💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › errico-malatesta-anarchism-and-organization.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:39:46. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism and Organization Author: Errico Malatesta Date: 1897 Language: en Topics: federalism, organization, practice Source: Retrieved on March 3rd, 2009 from http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1897/xx/anarchorg.htm
Organization which is, after all, only the practice of cooperation and
solidarity, is a natural and necessary condition of social life; it is
an inescapable fact which forces itself on everybody, as much on human
society in general as on any group of people who are working towards a
common objective. Since humanity neither wishes to, nor can, live in
isolation it is inevitable that those people who have neither the means,
nor a sufficiently developed social conscience to permit them to
associate freely with those of a like mind and with common interests,
are subjected to the organization by others, generally constituted in a
class or as a ruling group, with the aim of exploiting the labor of
others for their personal advantage. And the agelong oppression of the
masses by a small privileged group has always been the result of the
inability of the oppressed to agree among themselves to organize with
others for production, for enjoyment and for the possible needs of
defense against whoever might wish to exploit and oppress them.
Anarchism exists to remedy this state of affairs ...
Now, it seems to us that organization, that is to say, association for a
specific purpose and with the structure and means required to attain it,
is a necessary aspect of social life. A human being in isolation cannot
even live the life of a beast, for they would be unable to obtain
nourishment for themselves, except perhaps in tropical regions or when
the population is exceptionally sparse; and they would be, without
exception, unable to rise much above the level of an animal. Having
therefore to join with other humans, or more accurately, finding
themselves united to them as a consequence of the evolutionary
antecedents of the species, they must submit to the will of others (be
enslaved) or subject others to his/her will (be in authority) or live
with others in fraternal agreement in the interests of the greatest good
of all (be an associate). Nobody can escape from this necessity.
Admitting as a possibility the existence of a community organized
without authority, that is without compulsion — and anarchists must
admit the possibility, or anarchism would have no meaning — let us pass
on to discuss the organization of the anarchist movement.
In this case too, organization seems useful and necessary. If a movement
means the whole — individuals with a common objective which they exert
themselves to attain — it is natural that they should agree among
themselves, join forces, share out the tasks and take all those steps
which they think will lead to the achievement of those objectives. To
remain isolated, each individual acting or seeking to act on their own
without coordination, without preparation, without their modest efforts
to a strong group, means condemning oneself to impotence, wasting one’s
efforts in small ineffectual action, and to lose faith very soon in
one’s aims and possibly being reduced to complete inactivity.
A mathematician, a chemist, a psychologist or a sociologist may say they
have no programme or are concerned only with establishing the truth.
They seek knowledge, they are not seeking to do something. But anarchism
and socialism are not sciences; they are proposals, projects, that
anarchists and socialists seek to realize and which, therefore need to
be formulated as definite programs.
If it is true that organization creates leaders; if it is true that
anarchists are unable to come together and arrive at an agreement
without submitting themselves to an authority, this means that they are
not yet very good anarchists, and before thinking of establishing an
anarchist society within the world they must think of making themselves
able to live anarchistically. The remedy does not lie in the abolition
of organization but in the growing consciousness of each individual
member. In small as well as large societies, apart from brute force, of
which it cannot be a question for us, the origin and justification for
authority lies in social disorganization.
When a community has needs and its members do not know how to organize
spontaneously to provide them, someone comes forward, an authority who
satisfies those needs by utilizing the services of all and directing
them to their liking. If the roads are unsafe and the people do not know
what measures to take, a police force emerges which in return for
whatever services it renders expects to be supported and paid, as well
as imposing itself and throwing its weight around; if some article is
needed, and the community does not know how to arrange with the distant
producers to supply it in exchange for goods produced locally, the
merchant will appear who will profit by dealing with the needs of one
section to sell and of the other to buy, and impose his/her own prices
both on the producer and the consumer. This is what has happened in our
midst; the less organized we have been, the more prone are we to be
imposed on by a few individuals. And this is understandable. So much so
that organization, far from creating authority, is the only cure for it
and the only means whereby each one of us will get used to taking an
active and conscious part in the collective work, and cease being
passive instruments in the hands of leaders.
But an organization, it is argued, presupposes an obligation to
coordinate one’s own activities with those of others; thus it violates
liberty and fetters initiative. As we see it, what really takes away
liberty and makes initiative impossible is the isolation which renders
it powerless. Freedom is not an abstract right but the possibility of
acting; this is true among ourselves as well as society as a whole. And
it is by cooperation with our fellow human beings that we find the means
to express our activity and our power of initiative.
An anarchist organization must allow for complete autonomy, and
independence, and therefore full responsibility, to individuals and
groups; free agreement between those who think it useful to come
together for cooperative action, for common aims; a moral duty to
fulfill one’s pledges and to take no action which is contrary to the
accepted programme. On such bases one then introduces practical forms
and suitable instruments to give real life to the organization. Thus the
groups, the federation of groups, the federations of federations,
meetings, congresses, correspondence committees and so on. But this also
must be done freely, in such a way as not to restrict the thought and
the initiative of individual members, but only to give greater scope to
the efforts which in isolation would be impossible or ineffective. Thus
for an anarchist organization congress, in spite of all the
disadvantages from which they suffer as representative bodies, are free
from authoritarianism in any shape or form because they do not legislate
and do not impose their deliberations on others. They serve to maintain
and increase personal contacts among the most active comrades, to
summarize and encourage programmatic studies on the ways and means for
action; to acquaint everybody with the situation in the regions and the
kind of action most urgently needed; to summarize the various currents
of anarchist opinions at the time and to prepare some kind of statistics
therefrom. And their decisions are not binding, but simply suggestions,
advice and proposals to submit to all concerned, and they do not become
binding and executive except for those who accept them and for as long
as they accept them. The administrative organs they nominate —
Correspondence Commissions, etc. — have no directive powers, do not take
initiatives except for those who specifically solicit and approve of
them, and have no authority to impose their own views, which they can
certainly hold and propagate as groups of comrades, but which cannot be
presented as the official views of the organization. They publish the
resolutions of the congresses and the opinions and proposals
communicated to them by groups and individuals; and they act for those
who want to make use of them, to facilitate relations between groups,
and cooperation between those who are in agreement on various
initiatives; each is free to correspond with whoever he/she likes
direct, or make use of the other committees nominated by specific
groupings.
In an anarchist organization individual members can express any opinion
and use every tactic which is not in contradiction with the accepted
principles and does not interfere with the activities of others. In
every case a particular organization last so long as the reasons for
union are superior to those for dissension; otherwise it disbands and
makes way for other, more homogenous groupings. Certainly the life and
permanence of an organization is a condition for success in the long
struggle before us, and besides, it is natural that every institution
should by instinct aim at lasting indefinitely. But the duration of a
libertarian organization must be the result of the spiritual affinity of
its members and of the adaptability of its constitution to the
continually changing circumstances. When it can no longer serve a useful
purpose it is better that it should die.
We would certainly be happy if we could all get along well together and
unite all the forces of anarchism in a strong movement; but we do not
believe in the solidity of organizations which are built on concessions
and assumptions and in which there is no real agreement and sympathy
between members. Better disunited than badly united. But we would wish
that each individual joined their friends and that there should be no
isolated forces, or lost forces.
It remains for us to speak of the organization of the working and
oppressed masses for resistance against both the government and the
employers. Workers will never be able to emancipate themselves so long
as they do not find in union the moral, economic and physical strength
that is needed to subdue the organized might of the oppressors.
There have been anarchists, and there still are some, who while
recognizing the need to organize today for propaganda and action, are
hostile to all organizations which do not have anarchism as their goal
or which do not follow anarchist methods of struggle. To those comrades
it seemed that all organized forces for an objective less than radically
revolutionary, were forces that the revolution was being deprived of. It
seems to us instead, and experience has surely already confirmed our
view, that their approach would condemn the anarchist movement to a
state of perpetual sterility. To make propaganda we must be amongst the
people, and it is in the workers’ associations that workers find their
comrades and especially those who are most disposed to understand and
accept our ideas. But even when it is possible to do as much propaganda
as we wished outside the associations, this could not have a noticeable
effect on the working masses. Apart from a small number of individuals
more educated and capable of abstract thought and theoretical
enthusiasms, the worker cannot arrive at anarchism in one leap. To
become an convinced anarchist, and not in name only, they must begin to
feel the solidarity that joins them to their comrades, and to learn to
cooperate with others in defense of common interests and that, by
struggling against the bosses and against the government that supports
them, should realize that bosses and governments are useless parasites
and that the workers could manage the domestic economy by their own
efforts. And when the worker has understood this, he or she is an
anarchist even if they do not refer to themselves as such.
Furthermore, to encourage popular organizations of all kinds is the
logical consequence of our basic ideas, and should therefore be an
integral part of our programme. An authoritarian party, which aims at
capturing power to impose its ideas, has an interest in the people
remaining an amorphous mass, unable to act for themselves and therefore
always easily dominated. And it follows, logically, that it cannot
desire more than that much organization, and of the kind it needs to
attain power: Electoral organizations if it hopes to achieve it by legal
means; Military organization if it relies on violent action. But we
anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to
emancipate themselves. We do not believe in the good that comes from
above and imposed by force; we want the new way of life to emerge from
the body of the people and correspond to the state of their development
and advance as they advance. It matters to us therefore that all
interests and opinions should find their expression in a conscious
organization and should influence communal life in proportion to their
importance.
We have undertaken the task of struggling against existing social
organization, and of overcoming the obstacles to the advent of a new
society in which freedom and well being would be assured to everybody.
To achieve this objective we organize ourselves and seek to become as
numerous and as strong as possible. But if it were only our anarchist
groupings that were organized; if the workers were to remain isolated
like so many units unconcerned about each other and only linked by the
common chain; if we ourselves besides being organized as anarchists in a
federation, were not as workers organized with other workers, we could
achieve nothing at all, or at most, we might be able to impose ourselves
... and then it would not be the triumph of anarchism, but our triumph.
We could then go on calling ourselves anarchists, but in reality we
should simply be rulers, and as impotent as all rulers are where the
general good is concerned.