💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › francesco-s-nitti-italian-anarchists.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 10:25:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Italian Anarchists Author: Francesco S. Nitti Date: November 1898 Language: en Topics: anti-anarchy, Italy, not anarchist Source: Scanned from original Notes: The North American Review, Vol. 167, No. 504 (Nov., 1898), pp. 598–608 Published by: University of Northern Iowa
Since the 24^(th) of June, 1894, when Sante Caserio murdered President
Carnot, only four years have elapsed. In that short period the Italian
anarchists, armed, like the classical regicides, with a dagger, have
murdered Don Antonio Canovas del Castillo, the Prime Minister of Spain,
by the hand of Angiolillo, and the Empress of Austria, at Geneva, by the
hand of Luccheni.
These two dreadful deeds are not without a cause, and the press of all
the world has turned its attention upon Italian anarchism, regarding it
as a phenomenon peculiar to Italy, which forms a danger for all
civilized people.
Anarchism is not peculiar to Italy. On the contrary, it was imported
into Italy about thirty years ago by Michele Bakonnine, and the Italian
workmen who abandon themselves most readily to anarchy are those who
live à l’etranger. There is no nation which is exempt from anarchy.
Russia and Spain are the countries from whence anarchist propaganda
originally proceeded. But Germany, England, France, all have a number of
anarchists. Not even the United States have been exempt from contagion.
Indeed, the anarchists of Chicago are among those who are most admired
by Italian anarchists, whose organs commemorate every year in November
what they regard as the martyrdom oi their American brethren.
What is peculiar to Italy is the diffusion of the anarchist spirit on
the one hand, and, on the other, the readiness of that spirit to vent
itself in attempts upon the lives of elevated persons, be they
sovereigns, princes, or political men. The former phenomenon has its
cause, in part, in the economic conditions of the country, and in a
certain spirit of intolerance, which is widely found among Italians; the
latter, in a historic tradition which, perhaps, has never been
interrupted. Caserio, Angiolillo, Luccheni follow without intending to
do so, perhaps without knowing that they do so, the tradition of
Agesilao Milano, Orsini, and of the numberless conspirators and
regicides whom the middle classes in Italy have glorified. The radical
bourgeoisie of Italy has elevated, in other times, the murder of a
tyrant into an act of heroism. There are streets that are named from
regicides, and towns which pride themselves upon having given birth to
them. In the schools, they speak, even now, with a mysterious respect of
Agesilao Milano, who was executed for having attempted to kill Ferdinand
II., King of Naples. He has been, nay is, considered a martyr. Then the
most sensitive minds are incited by such pernicious teaching to acts of
wild energy. The Southern imagination does the rest, and the humble
workman, like Caserio, thinks of himself as an avenger of wrong and a
benefactor of humanity in killing a high personage.
Anarchists are rebels; and, in all time, among rebels some have been
generous, some violent, some perverse. There are, idealist anarchists,
and criminal ones; the evil is that the latter are generally the most
conspicuous. Now, Italian workmen who, driven out of Italy by their
uneasy economic conditions to seek employment abroad, are the best
subjects for anarchist propaganda. Having abandoned their country not to
enrich themselves, not to seek prosperity, but often only to live, they
carry in their hearts a feeling of bitterness and sorrow. They possess
generally, as did Caserio, Angiolillo or Luccheni, the very limited
culture of inferior Italian schools, with a basis of historical
anecdotes, more or less exaggerated. If the anarchist ferment penetrates
their minds, and the revolutionary press infuses into them the slow and
pernicious poison of intolerance and violence, they become the most
dangerous anarchists.
Anarchist doctrine and propaganda were introduced into Italy by Michele
Bakonnine. Having escaped from Siberia in a marvellous manner, he, after
sojourning for short periods in almost every country, stopped in Italy,
where he remained from 1864 till 1868, almost without interruption. He
was a poor writer, but an unsurpassed organizer and worker. He lived in
nearly every part of Italy, but most of all in Florence and Naples. He
admired Naples, for he saw in it a perfect field for the development of
anarchy. A Slav writer, Professor Dragomanow, published in the Russian
language, a few years ago, the collection of Bakonnine’s letters, having
a political or social character. Many are dated from Naples, and are of
an extraordinary bitterness.
In April, 1872, exiled at Locarno in Switzerland, Bakonnine, even after
the defeat of the Commune of Paris, wrote to a Spanish friend: “You know
that in Italy, in this last time, our International and dear Alliance
have had a great development. Till now, it is not the disposition which
has been lacking, but organization and idea. Italy is perhaps actually
the most revolutionary country. In Italy there is what is wanting
elsewhere; a flaming youth, energetic, without career, without
resources, which, in spite of its bourgeois origin, is not morally and
intellectually enervated like the youth of other countries. Now, it
throws itself unreservedly into revolutionary socialism on our
programme, that of Alliance.” Words full of exaggeration, but not
without an element of truth.
Bakonnine founded in Naples the first section of the International in
the year 1867. He had some workers with him, but the greater number of
his followers belonged to the petite bourgeoisie.
The first journal founded in Naples by Bakonnine’s influence was called
L’Eguaglianza but it had not, and could not have, many readers. The
movement of the International spread rapidly. Associations were formed
everywhere, leagued with the vast organization. The first and greatest
friend of Bakonnine in Italy was Charles Cafiero, who died some years
ago. Even now, anarchists speak everywhere with veneration of Cafiero,
who was the most generous adherent of the party. Belonging to a very
rich family of Puglie, he had studied jurisprudence with a view to
dedicating himself to a diplomatic career. He was attracted by the
doctrines of anarchy, and gave up all — family, riches and comfort — to
espouse its cause. He had not a strong intellect, but great sincerity.
He died mad, with a fixed delusion that wings would sprout out of his
body, and that he would fly into heaven.
The International in Naples was dissolved by an order of the Minister of
the Interior, on the 14^(th) of August, 1871. In the ordinance of
dissolution it was said that that association constituted “a permanent
offence against the laws and the fundamental institutions of the
nation.”
Between 1867 and 1871 had arisen at the same time a few associations of
revolutionary character. None of them professed to be anarchist, but
they were all really so. Italy, but a short time before delivered from
its domestic tyrants, had retained a love for violent agitations, for
sects, for secret associations. The conviction was even general that it
required the work of only a few individuals to reform the whole of
society. Garibaldi and Mazzini intervened in the discussions which were
so numerous in that period among republicans, socialists and anarchists.
Mazzini, a high thinker, who, in the purity of his mind, despised
violence, published, when the internationalist and anarchist agitation
was at its height, a small work against the Commune of Paris. A firm
believer in God, and with a profound respect for right, he could not
tolerate that his friends did not set themselves against multiplying
societies and sects that stood for the negation of God and of the
fundamental principles of contemporary society.
Garibaldi, on the contrary, a more impulsive spirit, magnificent in
action, but less temperate, published a letter in defence of the
International, which he characterized as “the sun of the future.” He was
a great man of war, but in philosophic and social matters his words had
little importance. Many of his followers were accordingly driven by his
words to opposite parties. There was then a great discontent in Italy.
As often happens in revolutions, many bad men had secured the most
important places; many more who asked for places were dissatisfied. Not
a few declared themselves republican, not because of belief in the
principle or in the institution, but because monarchy had not satisfied
them. The seed of anarchism fell then on ground well prepared for it.
Many were only discontented, and confounded republicanism, socialism,
anarchism; others sought means to wreak hatred upon a society by which
they thought themselves ill treated. Discontent was specially rife among
the bourgeoisie. It is remarkable that the bourgeoisie and more
specially the petite bourgeoisie, had cherished in few countries
revolutionary ideas. Proudhon, the theorist of anarchy, said that
workmen were not by nature revolutionary; that the true revolutionary
classes are the middle classes.
Under the influence of propaganda and agitation, and of the peculiar
conditions of Italy at that time, anarchism began a series of small
revolutionary movements, which were more frequent than elsewhere in
Tuscany, in Romagna and in the neighborhood of Naples. The tumults of
Carrara, Imola, the revolutions of Ponte Molle and San Lupo were the
first of a series of anarchist attempts. Bakonnine had declared that the
southern brigand of Italy is the type of an anarchist. What were these
brigands? They were only — putting aside exaggerations — outlaws,
persons who placed themselves in open conflict against society, and who
acknowledged no law and no authority. They acted with the most absolute
liberty, pitting strength against strength.
“We,” wrote an anarchist journal of Bologna, “are revolutionists and
anarchists, and we aim at the destruction of existing political, social
and religious orders. (...) All that is good in the world has been
obtained against the laws, has been squeezed out by force. Rebellion,
then, against laws is the first condition for each step of progress.
Human civilization is but the result of a succession of great social
crimes.” The violence of the language of many of the little anarchist
journals published under Bakonnine’s influence and inspiration was
incredible. The anarchist associations, also, had the most violent and
the strangest names: “Morte ai borghesi” (Death to Bourgeois)
“Combattiamo” (Let us fight), “L’Ottantanove” (The eighty-ninth), “La
Rivendicazione” (The revenge), “La Dinamite” (Dynamite), “Forca e
pugnale” (Gibbet and dagger), etc. Sad names of sad things! !
Among all the anarchist movements at that time, an interesting one was
that of San Lupo, which happened in April, 1877. A band of anarchists
went there with weapons and tried to make the populace rebel. They were
arrested, and taken to Naples, and in August of the following year tried
by the Court of Assizes in Capua. At the head of the rebels were Cafiero
and Malatesta, and others who, later, exercised a decisive influence
upon the whole anarchist movement.
Since the revolutionary attempt at San Lupo, anarchism in Italy made no
attempt at insurrection. But not infrequently popular disturbances have
been turned to the account of anarchist designs. The propaganda, as they
call it, has often very dreadfully asserted itself. It has happened, as
in Florence and Pisa, that even in demonstrations of the people, they
have thrown bombs in the crowded streets. Anarchism, after 1880, showed
a tendency rather to lose ground than to develop itself. Between 1893
and 1894, however, it revived strongly, and we have seen the evidences
of greater activity and increased violence. But it may be said that
Italian anarchists have attracted more attention outside of Italy than
in Italy.
Italy has enacted a few laws against anarchists, which sometimes have
been well, and often poorly, enforced. But the insufficiency of laws to
repress anarchism is an evident fact. Anarchists are, for the most part,
exalted spirits, who are prepared to sacrifice everything to a false
pride. Persecution, trials minutely and widely reported, executions
graphically described by journals, inflame the mind and incite the wish
for imitation. The warmest imaginations, the most unquiet spirits, far
from being dscouraged, delude themselves into the fatal error by
thinking that the sacrifice of one alone is sufficient to change deeply
a state of things which has its roots in the necessities of every
society.
It is wrong to think that all anarchists are corrupt or perverse; they
are for the most part ingenuous. Anarchist doctrine bases itself upon
three fundamental principles: (1.) Men are naturally good; therefore,
all law and all authority are pernicious, because absolute individual
liberty is the condition of happiness. (2.) Men have a natural tendency
to work, and when every bond is broken, they will work willingly, so
that society as a whole will have greater wealth; some say, all will
have in proportion to their wants. (3.) Religion and government are
nothing but instruments of oppression. Humanity cannot be happy without
abolishing both the one and the other.
These are three principles that have their modern origin in Rousseau and
Fourier’s works, and are such as to have seduced even some of the most
cultivated minds. When they are accepted and proclaimed by persons
devoid of culture, or having a very limited culture, they must, of
necessity, lead to criminal consequences. Each individual, being freed
from restraint of law, can act as he thinks best for the good of
humanity. As soon as to render humanity happy it is supposed to be only
necessary to open the eyes of the greatest number to the propaganda of
fact, the wildest outrages are or seem to be a good. It happens that
many delinquents call themselves anarchists, and thus find the means of
satisfying their criminal instincts.
Italian anarchists are like those of other countries; there are those
who are sincere in their delusion, and who act, even in the most violent
actions, with ingenuousness; and there are others who are merely violent
or perverse. There is, besides, a third type of anarchist, the anarchist
of policy, who makes profit out of his associations or out of some
individuals who profess the doctrine. Of such are those who are, in
appearance, almost always, the greatest enthusiasts. But it is curious
to remark that Italian anarchists are, always or almost, the most
sincerely deluded.
Pini himself, who was condemned in Paris, and with whom the press of all
the world occupied itself for so long, was a thief for the benefit of
others. He had surrounded himself with thieves, who professed themselves
anarchists, and who robbed for a social purpose; anticipating, that is
to say, the expropriation of the bourgeois. The product of the thefts
was divided among his fellow anarchists of all the world for the service
of the propaganda. Then, while Pini’s comrades made merry, he lived
poorly, soberly, on thirty sous a day. The sums stolen were given by him
to the others.
When Pini was arrested and tried, a great question arose among
anarchists, whether or not one could rob to help the propaganda. And it
must be said that the greater number of Italian anarchists answered the
question in the negative.
After Cafiero’s death, the two Italian anarchists of whom Europe has
talked most, and who are the best known, are Merlino and Malatesta. But
they are two very different types. Both are Neapolitan, with a quick and
living spirit and an acute intelligence. Merlino is very learned, and is
also a subtle reasoner; Malatesta is a man of action. It is strange that
the Italian anarchists who are most conspicuous as representing ideas
belong to the south. The people of that region often lack the artistic
qualities to be found in other districts of Italy, but they are subtle
reasoners. When they accept a general idea, they know how to extract all
the conclusions.
The difference between Merlino and Malatesta — so far as ideas and plans
are concerned — is clearly marked by the different attitudes of the two
men toward the horrible crimes of Ravachol. Merlino declared to a
Parisian journalist: “Ravachol is not one of us, and we repudiate him.
His explosions lose their revolutionary character because of his person,
an unworthy one to serve the cause of humanity.” On the contrary,
Malatesta avowed that in theory he admitted bombs, and that the
employment of them in one way or another was only a question of tactics.
Merlino is an advocate, and also an easy speaker and an acute writer. At
present, he is less than an anarchist — a very advanced socialist. His
recent book upon “Socialism and Its Most Recent Manifestations” removed
him decisively from the apostles of the propaganda of action. Merlino
even acknowledges that it is an error to withhold oneself from
elections, and he wishes that his friends would enter Parliament.
Malatesta’s position is, on the contrary, unchanged.
Within the last two years, there has been published in Ancona, a journal
with the title “L’Agitasione” (Agitation). This journal, communist and
anarchist, was issued under the inspiration of Malatesta, who was the
principal writer for it. It was, of all anarchist organs, the most
widely circulated, and contributed signally to the anarchist propaganda
in Romagna and Emilia. It lasted, in spite of persecutions, till the
government suppressed it. In point of fact, since the events of last
May, there are no more anarchist journals. The government has suppressed
them all, arresting the editors who had not been able to escape in time.
Here a question naturally arises, What are the numbers of Italian
anarchists? How many are registered in the anarchist party? Journals
have published upon this point some fantastic statements. A true
anarchist party, which is organized, which has acknowledged chiefs, does
not exist in Italy — perhaps it does not exist anywhere. Individual
action, if it does not exclude, makes very difficult, a large and
permanent accord for collective action. I have observed almost always
that one becomes an anarchist when, with a slight culture, or with
one-sided culture, one entertains a high conception of one’s strength.
Now, men who have a high conception of their own strength, who think the
will and the example of a few, if not of one, sufficient to overthrow
deeply rooted institutions, do not succeed in associating with each
other permanently. A very large party, with a determined plan, cannot
subsist without the authority of one chief or of a few chiefs who direct
the movement. Now authority is the negation of anarchy.
From time to time, however, they form associations. Four, five, ten,
twenty individuals, at most, do succeed in associating themselves
together to make readings in common, to try propaganda in some
countries. The association of twenty persons without a chief authority,
is impotent to act; it is merely a seed-plot of propaganda, a lecture
circle, a more or less tumultuous club. The true anarchists, the
anarchists of action, when they conceive the idea of an attempt at a
murder, generally do not confide in anybody. Alone, in the daily
exaltation of their purpose, they mature the idea and put it into
execution. It is seldom that they confide even in an intimate friend, or
that they associate two or three individuals, at the most, with them.
The anarchist of action always fears that he may be betrayed or sold.
Bakonnine had conceived for some time the idea of making some vast
secret societies, and Most tried to realize the concept. But anarchy and
authority are things that cannot agree together, and without authority
there cannot be a durable association.
Recognizing the necessity of organization, Malatesta wrote a few years
ago: “We must organize ourselves in a purely anarchist manner; that is
to say, without any authority, neither open nor disguised. We must have
an organization that conciliates the free initiative of individuals and
groups, the free development of all faculties and wills, with the unity
of action, the discipline and often even the secrecy necessary for
carrying on the struggle in which we are engaged. Is that possible ? He
naturally concluded that it was. But ten years have elapsed since he
wrote these words, and facts have not confirmed them. In all their
journals, the Italian anarchists speak of spontaneous action, of free
initiative, of individual will, of complete autonomy of the individual,
and of many other things which are not compatible with association.
Intolerant of discipline as he is, the Italian anarchist, if he succeeds
only in forming little congregations, better than associations, feels
however very strongly the spirit of solidarity toward his comrades. But
groups are independent, the one from the other.
How many anarchists are there in Italy? It is impossible to give any
answer to this question. A person who occupied a high political office
and whose duty it was to follow the reports periodically sent to the
government, told me that there are in Italy no more than three or four
thousand active anarchists. But this number may be very far from the
truth. It has happened that many individuals who have accomplished the
most dreadful attempts, were not known as anarchists or polity
considered them as inoffensive proselytes. Sudden resolutions are often
more frequent among unknown individuals, who think they may pass
abruptly to celebrity and story.
The Marxist socialism is, in its doctrinal essence, contrary to
anarchism; but, in its turn, it takes on a different character in
different countries. In some districts of Italy workmen are very poor,
and social relations very difficult. In those districts the socialist
leaders find often numerous followers, who accept the programme of the
Labor party. But in some of these individuals the socialist programme
often produces a sudden discouragement. Why wait so long for the
promised resurrection? Why work for a future which is long in coming,
too long perhaps? They become, then, an easy prey to the first anarchist
they meet. They are easily converted to a gospel that spares them the
long expectation and allows every man of good will to try and to do. The
anarchist journal of Ancona, “L’Agitasione” (Agitation), published a
rubric with the title, “Progredendo” (Progressing). In that rubric were
printed the letters, very numerous, that socialists, after their
conversion to anarchism, sent to the journal. In such letters they
always say that they are tired of waiting, that they have no more faith
in legal methods and parliamentarianism, etc.
But why, then, have Italian anarchists such a bad reputation out of
Italy? There are anarchists in France, in Spain, in Austria,. Three high
personages have been murdered in those countries by Italian anarchists.
The causes are manifold.
Italy, at this moment, is passing through a very trying period of her
history. In spite of all that has been said and written, it has made
great progress in the last forty years. It is a country that has many
bad political institutions. It has made great mistakes, but it possesses
a great deal of energy. Every year more than two hundred thousand
Italians go abroad, driven to emigrate above all by their great
fecundity, which is out of all proportion to the increase of wealth. To
America the peasants go in greatest numbers, and they constitute an
emigration that requires to be ruled and that nevertheless is not always
composed of good elements. Above all, it is impoverished by a great
proportion of parasites.
In the countries that are contiguous to Italy — France, Switzerland,
Austria — there go, on the other hand, thousands of workmen and
laborers, who stay only a few months and return home every year. Thither
go also individuals who have compromised themselves in their own
country, and wish to elude the vigilance of the police. Caserio,
Angiolillo, Luccheni, were workmen who had gone abroad for employment,
the first two being of a very moral life. They have little or no
culture, but the hot and quick southern intelligence renders them able
to appropriate to themselves readily general ideas. Among their fellow
workmen they meet socialist and anarchist workers; the latter especially
act upon their excitable imagination. With surprise, they see that even
in rich countries poverty exists. Poverty is then seen to be not a
condition peculiar to a poor or backward nation. Then the idea enters
their minds that the fault is with the social constitution. Society is
held responsible for poverty, and for the hardships of the poor. A
worker is dismissed because he is lazy or unfit for his work; it is the
fault of society. Another cannot live as he would; it is the fault of
society, where the law establishes and buttresses injustice. These ideas
move excited souls, and the purpose of dismantling society, of giving
some memorable example, is strengthened by individual vanity, which is
so strong among people of the Latin race.
We must add that in the schools of Italy, an error never too much to be
deplored, they make an apology for regicide. Unlearned teachers do not
explain the difference between martyr and murderer. The history of
ancient Rome is full of murders of tyrants or aspirants to tyranny. An
individual becomes thus the avenger and the deliverer of society. I take
up by chance ii manual of history, used in a great number oi Italian
schools. It is astonishing to observe how many tyrannicides they
justify, from Brutus to Agesilao Milano. There is praise for all. There
was a time when Italy, specially Central Italy, was full of little
tyrants; the regicide became an emancipator. The tradition has been
unfortunately perpetuated. Even the poets, in like manner, have not
refused to applaud political murder, not only the less odious regicides,
but also the worst.