💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › errico-malatesta-gradualism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:41:16. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Gradualism
Author: Errico Malatesta
Date: October 1925
Language: en
Topics: gradualism, revolution, tactics, reformism, reform
Source: *The Method of Freedom: An Errico Malatesta Reader*. In The Anarchist Revolution: Polemical Articles 1924–1931, edited and introduced by Vernon Richards (London: Freedom Press, 1995), p.82–87. Originally published as “Gradualismo,” Pensiero e Volantà (Rome) 2, no.12 (1 October 1925).

Errico Malatesta

Gradualism

In the course of those polemics which arise among anarchists as to the

best tactics for achieving, or approaching the creation of an anarchist

society — and they are useful, and indeed necessary arguments when they

reflect mutual tolerance and trust and avoid personal recriminations —

it often happens that some reproach others with being gradualists, and

the latter reject the term as if it were an insult.

Yet the fact is that, in the real sense of the word and given the logic

of our principles, we are all gradualists. And all of us, in whatever

different ways, have to be.

It is true that certain words, especially in politics, are continually

changing their meaning and often assume one that is quite contrary to

the original, logical and natural sense of the term.

Thus the word possibilist. Is there anyone of sound mind who would

seriously claim to want the impossible? Yet in France the term became

the special label of a section of the Socialist Party who were followers

of the former anarchist, Paul Brousse — and more willing than others to

renounce socialism in pursuit of an impossible cooperation with

bourgeois democracy.

Such too is the case with the word opportunist. Who actually wants to be

an in-opportunist, and as such renounce what opportunities arise? Yet in

France the term opportunist ended up by being applied specifically to

followers of Gambetta[1] and is still used in the pejorative sense to

mean a person or party without ideas or principles and guided by base

and short-term interests.

The same is true of the word transformist. Who would deny that

everything in the world and in life evolves and changes? Who today is

not a “transformer?” Yet the word was used to describe the corrupt and

short-term policies pioneered by the Italian Depretis.[2]

It would be a good thing to put a brake on the habit of attributing to

words a meaning that is different from their original sense and which

gives rise to such confusion and misunderstanding. But how to do it is

another matter, particularly when the change in meaning is a deliberate

tactic on the part of politicians to disguise their iniquitous purposes

behind fine words.

Maybe it is true, therefore, that the word gradualist, as applied to

anarchists, could end up in fact describing those who use the excuse of

doing things gradually, as and when they become possible, and in the

last analysis do nothing at all — either that or move, if they move at

all, in a contrary direction to anarchy. If this is the case the term

has to be rejected. Yet the real sense of gradualism remains the same:

everything in nature and in life changes by degrees, and this is no less

true of anarchy. It can only come about little by little.

---

As I was saying earlier, anarchism is of necessity gradualist.

Anarchy can be seen as absolute perfection, and it is right that this

concept should remain in our minds, like a beacon to guide our steps.

But quite obviously, such an ideal cannot be attained in one sudden leap

from the hell of the present to the longed-for heaven of the future.

The authoritarian parties, by which I mean those who believe it both

moral and expedient to impose a given social order by force, may hope —

vain hope! — that when they come to power they can, by using the laws,

decrees... and gendarmes subject everybody indefinitely to their will.

But such hopes and wishes are inconceivable for the anarchists, since

anarchists seek to impose nothing but respect for liberty and count on

the force of persuasion and perceived advantages of free cooperation for

the realisation of their ideals.

This does not mean I believe (as, by way of polemic, one unscrupulous

and ill-informed reformist paper had me believe) that to achieve anarchy

we must wait till everyone becomes an anarchist. On the contrary, I

believe — and this is why I’m a revolutionary — that under present

conditions only a small minority, favoured by special circumstances, can

manage to conceive what anarchy is. It would be wishful thinking to hope

for a general conversion before a change actually took place in the kind

of environment in which authoritarianism and privilege now flourish. It

is precisely for this reason that I believe in the need to organise for

the bringing about of anarchy, or any rate that degree of anarchy which

would become gradually feasible, as soon as a sufficient amount of

freedom has been won and a nucleus of anarchists somewhere exists that

is both numerically strong enough and able to be self-sufficient and to

spread its influence locally. I repeat, we need to organise ourselves to

apply anarchy, or that degree of anarchy which becomes gradually

possible.

Since we cannot convert everybody all at once and the necessities of

life and the interests of propaganda do not allow us to remain in

isolation from the rest of society, ways need to be found to put as much

of anarchy as possible into practice among people who are not anarchist

or who are only sympathetic.

The problem, therefore, is not whether there is a need to proceed

gradually but to seek the quickest and sincerest way that leads to the

realisation of our ideals.

---

Throughout the world today the way is blocked by privileges conquered,

as a result of a long history of violence and mistakes, by certain

classes which in addition to an intellectual and technical superiority

which they enjoy as a result of these privileges, also dispose of armed

forces recruited among the subject classes and use them when they think

necessary without scruples or restraint.

That is why revolution is necessary. Revolution destroys the state of

violence in which we live now, and creates the means for peaceful

development towards ever greater freedom, greater justice and greater

solidarity.

---

What should the anarchists’ tactics be before, during and after the

revolution?

No doubt censorship would forbid us to say what needs to be done before

the revolution, in order to prepare for it and to carry it out. In any

case, it is a subject badly handled in the presence of the enemy. It is,

however, valid to point out that we need to remain true to ourselves, to

spread the word and to educate as much as possible, and avoid all

compromise with the enemy and to hold ourselves ready, at least in

spirit, to seize all opportunities that might arise.

---

And during the revolution?

Let me begin by saying, we can’t make the revolution on our own; nor

would it be desirable to do so. Unless the whole of the country is

behind it, together with all the interests, both actual and latent, of

the people, the revolution will fail. And in the far from probable case

that we achieved victory on our own, we should find ourselves in an

absurdly untenable position: either because, by the very fact of

imposing our will, commanding and constraining, we would cease to be

anarchists and destroy the revolution by our authoritarianism; or

because, on the contrary, we would retreat from the field, leaving

others, with aims opposed to our own, to profit from our effort.

So we should act together with all progressive forces and vanguard

parties to attract the mass of the people into the movement and arouse

their interest, allowing the revolution — of which we would form a part,

among others — to yield what it can.

This does not mean that we should renounce our specific aims. On the

contrary, we should have to keep closely united and distinctly separate

from the rest in fighting in favour of our programme: the abolition of

political power and expropriation of the capitalists. And if, despite

our efforts, new forms of power were to arise that seek to obstruct the

people’s initiative and impose their own will, we must have no part in

them, never give them any recognition. We must endeavour to ensure that

the people refuse them the means of governing — refuse them, that is,

the soldiers and the revenue; see to it that those powers remain weak...

until the day comes when we can crush them once and for all.

Anyway, we must lay claim to and demand, with force if needs be, our

full autonomy, and the right and the means to organise ourselves as we

see fit and to put our own methods into practice.

---

And after the revolution — that is after the fall of those in power and

the final triumph of the forces of insurrection?

This is where gradualism becomes particularly relevant.

We must pay attention to the practical problems of life: production,

trade, communications, relations between anarchist groups and those who

retain a belief in authority, between communist collectives and

individualists, between the city and the countryside. We must make sure

to use to our advantage the forces of nature and raw materials, and that

we attend to industrial and agricultural distribution — according to the

conditions prevailing at the time in the various different countries —

public education, childcare and care for the handicapped, health and

medical services, protection both against common criminals and those,

more insidious, who continue to attempt to suppress the freedom of

others in the interests of individuals and parties, etc. The solutions

to each problem must not only be the most economically viable ones but

must respond to the imperatives of justice and liberty and be those most

likely to keep open the way to future improvements. If necessary,

justice, liberty and solidarity must take priority over economic

benefit.

There is no need to think in terms of destroying everything in the

belief that things will look after themselves. Our present civilisation

is the result of thousands of years of development and has found some

means of solving the problem of how millions and millions of people

co-habit, often crowded together in restricted ares, and how their

ever-increasing and ever more complex needs can be satisfied. Such

benefits are reduced — and for the great majority of people virtually

denied — due to the fact that the development has been carried out by

authoritarian means and in the interests of the ruling class. But, if

the rules and privileges are removed, the real gains remain: the

triumphs of humankind over the adverse forces of nature, the accumulated

weight of experience of past generations, the sociable habits acquired

throughout the long history of human cohabitation, the proven advantages

of mutual aid. It would be foolish, and besides impossible, to give up

all this.

In other words, we must fight authority and privilege, while taking

advantage from the benefits that civilisation has conferred. We must not

destroy anything that satisfies human need however badly — until we have

something better to put in its place.

Intransigent as we remain to any form of capitalist imposition or

exploitation, we must be tolerant of all those social concepts that

prevail in the various human groupings, so long as they do not harm the

freedom and equal rights of others. We should content ourselves with

gradual progress while the moral level of the people grows, and with it,

the material and intellectual means available to mankind; and while,

clearly, doing all we can, through study, work and propaganda, to hasten

development towards ever higher ideals.

---

I have here come up with more problems than solutions. But I believe I

have succinctly presented the criteria which must guide us in the search

and application of the solutions, which will certainly be many and vary

according to circumstances. But, so far as we are concerned, they must

always be consistent with the fundamental principles of anarchism:

no-one orders anyone else around, no-one exploits anyone else.

It is the task of all comrades to think, study and prepare — and to do

so with all speed and thoroughly because the times are “dynamic” and we

must be ready for what might happen.

[1] Léon Gambetta was a prominent republican politician of the French

Third Republic, until his death in 1882.

[2] Agostino Depretis was Italian prime minister nine times between 1876

and 1887. During his uninterrupted premiership from 1881 to 1887 he

changed his cabinet five times, supported by majorities that shifted

from the Left to the Right, based on short-term convenience rather than

long-term programmes.