💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › errico-malatesta-republic-and-revolution.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:43:07. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Republic and Revolution Author: Errico Malatesta Date: June 1924 Language: en Topics: revolution, reform, left unity Source: The Anarchist Revolution: Polemical Articles 1924–1931, edited and introduced by Vernon Richards. Published by Freedom Press London 1995.
Our avowed intention to take part in any revolutionary movement aimed at
gaining greater liberty and justice, together with recent statements by
certain comrades — whose real ideas have possibly been distorted by
thehaste with which newspaper articles are written — have convinced some
people, unfamiliar with our ideas, that we would accept, albeit on a
provisional basis, a so-called ‘social’ and ‘federated’ republic. There
are even some people who send us republican propaganda articles, in the
confident beliefthattheywill be published, for all the world as though
we were a republican periodical!
It would not seem necessary to waste words on this subject, given that
the anarchists have never allowed of misunderstandings about their
relations with the republicans. But it is useful to return to the
subject because the danger of confusion is always greater when there is
the wish to advance from propaganda to deeds and when, therefore, one’s
own work must be coordinated with that of the other participants in the
struggle. And it is surely very hard to distinguish in practice between
the point where useful cooperation in the struggle against the common
enemy comes to an end and a merger begins which would lead the weaker
parties to surrender their own specific objectives.
---
It is a matter of urgency that we understand one another on the question
of the republic, because the regime which emerges from the direction in
which Italy is more or less rapidly heading will very probably be a
republican one. And it seems to us that if we support a republic we
shall be betraying not only our anarchist purposes but also those same
libertarian and egalitarian ideals which the majority of republican
workers — and those young people who, while themselves privileged, are
motivated by a need for justice which unites them with the workers —
intend to pursue by republican means. —
We said above that the regime which, in Italy, will replace the present
institutions will probably be a republican one. But what form of
political conspiracy might follow immediately on the heels of those
institutions that gave us fascism and whose fate has become inextricably
bound up with it?
We do not wish to predict how much longer fascism will last, especially
as wishful thinking could give us too much hope. Nevertheless we have
reason to believe that Italy will not be increasingly driven back to
medieval barbarisms and that sooner or later she will shake off the yoke
that burdens her. But then?
People only bestir themselves for what is immediately obtainable, and
basically they are right. Man cannot live by self-denial alone, and if
there is nothing new to set up there is an inevitable tendency to fall
back on the old ways.
It does not seem possible to us that there will be a return to pre-war
conditions and the days of anti-fascism — and certainly we should do our
best to avoid such a thing happening.
Anarchy is still not understood by the vast majority of people and we
cannot reasonably expect that they will wish and know how to organise
their own lives on a social level, on the basis of free agreement,
without awaiting their leaders’ orders and submitting to commands of
whatever kind. Except for a small minority with anarchist ideas, the
people, used to being governed, only overthrow one government to replace
it with another from which they hope for better things.
If one excludes, therefore, as undesirable a return to the hypocrisy of
constitutional monarchy, which would lead us to a new fascism as soon as
the monarchy and bourgeoisie felt themselves to be in imminent danger;
and excluding anarchy as being inapplicable in the near future, we see
only the possibility of communist dictatorship or a republic.
It seems to us that a communist dictatorship has little chance of even
short-term success: there are few communists; their authoritarianism
would not go down well in a movement which would, above all, be an
explosion of the need for liberty — either because their programme would
meet with practical difficulties, or because of the unpleasant results
of the Russian experiment, which is leading the country towards
capitalism and militarism.
There remains the Republic, which would have the support of the
republicans in the strict sense of the word, the social democrats, the
industrial workers anxious for change but without specific ideas on the
future, and also the mass of the bourgeosie which rushes to support any
government that seems able to guarantee ‘order’ — which, for them, means
no more than the protection of their own privileged economic status.
But what is a Republic?
The republicans — or that proportion of them who sincerely wish for a
radical change in the social institutions and are thus closer to us — do
not appear to understand what a republic is.
They say ‘their’ republic is not like any of the others, that ‘their’
republic will be organised on a social basis and with a federal
structure — that is, it will expropriate, or at least heavily tax the
capitalists, give land to the peasants, encourage the transfer of the
means of production to workers’ associations, respect rights and
freedoms, all individual, corporate and local groupings, etc.
Now language like this can be either anarchist or authoritarian:
anarchist if such fine things can be achieved through the agency of the
more enlightened minorities which, overthrowing or resisting the
government, carry them out where and when it is possible to do so, and
certainly by propaganda and by the deed; authoritarian if, on the other
hand, it means taking over power by force and imposing their programme
by force. But what such language is not, is republican.
A republic is a democratic government, indeed the only real form of
democracy, ifby this one means a government of the majority of the
people ruling through their freely elected representatives. A republican
can thus say what his wishes are, what are the criteria that would guide
him as a voter, what the proposals he would make or approve were he
elected a deputy. But what he cannot say is what kind of republic the
parliament (or constituent assembly, if you prefer) that is called upon
to prepare the new constitution and the laws that will follow, will come
up with. A republic remains a republic, even if, governed by
reactionaries, it merely consolidates and even worsens existing
structures.
There would no longer be a king and royally appointed senate and this
would certainly be progress. But progress of very small practical
account. Today the predominating and determining force behind all
government is finance and royal power counts only as a tool in the hands
of the financiers, who well know how to jettison it without reducing
their baleful influence.
Anyway, do ‘social’ republicans really want the abolition of capitalism,
namely the rights and the opportunities to make a profit out of the
labour of others through the monopoly of the means of production? But
then why don’t they rid themselves of that ambiguous term and call
themselves socialists outright?
To us it seems that while they aim to improve the conditions of the
poorer classes and to reduce exploitation, they are happy to preserve
the right of the owners to make others work for their benefit and thus
leave the way open to all those evils that arise from capitalist
property rights.
As for their federalism, what does it come down to? Do they acknowledge
the right of the regions and the municipalities to leave the federation
and independently choose those groupings that best suit their individual
needs? Do they acknowledge that members of the federation have the right
to refuse any participation in military or financial affairs when they
see fit? We fear they do not, because this would leave as basis for
national unity only the good will of the federated regions; a thing
which hardly seems characteristic of the traditions and spirit of the
republicans.
In reality it is but a question of a forced federation, like
Switzerland, the USA or Germany, which continues to leave the federated
regions subject to centralised power, and there is therefore little to
choose between them and the centralised states.
---
If that is so, how and why could we agree with republicans in any kind
of movement?
We could join with the republicans on the question of revolution, just
as we could join with the communists on that of the expropriation of the
bourgeoisie, so long as they act in a revolutionary manner, without
having first set up their State, their Dictatorship. But this does not
mean we would ourselves become republicans or communists.
There is a need to make a clear distinction between the revolutionary
act, which overthrows as much as it can of the old regime, replacing it
with new institutions, and governments that follow to halt revolution
and suppress as much as they can of the revolutionary conquests.
History teaches us that whatever progress is made by revolution occurs
in the period when popular activity is at its height, when either a
recognised government does not yet exist or is too weak to openly set
itself against the revolution. Then, once government is established
reaction invariably sets in, serving the interests of the old and new
privileged classes, and seizes from the masses everything it possibly
can seize back from them.
Thus our task is to make, or help to make, the revolution, taking
advantage of all the occasions that come our way and from all available
forces. To push the revolution as far forward as possible, not only in
terms of destruction but above all in terms of reconstruction, and to
remain opposed to any embryonic government, ignoring it or fighting it
to the best of our ability.
We shall no more recognise the republican Constituent Assembly than the
monarchist parliament. If the people want such an assembly, so be it; in
fact we could find ourselves alongside the republicans in resisting any
attempts at restoration of the monarchy. But we ask, we demand, complete
freedom for those who think as we do, to live outside state protection
and oppression and to spread our ideas by word and deed.
We are revolutionaries, yes, but above all we are anarchists.
In the Voce Repubblicana, our friend Carlo Francesco Ansaldi comments on
our discussions about the immediate future, and in particular my article
‘Republic and Revolution,’ which appeared in the last issue of that
periodical. He expresses what basically are aspirations and desires that
approximate and even perhaps blend with ours, but it seems to me that he
runs away from the heart of the matter — the way in which, in the
immediate aftermath of the fall of the existing institutions, we set up
the new social structures and decide on the source of the constitutent
power. In our current discussions it is not really a question of the
point of arrival — since on this we can all perhaps agree, Ansaldi
included — but of the ways and means by which we put our ideals into
practice.
Do the republicans, and especially those, Ansaldi again included, who
describe themselves as ‘social,’ ‘federalists’ or ‘syndicalists,’ intend
convening the ‘Constituent Assembly’ (the legislative body elected by
universal suffrage) immediately after the fall of the present regime and
submit to their being set up by majority vote?
Another republican writer, Paolo Albatrelli, again in La Voce, clearly
says yes. But what does Ansaldi say? What do the ‘social and federalist’
republicans say?
‘Our republic,’ says Albatrelli, ‘must spring from the direct will of
the people ... If the majority of the Italian people is with us, we do
not intend to resort to any violence against them. We do, however,
desire that they be allowed a free vote and do not come under any
pressure or violence from an executive power devoid of scruples and
morality.’
Does this, therefore, mean that if the Constituent Assembly voted for a
monarchy the republicans would submit and that the whole movement would
have served for nothing more than to save and to supply a new virginity
to this monarchy that fascism is now dragging with it into the gutter?
And what about the preconditions of an anti-monarchist position?
Albatrelli suggests that the party ‘jealously retains it in its specific
programme and does not present it to any possible opposition as a bill
to be settled in advance.’ But are the antimonarchist preconditions not
based on the conviction that the institution of monarchy is opposed to
any real political and social progress and that until it is abolished
there will be no guarantee of liberty or possibility of a wide general
education of the mass of the people? Does it mean nothing to Albatrelli
that fifty years of republican, socialist and anarchist propaganda have
resulted in ... fascism? Where we are concerned, the antimonarchist
preconditions should be accompanied by anticapitalist ones. But the
republicans, who ascribe prime importance to political form, should at
the least insist on ... a republic. Otherwise their republicanism
reduces to no more than the assertion of a far-off ideal, a vague
‘potential’ which could even be accepted by Mussolini and Victor
Emanuel.
True enough, it is not probable that a Constituent Assembly set up upon
the fall of fascism would vote for a monarchy. The mass of the people
are tired of change and the bourgeoisie needs order and peace which, in
the circumstances, are more likely to prevail under a republic,
bolstered by all the illusions that new regimes carry with them, rather
than the hard-won fight for restoration of a monarchy. On the other
hand, it is most probable — almost certain — that the Constituent
Assembly, being what it would inevitably be in present moral and
economical times in Italy — that is, made up of a majority of
conservatives and clericals, landowners and lawyers, representing the
great industrial interests of the land — would give us a conservative
and clerical republic like the republic of France on the fall of the
Second Empire and which, after more than fifty years, is still a
centralising and capitalist republic.
Apart from die right of the majority, which we do not recognise, to
impose its will, by force, on the minority; apart from the consideration
that no electoral mechanism can succeed in electing a chamber that would
express the will of the majority — even if such a thing as a majority
with one common will existed — there always remains the fact that under
a capitalist regime, when society is divided between rich and poor,
bosses and workers whose ration of daily bread depends on the whim of
those bosses, there cannot be such a thing as a free election. Then:
also remains the fact that under a centralised regime the more developed
regions exploit the less developed ones, while the latter regions, more
heavily populated, hamper progress and tend to be a drag on reform.
‘The free vote of the people,’ says Albatrelli. But can he really
believe what he says?
In some of the bigger cities and in some of the more progressive regions
the conservatives would be eclipsed and the mass of the people, in a
state of revolutionary ferment, would vote in a majority of socialists,
republicans and communists — and even anarchists, should the latter
allow themselves to take part in the comedy. But even in these
circumstances it is a deception to maintain that the elections would be
free. Unfortunately we are a’ violent people and the recent experiences
of war and fascism have exacerbated, to the point of paroxysm, all our
worst instincts. Even if our leaders, the most well-known and popular of
men, sincerely wished for the liberty of the individual, force, fraud
and violence would exert yet greater influence over the choice of
deputies than the informed and free will of the majority.
But remember that, offsetting and overwhelming the revolutionary forces
of the cities and regions that I shall call subversive, are the
countless Vendees’[1] of Italy, where the elections would be subject to
the economic and moral pressure of the bosses and priests, backed up by
the violence of those elements which are always ready for a bit of
bloodletting on behalf of anyone who cares to pay for it.
Then what to do? Make of the Italian Constituent Assembly a carbon copy
of the French Convention of 1792–93, when the rival parties guillotined
one another and prepared the way for a Bonaparte? Or imitate the ‘rural’
Assembly of 1871 which began with the massacre of the Communards and
continued as symbol and shield of bourgeois clerical reaction?
---
But, it will be asked, if you don’t want the Constituent Assembly, what
do you want?
Revolution. And by revolution we don’t mean the insurrectionary phase
alone, which would be indispensable, save in the highly unlikely
eventuality that the regime, collapsing from within, falls of its own
accord. But insurrection would be sterile if it were not followed by the
liberation of the people and would serve merely to replace one state of
violence by another.
Revolution is the creation of new institutions, new groupings, new
social relations. Revolution is the destruction of privilege and
monopoly, a new spirit of justice, solidarity and freedom which must
renew the whole of social life, raise the moral level and the material
conditions of the masses by calling upon them to provide for their own
future through their direct and conscious action. Revolution is the
organisation of all public services by those who work within them in
their own interests, as well as in those of the wider public. Revolution
is the destruction of all coercive bonds, and is the autonomy of groups,
communes and regions. Revolution is the free federation, brought about
by solidarity, by individual and collective interests and by the needs
of production and defence. Revolution is the establishment of a myriad
free groupings based on the ideas, desires, needs and tastes of all and
every individual. Revolution is the formation and dissolution of
thousands of representative, neighbourhood, communal, regional and
national bodies which, lacking any kind of legislative power, serve to
make them known and harmonise the wishes and interests of the people
near and far, and act through propagation of information, advice and
example. Revolution is freedom proved in the crucible of events — and
lasts as long as freedom lasts, that is, until such time as others,
profiting from the weariness that overtakes the masses, the inevitable
disappointments that follow upon exaggerated hopes, possible mistakes
and human error, succeed in creating a power which, backed by an army of
conscripts and mercenaries, makes laws and blocks any forward movement —
and reaction sets in.
To my question, ‘How do you know in what direction your republic will
go?’ Ansaldi counters by asking, ‘How do you know in what direction your
anarchism will go?’ And he’s right. There are too many and complicated
historical factors, too great a factor of uncertainty in the human will
for anyone to be able seriously to predict the future. But the
difference between us and the republicans is that we seek neither to
harden our anarchism in dogma, nor impose it by force. It will be what
it can be, and will develop as people and institutions grow more
supportive of complete liberty and justice. The republicans, on the
other hand, seek to make laws which, by definition, would be obligatory
for all and must therefore necessarily be imposed on the recalcitrants
by material force. If the republicans renounce the gendannes, then
agreement can soon be reached.
It is possible — even certain — that the next movement will lead to the
establishment of a republic. But this will be a ‘social’ republic only
if the social reforms are carried out beforehand and only to the extent
that they have been carried out. And it will be ‘federalist’ only if the
unity of the state has firstly been broken up and the autonomy of the
regions and communes has been set in motion. The forces of reaction, to
which all governments tend, will be proportionately less effective the
more radical the reforms carried out in the revolutionary period.
If, however, as it seems, the republicans intend to begin with the
Constituent Assembly and only then proceed to carry out reforms through
the agency of that Assembly, the antifascist movement would be of little
use.
Even so, we shall take part, but only to work within the masses, outside
and if necessary against the Constituent Assembly, to draw the maximum
possible advantage for our ideas in favour of freedom and justice.
[1] A western region of France which, during the Revolution and early
Napoleonic period, was home to the forces of royalist insurrection —
Editor.