💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › errico-malatesta-reformism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:43:05. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Reformism Author: Errico Malatesta Language: en Topics: reformism Source: Retrieved on March 4th, 2009 from http://www.efn.org/~danr/mal_org.html Notes: From Malatesta: Life and Ideas, Verne Richards’ ed., London, Freedom Press, 1965
The fundamental error of the reformists is that of dreaming of
solidarity, a sincere collaboration, between masters and servants,
between proprietors and workers which even if it might have existed here
and there in periods of profound unconsciousness of the masses and of
ingenuous faith in religion and rewards, is utterly impossible today.
Those who envisage a society of well stuffed pigs which waddle
contentedly under the ferule of a small number of swineherd; who do not
take into account the need for freedom and the sentiment of human
dignity; who really believe in a God that orders, for his abstruse ends,
the poor to be submissive and the rich to be good and charitable — can
also imagine and aspire to a technical organisation of production which
assures abundance to all and is at the same time materially advantageous
both to the bosses and to the workers. But in reality “social peace”
based on abundance for all will remain a dream, so long as society is
divided into antogonistic classes, that is employers and employees. And
there will be neither peace nor abundance.
The antogonism is spiritual rather than material. There will never be a
sincere understanding between bosses and workers for the better
exploitation of the forces of nature in the interests of mankind,
because the bosses above all want to remain bosses and secure always
more power at the expense of the workers, as well as by competition with
other bosses, whereas the workers have had their fill of bosses and
don’t want more!
[Our good friends] are wasting their time when they tell us that a
little freedom is better than a brutal and unbridled tyranny; that n
reasonable working day, a wage that allows people to live better than
animals, and protection of women and children, are preferable to the
exploitation of human labour to the point of human exhaustion; or that
the State school, bad as it is, is always better, from the point of view
of the child’s moral development, than schools run by priests and monks
... for we are in complete agreement. And we also agree that there may
be circumstances in which the Election results, national or local, can
have good or bad consequences and that this vote might be determined by
the anarchists’ votes if the strength of the rival parties were equally
balanced.
In most cases it is an illusion; when elections are tolerably free, the
only value they have is symbolic: they indicate the state of public
opinion, which would have imposed itself by more efficacious means, and
with more far reaching results, if it had not been offered the outlet of
elections. But no matter; even if some minor advances were the direct
result of an electoral victory, anarchists should not flock to the
polling booths or cease to preach their methods of struggle.
Since no one can do everything in this world, one must choose one’s own
line of conduct.
There is always an element of contradiction between minor improvements,
the satisfaction of immediate needs and the struggle for a society which
is really better than the existing one. Those who want to devote
themselves to the erection of public lavatories and drinking fountains
where there is a need for them, or who use their energies for the
construction of a road, or the establishment of a municipal school, or
for the passing of some minor law to protect workers or to get rid of a
brutal policeman, do well, perhaps, to use the ballot paper in favour of
this or that influential personage. But then — since one wants to be
“practical” one must go the whole hog — so, rather than wait for the
victory of the opposition party, rather than vote for the more kindred
party, it is worth taking a short cut and support the dominant party,
and serve the government already in office, and become the agent of the
Prefect or the Mayor. And in fact the neo-converts we have in mind did
not in fact propose voting for the most “progressive” party, but for the
one that had the greater chance of being elected . . But in that case
where does it all end? ...
In the course of human history it is generally the case that the
malcontents, the oppressed, and the rebels, before being able to
conceive and desire a radical change in the political and social
institutions, restrict their demands to partial changes, to concessions
by the rulers, and to improvements. Hopes of obtaining reforms as well
as in their efficacy, precede the conviction that in order to destroy
the power of a government or of a class, it is necessary to deny the
reasons for that power, and therefore to make a revolution.
In the order of things, reforms are then introduced or they are not, and
once introduced either consolidate the existing regime or undermine it;
assist the advent of revolution or hamper it and benefit or harm
progress in general, depending on their specific characteristic, the
spirit in which they have been granted, and above all, the spirit in
which they are asked for, claimed or seized by the people.
Governments and the privileged classes are naturally always guided by
instincts of self preservation, of consolidation and the development of
their powers and privileges; and when they consent to reforms it is
either because they consider that they will serve their ends or because
they do not feel strong enough to resist, and give in, fearing what
might otherwise be a worse alternative.
The oppressed, either ask for and welcome improvements as a benefit
graciously conceded, recognise the legitimacy of the power which is over
them, and so do more harm than good by helping to slow down, or divert
and perhaps even stop the processes of emancipation. Or instead they
demand and impose improvements by their action, and welcome them as
partial victories over the class enemy, using them as a spur to greater
achievements, and thus they are a valid help and a preparation to the
total overthrow of privilege, that is, for the revolution. A point is
reached when the demands of the dominated class cannot be acceded to by
the ruling class without compromising their power. Then the violent
conflict inevitably occurs.
It is not true to say therefore, that revolutionaries are systematically
opposed to improvements, to reforms. They oppose the reformists on the
one hand because their methods are less effective for securing reforms
from governments and employers, who only give in through fear, and on
the other hand because very often the reforms they prefer are those
which not only bring doubtful immediate benefits, but also serve to
consolidate the existing regime and to give the workers a vested
interest in its continued existence. Thus, for instance, State pensions,
insurance schemes, as well as profit sharing schemes in agricultural and
industrial enterprises, etc.
Apart from the unpleasantness of the word which has been abused and
discredited by politicians, anarchism has always been, and can never be
anything but, reformist. We prefer to say reformative in order to avoid
any possible confusion with those who are officially classified as
“reformists” and seek by means of small and often ephemeral improvements
to make the present system more bearable (and as a result help to
consolidate it); or who instead believe in good faith that it is
possible to eliminate the existing social evils by recognising and
respecting, in practice if not in theory, the basic political and
economic institutions which are the cause of as well as the prop that
supports these evils. But in any case it is always a question of
reforms, and the essential difference lies in the kind of reform one
wants and the way one thinks of being able to achieve it. Revolution
means, in the historical sense of the word, the radical reform of
institutions, achieved rapidly by the violent insurrection of the people
against existing power and privileges; and we are revolutionaries and
insurrectionists because we do not just want to improve existing
institutions but to destroy them completely, abolishing every form of
domination by man over man, and every kind of parasitism on human
labour; and because we want to achieve this as quickly as possible, and
because we believe that institutions born of violence are maintained by
violence and will not give way except to an equivalent violence. But the
revolution cannot be made just when one likes. Should we remain
inactive, waiting for the situation to mature with time?
And even after a successful insurrection, could we over night realise
all our desires and pass from a governmental and capitalist hell to a
libertarian-communist heaven which is the complete freedom of man within
the wished for community of interests with all men?
These are illusions which can take root among authoritarians who look
upon the masses as the raw material which those who have power can, by
decrees, supported by bullets and handcuffs, mold to their will. But
these illusions have not taken among anarchists. We need the people’s
consensus, and therefore we must persuade by means of propaganda and
example, we must educate and seek to change the environment in such a
way that this education may reach an ever increasing number of
people....
We are reformers today in so far as we seek to create the most
favourable conditions and as large a body of enlightened militants so
that an insurrection by the people would be brought to a satisfactory
conclusion. We shall be reformers tomorrow, after a triumphant
insurrection, and the achievement of freedom, in that we will seek with
all the means that freedom permits, that is by propaganda, example and
even violent resistance against anyone who should wish to restrict our
freedom in order to win over to our ideas an ever greater number of
people.
But we will never recognise the institutions; we will take or win all
possible reforms with the same spirit that one tears occupied territory
from the enemy’s grasp in order to go on advancing, and we will always
remain enemies of every government, whether it be that of the monarchy
today, or the republican or bolshevik governments of tomorrow.