeing with
whatever faction of the bourgeoisie, if he is one of your comrades who
works like you, try to persuade him of his mistake. If on the contrary
he is a bourgeois or someone who wants to find the way to becoming
bourgeois, consider him an enemy and carry on your own way.
Well, thatâs enough for the time being. We can talk more about these
problems some other time. Goodbye.
Bert: Goodbye; and Iâm glad youâve helped me to understand many things
which, now youâve told me, I canât understand why I didnât think of them
before. Goodbye.
Bert: Wait! While weâre here, just so as not to part with a dry throat,
letâs go for a drink, and at the same time Iâll ask you a few more
things.
I understand all youâve told me... and Iâll think about it on my own and
try to convince myself more. But you mentioned hardly any of these
difficult words that I usually hear said when such things are being
discussed and which confuse me because I donât understand them. For
instance, Iâve heard youâre communists, socialists, internationalists,
collectivists, anarchists, and goodness knows what. Can you tell me
exactly what those words mean and what you really are?
George: Ah! Right, you did well to ask me this, because words are
necessary in order to agree and distinguish oneself from others, but
when theyâre not fully understood they can give rise to great confusion.
You should know then that socialists are those who believe that poverty
is the main cause of all social evil, and that until poverty is
destroyed there will be no way to destroy either ignorance, slavery,
political inequality, prostitution or any of the evils that hold the
people down in such a horrible state, and which are nothing compared to
poverty itself. Socialists believe that poverty depends on the fact that
the land and all the raw materials, machines and all the tools of work
belong to a few individuals who thereby regulate the lives and deaths of
all the working class and find themselves in a continual state of
struggle and competition, not only against the proletarians, that is
those who have nothing, but also amongst themselves, snatching property
from each other. Socialists believe that through abolishing individual
property, in other words the cause, poverty, which is the effect, would
be abolished at the same time. And this property can and must be
abolished, because production and distribution must be done according to
peopleâs interests, without any respect for so-called inheritance, the
privilege the landlords now pride themselves in with the excuse that
their ancestors were stronger, or more fortunate, or more cunning, or
even more laborious or more virtuous than the others.
So, you see, socialists are all those who want social wealth to serve
all men and want no more owners or proletarians, rich or poor, employers
or employed.
Once this was something that was understood, and it was enough to say
that one was a socialist to be persecuted and hated by the landlords who
would rather there were a million murderers at large than only one
socialist. But as Iâve already told you, when the landlords and those
who want to become such see that in spite of all their persecution and
slander, socialism went forward and the people began to open their eyes,
then they thought it was necessary to try to confuse the question in
order to cheat them more successfully; and many of them began to say
that they too were socialists, because they too wanted the good of the
people, they too understood that it was necessary to destroy or reduce
poverty. First they said that the social question, that is the question
of poverty and all the other evils that derive from it, did not exist.
Today, now that socialism scares them, they say that whoever studies
given social problems is a socialist, almost as if one could call a
doctor someone who studies illness, not with the intention of healing
it, but of making it last.
So today youâll find people who call themselves socialists among the
republicans, the royalists, the clergymen, the usurers, the judges, the
police, in a word everyone, and their socialism consists of keeping
people at bay, or of getting themselves nominated members of parliament
making promises which they couldnât keep even if they wanted to.
Among those false socialists there are certainly some in good faith who
really believe theyâre doing good; but so what? If someone, believing
heâs doing good starts beating you up, youâd first have to take the
stick out of his hands, while his good intentions would at best serve to
prevent him from having his head smashed in once the club had been taken
away.
So, when someone tells you heâs a socialist, ask him to take the
property from those who have it to put it in common for all. If the
answer is yes, embrace him as a brother, if it is no, be careful,
because you have an enemy in front of you.
Bert: Therefore you are a socialist; I can see that. But what does
communist or collectivist mean then?
George: The communists and collectivists are both socialists, but have
different ideas about what should be done after property has been put in
common, and Iâve already said something about that, remember. The
collectivists say that every worker, or even better, every association
of workers must have the raw materials and tools for working, and that
each should own the product of his labour. So long as they live they
spend it or keep it, do what they like with it, anything except use it
to make others work for them. Then when they die, if they have saved
anything, this goes back to the community. Their children naturally also
have the means to work, and to allow them to inherit would be the first
step towards going back to inequality and privilege. As far as learning
is concerned, and the upkeep of children, old people and the sick, the
roads, water supply, lighting and public hygiene-all those things that
everyone needs- each workersâ association would give so much to
compensate the people who did these tasks.
The communists, on the other hand, go more for the quick road. They say:
because to go ahead well men must consider themselves members of one
large family, property must be in common. Because work in order to be
productive and to benefit from machines must be done by the large
workersâ collectives. Because to benefit from all the varieties of soil
and atmospheric conditions, in such a way that each place produces what
is most fitting for it, and to avoid competition and hatred between the
different countries and people rushing off to the richest places, it is
necessary to establish perfect solidarity between all peoples of the
world and because it would be the work of the devil to make out which
part of a product was due to whom. Letâs do one thing, instead of
getting all mixed up trying to decide what youâve done and what Iâve
done, letâs all work and put everything in common. That way each would
give to society all that their strength permitted until there was enough
to go round for everyone; and each would take what they needed, limiting
themselves of course in things that were scarce.
Bert: Take it easy. First you must explain the meaning of the word
solidarity, because you said there must be perfect solidarity between
all men, and, to tell you the truth, I donât know what you mean.
George: Well, in your family for example, everything you and your
brothers and sons earn, you put together. Then you buy food and you all
eat. If thereâs not enough, then you all eat a bit less.
Then if you have some luck or manage to earn a bit more, itâs good for
everyone. If on the other hand somebody is out of work, he eats at the
table along with everyone else, and if someone is ill there is more
expense to be met. So it happens that in your family, instead of trying
to take the bread from each otherâs mouths, you try to help each other
because the wellbeing of one is the wellbeing of all, just as oneâs pain
is the pain of all. This way hatred and envy cannot exist, and
reciprocal affection develops which never exists in a family with
divided interests.
This is called solidarity. It is something to be established among all
men, this relationship that exists within a family where all the members
really love each other.
Bert: I see. Now to get back to the first question, tell me, are you a
communist or a collectivist?
George: I personally am a communist, because it seems to me that when
one has to be friends, its not worth doing it in half measures.
Collectivism still leaves the seeds of rivalry and hatred. But thereâs
more to it than that. If each one could live on what he produced
himself, collectivism would still be inferior to communism, because it
would tend to keep people isolated and therefore diminish their strength
and solidarity, but it could still work. But because, for example, the
cobbler canât eat shoes, the forger eat iron, nor can the farmer make
all he needs himself or cultivate the land without the workers who mine
the iron to make machinery, and so on, it would be necessary to organize
exchange between the various producers, remembering what each had done.
So the cobbler would claim as much as he could in exchange for a pair of
shoes, and the farm worker, on his side, would give as little as
possible. Who on earth would be able to make anything of it?
Collectivism, it seems to me, would give rise to a lot of problems and
would lend itself to cheating which in the long run could take us back
to square one.
Communism, on the other hand, doesnât produce any such problems.
Everyone works and everyone benefits by the work of all. It would only
be necessary for each one to be satisfied, and act in such a way that
enough be produced.
Bert: So in communism there would be no need for money?
George: Neither for money nor for anything else in the place of it.
Nothing more than a register of goods requested and goods produced, to
try to always keep production at the level of needs.
The only difficulty would arise if there were many people who didnât
want to work, but Iâve already said how work, such a serious problem
today, would become a pleasure and at the same time a moral obligation
which only a madman would refuse to fulfil. And I also said that, if the
worst came to the worst, if due to our bad education and the deprivation
weâve had to put up with before the new society was organized properly
and production increased in proportion to new needs, if, I say, there
were some who didnât want to work and there were enough of them to
create difficulties, there would be nothing for it but to chase them out
of the community, giving them the materials and tools to work on their
own. That way, if they wanted to eat theyâd set to work. But youâd see
this wouldnât happen.
Moreover, what we want more than anything is to put the land in common,
along with the raw materials, working tools, houses and all the wealth
that exists today. As far as organizing is concerned then, and
distribution of production, people will do what they want. It is only
when one gets down to actually doing things that the best system is
discovered. It is almost certain that communism will be established in
some places, something else in others. And then gradually everyone will
accept the system that is seen to work best.
The essential thing is, remember, that no one starts ordering others
about or taking over the land and tools. It will be necessary to be
careful about this and stop it if it should happen, even with arms. The
rest will go by itself.
Bert: I got that too. Now tell me, what is anarchy?
George: Anarchy means no government. Didnât I tell you that government
does nothing but defend the landlords, and that as far as our interests
are concerned the best thing is to look after ourselves without anybody
giving us orders? Instead of electing MPs and local councillors who go
and make and unmake laws that oppress us, weâll look after our affairs
ourselves and decide what to do about them. And when, to put our ideas
into action, there is a need to put someone in charge of a project,
weâll tell them to act in such and such a way and no other. If itâs a
question of things we donât know in advance, then weâll entrust the job
to those who are capable of understanding, studying and making
suggestions. In any case nothing would be done without our decision. So
our delegates, instead of being individuals to whom weâve given the
right to order us about, would be people chosen specially: from among
the most capable to deal with each single problem that may arise. Theyâd
have no authority, only the duty to carry out what everyone involved
wanted: for instance someone would be given the task of organising the
schools, or planning a road, or seeing about the exchange of produce, in
the same way as you might entrust a shoemaker to make you a pair of
shoes.
This is anarchy. Besides that, if I wanted to explain it all to you, Iâd
have to talk about it as long as Iâve done about all the rest. Weâll
speak about it at length some other time.
Bert: Thatâs fine, but in the meantime explain a little about it to me.
What is it that you want? Now youâve made me curious to know.
You must explain to me how on earth I, ignorant as I am, could ever
understand all those things we call politics, and do by myself what all
the ministers and members of parliament are doing.
George: But what are the ministers and members of parliament doing that
is so good that you have to worry about not being able to do it? They
make laws and organize the forces for repressing the people,
guaranteeing the exploitation carried out by the bosses: thatâs all.
Weâve no need for that science.
Itâs true that the ministers and M.P.s also do other things, which are
good and necessary. But to get involved in something to manage it for
the benefit of a given class of people or to obstruct its development
with useless and repressive rules, isnât doing anything real. For
example, these gentlemen interfere in the affairs of the railways; but
in order to build and run a railway thereâs absolutely no need for them,
just as thereâs no need for shareholders. The engineers, mechanics,
workers and all categories of skills are all that are required, and
theyâll always be there, even when the ministers, M.P.s and other
parasites have completely disappeared.
The same goes for the post, telephones, navigation, public instruction,
and hospitals. These are all things that are carried out by workers of
every kind, like post office workers, sailors, school teachers, doctors,
and which the government comes into only to obstruct, break down and
exploit.
Politics, as intended and carried out by the people of government, seem
a difficult art to us, because theyâre concerned with things which, for
we workers, are neither one thing nor the other, and because theyâve
nothing to do with the real interests of the population and are only
concerned with deceiving and dominating. If on the other hand it were a
question of satisfying the needs of the people in the best possible way
then things would be a lot more difficult for an M.P. than theyâd be for
us.
In fact, what do you expect M.P.s, who are always in parliament, to know
about the needs of all the cities and towns of the country? How do you
expect people who have wasted time studying Latin and Greek and continue
to waste it with even more useless affairs, to understand the needs of
the various trades? Things would be different if each one took care of
the things he knew about, the needs he feels and shares.
The revolution achieved, it will be necessary to begin from the base and
work to the top. The people divide themselves into communes, and in each
commune there will be different trades which will immediately, through
solidarity and the impulse of propaganda, constitute themselves into
associations. Now, who knows more than you about the interests of your
commune and your trade?
When then itâs a question of more than one commune or trade reaching an
agreement, the respective delegates would take their given mandates to
the relative meetings and try to harmonise their various needs and
desires. The deliberations would always be subject to the control and
approval of those who delegated them, in such a way that there be no
danger that the interest of the people be forgotten.
And so, gradually, one would go on to the agreement of the whole human
race.
Bert: But if in a village or association people didnât all see things
the same way, what would happen then? The greatest number would win
wouldnât they?
George: By rights, no, because where truth and justice are concerned
numbers donât count, and often one person alone can be right against one
hundred or a hundred thousand. In practice one would do what one could;
everything is done to reach unanimity, and when this is impossible, one
would vote and do what the majority wanted, or else put the decision in
the hands of a third party who would act as arbitrator, respecting the
inviolability of the principles of equality and justice which the
society is based on.
Note though that the problems which couldnât be agreed upon without
being put to a vote or an arbitrator would be few indeed and of little
importance. There would no longer be the division of interests there are
today, as each person would choose their own area and association. In
other words theyâd choose to be with the companions they got on with
best, and it would always be a question of deciding on clear things,
which could be easily understood and which belong rather to the positive
field of science than to the changing one of opinions. And the more one
went forward, the more the vote would become something useless and
antiquated, in fact quite ridiculous because when, through experience,
the best solution to a problem was found, the one which best satisfied
the needs of all, then it would be a question of demonstrating and
persuading, not crushing the adverse opinion with a numerical majority.
For example, wouldnât it make us laugh today if the peasants were called
to vote on which would be the best season to sow their grain, when this
is something they already know from experience?
The same thing would happen with everything concerning public and
private utility.
Bert: But if nonetheless there were some who for one reason or another
were opposed to a decision made in the interest of all?
George: Then of course it would be necessary to take forcible action,
because if it is unjust that the majority oppress the minority, itâs no
more just that the contrary should happen. And just as the minority have
the right of insurrection, so do the majority have the right of defense,
or if the word doesnât offend you, repression.
Donât forget though that everywhere and in all ways men have the
inalienable right to raw materials and the tools of labour, so that they
can always stay free and independent away from the others. Itâs true
that it isnât a satisfactory solution, because the dissidents would be
deprived of many social advantages which the isolated individual or
group wouldnât be able to procure, and which require the combined
efforts of the whole of a large collectivity... but what do you want?
The dissidents themselves couldnât claim that the will of the many be
sacrificed to that of the few.
Believe me: beyond solidarity, brotherhood, love; beyond mutual aid and,
when necessary, mutual tolerance, there is nothing but tyranny and civil
war. Be sure though that as tyranny and civil war are things which
damage everyone, people, no sooner were they arbitrators of their own
destiny, would move towards solidarity, where only our ideals can be
realised and through them peace, wellbeing and universal freedom.
Note too that progress, while it tends to unite men, also tends to make
them more independent and able to look after themselves. For example:
today, to travel rapidly it is necessary to use the railway. This
requires the concourse of a large number of people in order to build it
and make it function so that each person is obliged, even in anarchy, to
adapt themselves to the network, time-table and other rules that the
majority think best. If though tomorrow a locomotive is invented that
can be driven by one man alone on some kind of road without danger
either to himself or others, then there will no longer be a need to pay
attention to what others think, and each person could travel wherever he
liked at the time he pleased.
And the same goes for a thousand other things that one can do now or
that the means to be done will be found in the future, as one could say
that the tendency of progress is towards a type of relationship between
people that could be defined with the formula: moral solidarity and
material independence. [2]
Bert: Very well. So you are a socialist and among socialists you are a
communist and an anarchist. Why then do they call you an
Internationalist as well?
George: The socialists have been called internationalists because the
first great demonstration of modern socialism was the International
Working Menâs Association, which abbreviated became known as The
International. This association, which began in 1864 with the aim of
uniting the workers of all nations in the struggle for economic
emancipation, had at the beginning a very indeterminate programme. Then
in establishing itself it divided into various fractions and its most
advanced part went as far as to formulate and advocate the principles of
anarchist socialism which I have tried to explain to you.
Now this association is dead partly because it was persecuted and
banished, partly because of the internal divisions and the differing
opinions which contrasted the field. From this, though, was born the
great workersâ movement which agitates throughout the world, and the
various socialist parties of different countries, and the international
socialist anarchist revolutionary party which is now organizing itself
in order to strike a mortal blow to the bourgeois world.
This party has the aim of propagating with all possible means the
principles of anarchist socialism, combating every hope in the voluntary
concessions of the bosses or the government or in gradual and pacific
reforms, and re-awakening in the people the awareness of their rights
and spirit of rebellion, urging them on to make the social revolution,
that is to the destruction of political power, i.e. government, and
putting all existing wealth in common.
Whoever accepts this programme and wants to fight with others to carry
it out belongs to the party. The party has no leaders or authority of
any kind, and is founded on spontaneous and voluntary agreement between
those fighters for the same cause. Each individual preserves full
freedom to build more intimate ties with whoever he thinks fit, to
practice the means he prefers and to propagate his particular ideas, so
long as he in no way goes against the general tactic of the party, in
which case he could no longer be considered a member of the party
itself.
Bert: So all those who accept socialist-anarchist-revolutionary
principles are members of this party?
George: No, because one can be perfectly in agreement with our
programme, but for one reason or another prefer to struggle alone or
along with a few comrades, without contracting bonds of solidarity and
effective cooperation with the mass of those who accept the programme.
This can also be a good method for certain individuals and for certain
immediate ends one seeks to attain; but it cannot be accepted as a
general method; because isolation causes weakness and creates antipathy
and rivalry where what is needed is brotherhood and agreement. In any
case we always consider friends and comrades all those who in some way
are fighting for the ideas that we are fighting for.
There can be those who are convinced of the truth of the idea and
nonetheless stay at home, without involving themselves in propagating
what they believe to be right. One cannot say they are not socialists
and anarchists in idea, because they think like us: but it is certain
that they must have little conviction and a listless soul because when
one sees the terrible ills that afflict oneself and oneâs fellows and
believes to know the remedy to put an end to these evils, how can one
manage, if one has a heart, to remain inactive?
He who ignores the truth is not guilty; but he who knows it and acts as
if he doesnât is a guilty man indeed.
Bert: Youâre right, and as soon as Iâve thought carefully about all
youâve said and Iâm quite sure, I want to join the party and put myself
to propagating these holy truths, and then if the landlords call me a
rogue and a criminal too, Iâll tell them to come and work and suffer
like I do, and then theyâll have the right to talk.
Errico Malatesta has a special place amongst anarchist propagandists and
theorists both for the remarkable lucidity and straightforwardness of
his writings, and the practical aspect upon which his anarchism is
founded. His importance also lies in the fact that he never fell into
the trap of fatalism and over optimism that is all too evident in
Kropotkinâs anarchism. For Malatesta anarchism was not the philosophy
for a future utopia that would one day happen, as if by magic, without
any prior discussion or preparation. On the contrary, he was concerned
throughout his life with practical ideas. His anarchism was something
concrete, to be fought for and won, not in some distant future, but here
and now.
---
Errico Malatesta was born in Capua near Naples in 1853. In his teens,
while studying medicine at the University of Naples, he came under the
influence of Mazzinian republicanism, and later, in 1871, partly through
his enthusiasm for the Paris Commune and his friendship with Carmelo
Palladino he joined the Naples section of the International Working
Mensâ Association. The following year he became acquainted with Bakunin
and participated with him in the St Imer congress of the International.
Between 1872 and 1876, working closely with Bakunin, Cafiero and Costa,
Malatesta helped spread Internationalist propaganda throughout Italy.
For this he was imprisoned for 6 months in 1873 and again for a year
between 1874 and 1875.
In April 1877 Malatesta, Cafiero, the Russian Stepniak and 30 other
comrades began an insurrection in the province of Benevento. The armed
group, with a large red and black flag at their head marched into the
Matese mountains and soon took the village of Letino without a struggle
where they were greeted with great enthusiasm. Arms and expropriated
goods were distributed amongst the people, tax money was returned and
official documents destroyed. The following day the village of Gallo was
taken in similar fashion. Unfortunately, as they were leaving Gallo the
Internationalists were surprised and surrounded by government troops and
all were arrested. Held in prison for over a year before being brought
to trial all the accused were eventually acquitted.
After his acquittal Malatesta returned to Naples, but constant
surveillance by the police forced him to leave Italy. From Naples he
went to Egypt only to be expelled after a short time by the Italian
Consul. Working his passage on a French ship he finally landed at
Marseille after being systematically refused entry into Syria, Turkey
and Italy. From Marseille he made his way to Geneva where he helped
Kropotkin to produce La Revolte. Expelled from Switzerland Malatesta
worked for a while in Romania before traveling to London, via France and
Belgium, where he arrived towards the end of 1880. In London he worked
as an ice-cream seller and later as a mechanic, a trade he was to return
to several times in later life. While in London he participated in the
1881 congress of the International which gave birth to the Anarchist
International.
Leaving London in 1882 Malatesta went to Egypt where he fought with the
Egyptians against the British colonialists. The following year he
returned clandestinely to Italy. Settling in Florence he founded the
weekly La Questione Sociale, the first serious propagandist anarchist
newspaper to be published in Italy. It was in La Questione Sociale that
Malatestaâs most popular and widely read pamphlet Fra Contadini appeared
in 1884. That same year he was arrested and sentenced to 3 yearsâ
imprisonment, and while waiting to serve his sentence he went to Naples
and helped to nurse the victims of a cholera epidemic (as did many other
anarchists and socialists).
Forced once again to flee Italy in order to avoid prison, Malatesta went
to South America. From 1885 to 1889 he lived in Buenos Aires (apart from
several trips to Montevideo) where he resumed the publication of La
Questione Sociale and was instrumental in founding the Bakers Union, the
first militant workersâ union in Argentina.
Returning to Europe in 1889 he stayed for a while in Nice where he
published a new newspaper LâAssociazione before being forced to flee
London. For the next 8 years he made London his base, making frequent
clandestine trips to France, Switzerland and Italy, and undertaking two
lecture tours of Spain with Tarrida del Marmol. While in London he wrote
several important pamphlets including In tempo di elezione and
LâAnarchia.
In 1897, thanks to an amnesty given to him by the Italian government
Malatesta was able to return openly to Italy. Settling in Ancona he
began a new newspaper LâAgitazione. The following year however he was
arrested and sentenced to six monthsâ imprisonment followed by 5 yearsâ
banishment to a penal island. Taken first to the island of Ustica he was
later transferred to Lampedusa from which he made a dramatic escape,
returning to London via Malta in 1899. That same year he spent several
months in the USA, resuming the publication of La Questione Sociale in
Paterson New Jersey. Later, while addressing a meeting in West Hoboten
he was shot in the leg by an individualist anarchist who disagreed with
him on his approach to organisation. From the USA Malatesta returned to
London by way of Cuba.
Once in London again he resumed his trade of mechanic, running a small
workshop in Islington. Between 1900 and 1913 he founded several
newspapers, always in Italian, the most important of which were Cause ed
effetti (1900), LâInternazionale (1900) and La rivoluzione sociale
(1902). In 1907 he participated in the International Anarchist Congress
in Amsterdam where he vigorously opposed Monatte on the question of
revolutionary syndicalism. In 1912 Malatesta was sentenced to 3 monthsâ
imprisonment and recommended for deportation for criminal libel. Only a
massive public outcry prevented the latter sentence from being carried
out.
In 1913 Malatesta returned to Italy where he published Volonta in Ancona
until the outbreak of war in August 1914 forced him to return to London.
While in Italy though he met the future Fascist dictator, Mussolini,
then editor of the socialist paper Avanti.
The war years brought much confusion to the anarchist movement with
prominent figures, notably Kropotkin and Grave, openly supporting the
allies. Malatesta, as always remaining loyal to his anarchist ideals
vigorously opposed the war and never ceased to denounce it. He was one
of the signatories of the International Anarchist Manifesto against the
war and responded to Kropotkinâs position with such articles as
Pro-Government Anarchists and Have Anarchists Forgotten their
Principles.
In 1919 Malatesta returned for the last time to Italy, landing at Genoa
where his arrival was greeted with great enthusiasm. At once he threw
himself into the struggle. Settling in Milan he accepted the editorship
of the newly founded daily Umanita Nova which soon had a circulation of
50,000. In July 1920 he participated in the second congress of the
Unione Anarchica Italiana which enthusiastically adopted the programme
he had written for it. The following month he supported the factory
occupations in Turin and Milan. At the end of the year he was arrested
together with 80 other militant anarchists and held in prison for almost
a year before being brought to trial and acquitted.
On his release he moved to Rome and continued to edit Umanita Nova until
it was forced to close down after Mussoliniâs âMarchâ on Rome (during
which a portrait of Malatesta was burnt by the fascists in the Plaza
Cavour).
With the closure of Umanita Nova Malatesta opened a small workshop
undertaking mechanical repairs and electrical installations, but this
was forced to close when the police started to molest his clients.
In 1924 he began to edit the bi-monthly review Pensiero e Volonta which
contained some of his best writings until it was closed down in 1926
together with other anti-fascist publications.
At the end of 1926, after several months of police harassment, Malatesta
was placed under house arrest. Virtually imprisoned in his flat, he
still managed to contribute articles to the anarchist press mainly Le
Reveil of Geneva and LâAdunata dei refrattari of New York. Early in 1932
he became ill with a respiratory complaint and died in July 1932 at the
age of 79 years.
David Poole
[1] This was written in 1883, when Marxâs theory of the concentration of
wealth in the hands of an increasingly small number of people had still
not been discussed among socialists. Later studies corroborated by fresh
facts have shown that there are other tendencies which counterbalance
that towards the concentration of capital, and that in reality the
number of proprietors sometimes decreases, sometimes increases. The
workersâ conditions worsen or improve due to a thousand factors which
are continually changing or which react upon each other in various ways.
But these new assertions, far from invalidating the need for a radical
transformation of the social regime, demonstrate that it would be
pointless to wait for the bourgeois society to die by itself of the
progressive worsening of the ills it produces, and that if the workers
want to emancipate themselves and establish a society of wellbeing and
freedom for all, they must expropriate in a revolutionary way the
exploiters of other peopleâs work, few or many as they may be.
(Authorâs note 1913)
[2] This forecast has already come true since the time this book was
written. The motor car is already a means of traveling anywhere rapidly,
without the need for a complicated organization, or the rigorous rules
required for the running of the railways. And air navigation is already
well under way, leaving greater independence to individuals and removing
many of the inequalities caused today by the geographical positions of
various localities.
Thus the invention of the electric engine with the possibility of
carrying motor power anywhere and in any quantity, has resulted in the
fact that the machine can also be used at home, and has to a large
extent suppressed the need for large workshops with steam engines.
In the same way the wireless is tending to do away with the need for a
complicated telegraph service. Progress in chemistry and farming
techniques are enabling anything to be grown in any hind of soil, etc.,
etc.
(Authorâs note 1913)