hands of the Greek king’s men and the forces of the European coalition. Its fate lies in the hands of the diplomats: the steadfastness of the rebels may afford the king of Greece a chance to dig in his heels and secure annexation; but the intervention of a few foreign volunteers, even were it to be allowed, can carry no weight. Our comrades’ heroism would assuredly be pointless and might indeed prove cheap heroics, boiling down to a simple excursion trip.
To Macedonia and Epirus, that is where the volunteers should be directed today.112
But they would need to be able to go in sufficient numbers and strength to pursue a policy of their own. Otherwise, few in number and mixed in with the Greek bands, not knowing the language, we would not only have to do the bidding of the king of Greece but also impotently witness the inevitable slaughter of Turkish peasants; because, and let us not forget this, over yonder, besides the hatred for the oppressor that we ourselves share, there is racial and religious hatred, with which is alien to us.
We ask our friends: if it were a matter liberating Trieste, would they go if the only way of doing so would be enlisting under the King’s colors or under Imbriani’s?113
Given what we have said, it seems to us that in the actual circumstances, our own and those over there, there is nothing we can do.
Let us take solace from that. There is so much that we could be doing, if we wish, against Italy’s Turks!
111 The Greek revolt against Turkish rule on the island of Candia (these days, Crete) was the overture to the Greco-Turkish War. A legion of volunteers, led by Ricciotti Garibaldi took part in the war, which had triggered a pro-Greek solidarity campaign in Italy. Amilcare Cipriani, revolutionary of anarchist leanings, led his own volunteer unit, which included the socialists and anarchists to whom Malatesta is referring in his article.
112 The liberation of Macedonia and Epirus from Ottoman domination was the Greek nationalists’ main objective. Raids of Greek irregular bands into Macedonian territory occurred in the previous months, and a Greek uprising in those regions seemed a possibility.
113 Former Garibaldian and deputy, Matteo Renato Imbriani was a fiery advocate of the rescue of “terre irredente” (unredeemed territories), a term he himself coined in 1877, with reference to the northern cities of Trento and Trieste, which remained under Austrian domination after the unification of Italy.
Anarchy and Parliamentarism
(Reply to Saverio Merlino)
Translated from “Anarchia e parlamentarismo
(Risposta a Saverio Merlino),” L’Agitazione (Ancona) 1,
no. 1 (March 14, 1897).
The parliamentarists are celebrating: to listen to them, the abstentionists are no more, because… Merlino has been converted to election contests. They believe that the anarchists blindly follow such-and-such a fellow, as is actually and often the case with themselves; whereas we contend that Merlino will be on his own and will have to look outside the anarchist camp for followers, because anarchist principles cannot be squared with the tactics for which he argues. Meanwhile, let it be noted that, so far, not a single known anarchist has come out in support of Merlino’s thinking.
Merlino denies (see Avanti! of March 9) that the parliamentary political struggle runs counter to anarchist socialist principles.114
Let us be clear about this.
What runs counter to our principles is parliamentarism, in all its guises and degrees. And we contend that the electoral and parliamentary contest amounts to schooling in parliamentarism and winds up making parliamentarists of all its practitioners.
Merlino, who it seems is still calling himself an anarchist, yet who keeps expressing reservations about completely and entirely doing away with parliamentarism and who articulates a newfound belief in the possibility of a government that may be a servant to the people and that can be let go when it fails to do its duty or when its handiwork is no longer required, would need above all else to explain to us what this parliamentary anarchy of his would look like.115 Thus far and in the final analysis, anarchist socialism has been nothing but anti-parliamentary socialism. If the anti-parliamentary is to be dropped, why carry on styling it anarchist?
The abstention of anarchists should not be confused with that of, say, the republicans. To the latter, abstention is a straightforward matter of tactics: they abstain when they reckon the revolution is imminent and when they have no wish to distract from the preparations for revolution; they vote when they have nothing better to do, and their “better” is a narrow idea, given that for reasons of class they shy away from campaigns subversive of social order. In reality, they are always within the straight and narrow: they seek a parliamentary government, and the voters they win over now are likely to vote them into the constituent assembly some day.
In our case, on the other hand, abstention is closely bound with our party’s purpose. Come the revolution (thousands of years from now, of course, let the king’s Prosecutor heed),116 we want to refuse to recognize the new governments that will try to ensconce themselves and refuse to award anyone a legislative mandate. Hence, we need the people to feel repulsed by elections, to refuse to look to others for the organization of the new state of affairs, and thus be obliged to do for themselves.
We should make sure that the workers, starting right now insofar as possible, become accustomed, in all manner of associations, to handling their own affairs, rather than giving encouragement to any inclination they might have to entrust these to others.
For the time being, Merlino is still saying that elections should serve as opportunities for agitation, that the socialists elected should not function as law makers, and that the important struggle should be waged among the people, outside parliament.
But just listen to his friends at Avanti! They are logical. They seek power—in order to do the people good, we have no doubt—and so they have an interest in schooling the people in the appointment of their deputies and in getting used, themselves, to governing.117
But what is Merlino getting at? Is he to be torn forever between yes and no, between making up and not making up his mind?
Given his man-of-action temperament he will assuredly come to a decision, and, we believe—and this genuinely pains us—his decision will be to toss any remnant of anarchism overboard and become a parliamentarist plain and simple.
The telltale symptoms of his ultimate decision are already there to be seen.
In his first letter to Il Messaggero, the parliamentary struggle was merely an episode of meager importance. In his second letter, the resistance societies, the co-operatives, and the rest are floundering and there is nothing for it but to turn to Parliament.118 In his first letter, the anarchists should have been voting others into Parliament, but not going there themselves; in the article in Avanti, he now says that there are so many splendid things the deputies could be doing that it would be an act of outright betrayal for us to refuse to do our bit as well. And then there is the talk of having oneself arrested with the people. How could one miss such a splendid chance to sacrifice oneself for the people?
Merlino, and we are convinced of this on the basis of our acquaintance with him, is being sincere when he states that he has no wish to enter Parliament. But the logic of his position will get the better of him and into Parliament he will go… should they decide to send him.
*
