💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › errico-malatesta-revolution-in-practice.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:43:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Revolution in Practice
Author: Errico Malatesta
Date: October 1922
Language: en
Topics: practice, revolution
Source: Retrieved on March 4th, 2009 from http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/malatesta/MalatestaCW.html
Notes: From Umanità Nova, n. 191, October 7, 1922 and Umanità Nova, n. 192, October 14, 1922

Errico Malatesta

Revolution in Practice

At the meeting held in Bienne (Switzerland) on the fiftieth anniversary

of the Saint Imier Congress, comrade Bertoni and I expressed some ideas

that comrade Colomer did not like. So much so that he wrote on the Paris

Libertaire that he is sure those ideas contrast the most lively

tendencies of the contemporary anarchist movement. Had the comrades of

Germany, Spain, Russia, America, etc. been present at that meeting, he

writes, they would have got moved and nearly indignant (“émus et presque

indigné”), as he himself did.

In my opinion, comrade Colomer slightly overstates his knowledge of the

real tendencies of anarchism. In any case, it is an improper use of

language, at the least, to talk about “indignation” when the matter is a

discussion where everyone honestly tries to contribute to the

clarification of ideas in the best interest of the common goal. Anyway,

it is better to keep discussing in a friendly manner, as we did in

Bienne.

Bertoni will certainly defend his ideas on the Réveil; I will do the

same on Umanità Nova, as will Colomer on the Libertaire. Other comrades,

I hope, will join in the discussion; and it will be to the benefit of

all, if everyone takes care not to alter the contradictor’s thought in

the translations imposed by the diversity of languages. And it does not

hurt to hope that nobody will get indignant if he hears something that

he had never thought of.

Two topics were discussed in Bienne: “Relationships between syndicalism

and anarchism”, and “Anarchist action at the outbreak of an

insurrection”. I will come back to the former topic some other time and

unhurriedly, as the readers of Umanità Nova must already know what I

think about the issue. I will presently explain what I said on the

latter topic.

We want to make the revolution as soon as possible, taking advantage of

all the opportunities that may arise.

With the exception of a small number of “educationists”, who believe in

the possibility of raising the masses to the anarchist ideals before the

material and moral conditions in which they live have changed, thus

deferring the revolution to the time when all will be able to live

anarchically, all anarchists agree on this desire of overthrowing the

current regimes as soon as possible: as a matter of fact, they are often

the only ones who show a real wish to do so.

However, revolutions did, do and will happen independently from the

anarchists’ wish and action; and since anarchists are just a small

minority of the population and anarchy cannot be made by force and

violent imposition by few, it is clear that past and future revolutions

were not and will not possibly be anarchist revolutions.

In Italy two years ago the revolution was about to break out and we did

all we could to make that happen. We treated like traitors the

socialists and the unionists, who stopped the impetus of the masses and

saved the shaky monarchical regime on the occasion of the riots against

the high cost of living, the strikes in Piedmont, the Ancona uprising,

the factory occupations.

What would we have done if the revolution had broken out for good?

What will we do in the revolution that will break out tomorrow?

What did our comrades do, what could and should they have done in the

recent revolutions occurred in Russia, Bavaria, Hungary and elsewhere?

We cannot make anarchy, at least not an anarchy extended to all the

population and all the social relations, because no population is

anarchist yet, and we cannot either accept another regime without giving

up our aspirations and losing any reason for existence, as anarchists.

So, what can and must we do?

This was the problem being discussed in Bienne, and this is the problem

of greatest interest in the present time, so full of opportunities, when

we could suddenly face situations that require for us to either act

immediately and unhesitatingly, or disappear from the battle ground

after making the victory of others easier.

It was not a matter of depicting a revolution as we would like it, a

truly anarchist revolution as would be possible if all, or at least the

vast majority of the people living in a given territory were anarchist.

It was a matter of seeking the best that could be done in favour of the

anarchist cause in a social upheaval as can happen in the present

situation.

The authoritarian parties have a specific program and want to impose it

by force; therefore they aspire to seizing the power, regardless of

whether legally or illegally, and transforming society their way,

through a new legislation. This explains why they are revolutionary in

words and often also in intentions, but they hesitate to make a

revolution when the opportunities arise; they are not sure of the

acquiescence, even passive, of the majority, they do not have sufficient

military force to have their orders carried out over the whole

territory, they lack devoted people with skills in all the countless

branches of social activity... therefore they are always forced to

postpone action, until they are almost reluctantly pushed to the

government by the popular uprising. However, once in power, they would

like to stay there indefinitely, therefore they try to slow down,

divert, stop the revolution that raised them.

On the contrary, we have indeed an ideal we fight for and would like to

see realized, but we do not believe that an ideal of freedom, of

justice, of love can be realized through the government violence.

We do not want to get in power neither we want anyone else to do so. If

we cannot prevent governments from existing and being established, due

to our lack of strength, we strive, and always will, to keep or make

such governments as weak as possible. Therefore we are always ready to

take action when it comes to overthrowing or weakening a government,

without worrying too much (I say ‘too much’, not ‘at all’) about what

will happen thereafter.

For us violence is only of use and can only be of use in driving back

violence. Otherwise, when it is used to accomplish positive goals,

either it fails completely, or it succeeds in establishing the

oppression and the exploitation of the ones over the others.

The establishment and the progressive improvement of a society of free

men can only be the result of a free evolution; our task as anarchists

is precisely is to defend and secure the evolution’s freedom.

Here is our mission: demolishing, or contributing to demolish any

political power whatsoever, with all the series of repressive forces

that support it; preventing, or trying to prevent new governments and

new repressive forces from arising; in any case, refraining from ever

acknowledging any government, keeping always fighting against it,

claiming and requiring, even by force if possible, the right to organize

and live as we like, and experiment the forms of society that seem best

to us, as long as they do not prejudice the others’ equal freedom, of

course.

Beyond this struggle against the government imposition that bears the

capitalistic exploitation and makes it possible; once we had encouraged

and helped the masses to seize the existing wealth and particularly the

means of production; once the situation is reached whereby no one could

impose his wishes on others by force, nor take away from any man the

product of his labour, we could then only act through propaganda and by

example.

Destroy the institution and the machinery of existing social

organizations? Yes, certainly, if it is a question of repressive

institutions; but these are, after all, only a small part of the complex

of social life. The police, the army, the prisons, and the judiciary are

potent institutions for evil, which exercise a parasitic function. Other

institutions and organizations manage, for better or for worse, to

guarantee life to mankind; and these institutions cannot be usefully

destroyed without replacing them by something better.

The exchange of raw material and goods, the distribution of foodstuffs,

the railways, postal services and all public services administered by

the State or by private companies, have been organized to serve

monopolistic and capitalist interests, but they also serve real needs of

the population. We cannot disrupt them (and in any case the people would

not in their own interests allow us to) without reorganizing them in a

better way. And this cannot be achieved in a day; nor as things stand,

have we the necessary abilities to do so. We are delighted therefore if

in the meantime, others act, even with different criteria from our own.

Social life does not admit of interruptions, and the people want to live

on the day of the revolution, on the morrow and always.

Woe betide us and the future of our ideas if we shouldered the

responsibility of a senseless destruction that compromised the

continuity of life!

During the discussion of such topics, the issue of money, which is of

the greatest importance, was raised in Bienne.

It is customary in our circles to offer a simplistic solution to the

problem by saying that money must be abolished. And this would be the

solution if it were a question of an anarchist society, or of a

hypothetical revolution to take place in the next hundred years, always

assuming that the masses could become anarchist and communist before the

conditions under which we live had been radically changed by a

revolution.

But today the problem is complicated in quite a different way.

Money is a powerful means of exploitation and oppression; but it is also

the only means (apart from the most tyrannical dictatorship or the most

idyllic accord) so far devised by human intelligence to regulate

production and distribution automatically.

For the moment, rather than concerning oneself with the abolition of

money, perhaps one should seek a way to ensure that money truly

represents the useful work performed by its possessors.

Anyway, let us come to the immediate practice, which is the issue that

was actually discussed in Bienne.

Let us assume that a successful insurrection takes place tomorrow.

Anarchy or no anarchy, the people must go on eating and providing for

all their basic needs. The large cities must be supplied with

necessities more or less as usual.

If the peasants and carriers, etc., refuse to supply goods and services

for nothing, and demand payment in money which they are accustomed to

considering as real wealth, what does one do? Oblige them by force? In

which case we might as well wave goodbye to anarchism and to any

possible change for the better. Let the Russian experience serve as a

lesson.

And so?

The comrades generally reply: But the peasants will understand the

advantages of communism or at least of the direct exchange of goods for

goods.

This is all very well; but certainly not in a day, and the people cannot

stay without eating for even a day.

I did not mean to propose solutions.

What I do want to do is to draw the comrades’ attention to the most

important questions which we shall be faced with in the reality of a

revolutionary morrow.

Let the comrades contribute their clarifications on the issue; and do

not let friend and comrade Colomer be outraged or indignant.

If these issues are novel for him, getting so much scared by novelties

is not like an anarchist.

Further Thoughts on Revolution in Practice

My latest article on this topic drew the attention of many comrades and

procured me numerous questions and remarks.

Perhaps I was not clear enough; perhaps I also disturbed the mental

habits of some, who love to rest on traditional formulas more than

tormenting their brain, and are bothered by anything that forces them to

think.

In any case I will try to make myself clearer, and I will be happy if

those who consider what I say quite heretical will enter the discussion

and contribute to define a practical program of action, which can be

used as a guide in the next social upheavals.

So far our propagandists have been mainly concerned with criticizing the

present society and demonstrating the desirability and possibility of a

new social order based on free agreement, in which everyone could find

the conditions for the greatest material, spiritual and intellectual

development, in brotherhood and solidarity and with the fullest freedom.

They strove above all to inflame with the idea of a condition of

individual and social perfection, called ‘utopia’ by some and ‘ideal’ by

us; they did a good and necessary work, because they set the goal to

which our efforts must aim, but they (we) were insufficient and almost

indifferent with respect to the search of ways and means that can lead

us to that goal. We were very much concerned with the necessity of

radically destroying the bad social institutions, but we did not pay

enough attention to the positive actions that we needed to take, or let

others take, on the day and the morrow of the destruction, in order for

individual and social life to be able to continue in the best possible

way. We thought, or we acted as we thought, that things would fix

themselves, by natural law, without any will consciously intervening to

direct the efforts towards the goal previously set. This is probably the

reason of the relative unsuccess of our work.

It is about time to look upon the problem of social transformation in

all its broad complexity, and try to examine more closely the practical

side of the issue. The revolution could happen tomorrow, and we must

enable ourselves to act within it in the most effective possible way.

Since at this transitory time the triumphant reaction prevents us from

doing much to broaden our propaganda among the masses, let us use our

time to examine more closely and clarify our ideas about what is to be

done, while we try, by wishes and deeds, to hasten the time of acting

and accomplishing.

I based my remarks upon two principles:

First: Anarchy cannot be made by force. Anarchist communism, applied in

its full breadth and with all its beneficial effects, is only possible

when it is understood and wanted by large popular masses that embrace

all the elements necessary to creating a society superior to the present

one. One can conceive selected groups, whose members live in

relationships of voluntary and free association among them and with

similar groups, and it will be good that such groups exist, and it will

be our task to create them as experiments and examples; however, such

groups will not constitute the anarchist communist society, yet, rather

they will be cases of devotion and sacrifice for the cause, until they

succeed in involving all or large part of the population. Therefore, on

the morrow of the violent revolution, if it has to come to a violent

revolution, it will not be a matter of accomplishing anarchist

communism, but one of setting off towards anarchist communism.

Second: the conversion of the masses to anarchy and communism — and even

to the mildest form of socialism — is not possible as long as the

present social and economic conditions last. Since such conditions,

which keep workers slave for the benefit of those privileged, are

preserved and perpetuated by brutal force, it is necessary to change

them violently through the revolutionary action of conscious minorities.

Hence, if the principle is granted that anarchy cannot be made by force,

without the conscious will of the masses, the revolution cannot be made

to accomplish anarchy directly and immediately, but rather to create the

conditions that make a rapid evolution towards anarchy possible.

The following sentence is often repeated: “The revolution will be

anarchist or will not be at all”. This claim may look very

“revolutionary”, very “anarchist”; however, it is actually nonsense,

when it is not a means, worse than reformism itself, to paralyze good

will and induce people to keep quiet, to peacefully put up with the

present, waiting for the forthcoming heaven.

Evidently, either “the anarchist revolution” will be anarchist or it

will not be at all. However, did not revolutions happen in the world,

when the possibility of an anarchist society was yet to be conceived?

Won’t any revolution ever happen again until the masses are converted to

anarchism? As we fail to convert to anarchism the masses brutalized by

their life conditions, should we give up any revolution and submit to

living in a monarchical and bourgeois regime?

The truth is that the revolution will be what it may be, and our task is

to speed it up as much as possible and strive to make it as radical as

possible.

However, let us be quite clear.

The revolution will not be anarchist if the masses are not anarchist, as

unfortunately it is presently the case. However, we are anarchists, we

must remain anarchists and act like anarchists before, during and after

the revolution.

Without the anarchists, without the anarchists’ activity, if the

anarchists accepted any kind of government whatsoever and any so called

transition constitution, the next revolution would bear new forms of

oppression and exploitation even worse than the present, instead of

marking a progress of freedom and justice and the start of a complete

liberation of mankind. At best, it would only bring about a shallow

improvement, largely delusive and by no means adequate to the effort,

the sacrifices, the pain of a revolution, such as expected in a more or

less near future.

After contributing to overthrow the present regime, our task is to

prevent, or try to prevent a new government form arising; failing to do

that, at least we must struggle to prevent the new government from being

exclusive and concentrating all social power in its hands; it must

remain weak and unsteady, it must not be able to have enough military

and financial strength, and it must be acknowledged and obeyed as little

as possible. In any case, we anarchist should never take part in it,

never acknowledge it, and always fight against it as we fight against

the present government.

We must stay with the masses, encourage them to act directly, to take

possession of the production means and organize the work and the product

distribution, to occupy housing, to perform public services without

waiting for resolutions or commands from higher-ranking authorities. We

must contribute to such work with all our forces, and to that end we

must immediately start to engage in acquiring as many skills as

possible.

However, as we must uncompromisingly oppose all restraining and

repressing bodies and everything that tends to forcibly hinder the will

of the people and the freedom of minorities, so we must take care not to

destroy those things and disorganize those useful services that we

cannot replace in a better way.

We must remember that violence, unfortunately necessary to resist

violence, is no use to build anything good: it is the natural enemy of

freedom, the procreator of tyranny, therefore it must be kept within the

limits of strict necessity.

Revolution is useful, necessary to tear down the violence of governments

and privileged people; however, the establishment of a society of free

people can only result from a free evolution.

It is the task of the anarchists to watch over the freedom of evolution,

which is always at risk as long as men are thirsty for domination and

privileges.

A question of great, vital importance, nay, the question that must stand

out on the revolutionaries’ minds, is food.

There was a time when the prejudice spread out that industrial and farm

products were so abundant that it would be possible to live on

stockpiles for long, postponing the organization of production to a

later time, after the accomplishment of the social transformation. It

made an inviting propaganda item to be able to say: “People are out of

everything, while everything abounds and the warehouses overflow with

every good; people die of starvation and wheat rots in the granaries”.

Things were made so much simpler. An expropriation was enough to secure

the well-being of everyone: there would be plenty of time to deal with

all the rest.

Unfortunately, quite the opposite is true.

Everything is running out, and a bad harvest, or some major disaster, is

enough to cause a complete shortage and the impossibility to provide to

everyone’s needs, even within the limits imposed by capitalism to the

popular masses.

It is true that the production capacity has become almost unlimited,

thanks to the means nowadays provided by mechanics, chemistry,

scientific work organization, etc.

However, it’s one thing to be able to produce and another to have

produced. Owners and capitalists do not sufficiently exploit the means

of production they own, and prevent other from exploiting them, partly

for incompetence and indifference, and largely because of a system that

often makes profits decrease with abundance and increase with shortage.

Because of the disorder inherent in the individualistic economy, there

are unbalances between one place and the other, overproduction crises,

etc., but all in all the general production is always on the verge of

famine.

As a consequence, we must bear in mind that on the morrow of the

revolution we shall be faced with the danger of hunger. This is not a

reason for delaying the revolution, because the state of production

will, with minor variations, remain the same, so long as the capitalist

system lasts.

But it is a reason for us to pay attention to the problem and of how in

a revolutionary situation, to avoid all waste, to preach the need for

reducing consumption to a minimum, and to take immediate steps to

increase production, especially of food.

This is a topic about which some essays already exist, but which needs

to be investigated more thoroughly, mainly focusing on the technical

means to bring the quantity of food to the level of needs.[1]

[1] I will soon come back to the issue of money.