and I hope it will prove to be a sound platform for discussion and propaganda, and an effective means of rallying and binding together our party’s sparse ranks.
You can count on my help insofar as my all too meager powers will allow.
For the present, just to prepare the ground for future collaboration, I shall write you about a few matters that, though of personal concern to me, are not without some bearing upon propaganda generally.
* * *
Our comrade Merlino, who is, as you know, engaged at present in the vain task of reconciling Anarchism and Parliamentarism, writes a letter to the “Messaggero,” wherein he asserts that Parliamentarism is not destined to die out; that something of it will be left in the free society of our dreams. In this letter he reminds me of a communication I wrote to the Anarchist conference of Chicago in 1893, in which I assert: “For some things the opinions of the majority will, of necessity, prevail over the opinions of the minority.”126 The statement is true; as a matter of fact I made it then, and my ideas have not changed since. But in taking a statement of mine out of its context, Merlino leaves the meaning of what I wanted to say unclear and indefinite. Let me now give it for the sake of clearness. At that time there were many Anarchists, and even at present there are a few, who, mistaking the form for the essence, and laying more stress on words than on things, made for themselves a sort of ritual of “true” anarchism, which held them in bondage, which paralyzed their power of action, and even led them to make absurd and grotesque assertions. Thus going from the principle: The majority has no right to impose its will on the minority; they came to the conclusion that nothing should ever be done without the unanimous consent of all concerned. But as they had condemned political elections, which serve only to choose a master, they could not use the ballot as a mere expression of opinion, and considered every form of voting as anti-anarchistic. Thus, for instance: A meeting was called to protest against some act of aggression on the part of the government or of some employer, that is, at a given moment, to give expression to popular sympathy. The people came, listened to the speeches pro and con, and then went home again, without having expressed their opinions because the only way of expressing them at the different stages of the programme would have been to vote upon the different propositions before the meeting—and voting would not have been Anarchistic! Another instance: A society wished to publish a circular; various texts were proposed, which divided the opinions of the comrades; endless were the discussions, but never could it be discovered what was the general opinion, because it was forbidden to vote, and finally the circular was either not issued at all or the society was dissolved, or a few issued the circular on their own account, although, in reality no real difference existed, the only questions being minor matters of style or detail. And as a result of this custom, which they called guaranteeing freedom, was that a few who were better speakers, or more clever fellows, created or dissolved the societies, whereas the great mass had nothing whatever to say about it.
Another result, much more serious and for the Anarchistic movement almost fatal, was this, that the Anarchists did not regard themselves as bound by the solidarity of labor, and conducted themselves as “scabs.” For the strike was decided by a majority vote, and so far did this go that they did not even revolt when certain leaders (I can give names, if necessary), calling themselves Anarchists, demanded and received money from employers to fight strikes—in the name of Anarchy. Against these and similar practices my letter to Chicago was directed. I assert that no social life would be possible if we should never undertake any united action without unanimous agreement. That, furthermore, ideas and opinions are in a constant state of development, and differentiate themselves by means of imperceptibly minute changes, whereas practical realizations take place in great steps: so that if ever a day were to come when every one were agreed upon the merits and demerits of a given subject, that would mean that for this matter, all possible improvement would be exhausted. If a railroad, for instance, were under consideration, there would certainly be a thousand questions as to the line of the road, the grade, the material, the type of the engines, the location of the stations, etc., etc., and opinions on all these subjects would change from day to day, but if we wish to finish the railroad we certainly cannot go on changing everything from day to day, and if it is impossible to exactly suit everybody, it is certainly better to suit the greatest possible number; always, of course, with the understanding that the minority has all possible opportunity to advocate its ideas to afford them all possible facilities and materials to experiments, to demonstrate, and to try to become a majority.
So in all matters not amenable to several solutions running simultaneously, or where differences of opinion are not so great as to make it worthwhile parting company, with each faction doing as it will, or where the duty of solidarity imposes unity, it is reasonable, fair, and necessary for the minority to defer to the majority.127
But the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity, must never be made a principle, a law, which must, therefore, be applied to all cases, even when there is no necessity for it. And just here is the difference between Anarchy and any kind of government. The whole social life is filled up with cases where one must give up something that he would like, so as not to injure others. For instance: I go into a cafe; I find my favourite place occupied, and quietly go elsewhere, and perhaps even suffer from a draught, which is not good for me. I note from the manner in which people speak that they don’t want me to hear their conversation, and keep away, possibly to my own inconvenience, in order not to incommode them.
But all this I do because my instinct as a social being prompts me, my habits of living among people and my interest tells me to behave so, for if I were to act otherwise, those whom I annoy would very soon give me to understand in one way or another what disadvantages there are in being illbred. But I don’t want lawmakers to come and prescribe my conduct in a cafe, nor do I believe that all the laws they might make could teach me good manners as quickly as I could learn them in the world in which I live and am a part.
How does Merlino manage to find in all this an admission that there will be a fragment of Parliamentarism in the world which we strive for?128
Parliamentarism is a form of government in which those elected by the people, assembled as a law-making body, pass by majority vote whatever laws they please and foist these upon the people, using all the means of coercion available to them.
Is it some remnant of this stuff that Merlino would have survive, even in Anarchy? Or, since Parliament is all talk, discussion and deliberation, and such things will always take place in any possible society, is Merlino calling these things a remnant of parliamentarism?
But that really would be playing with words, and Merlino is capable of other and much more serious ways of debating.
Can Merlino not remember when, arguing together against those anarchists who are averse to any congress because they contend that congresses are a form of parliamentarism, we used to claim that the essence of parliamentarism is that parliaments make and impose laws, whereas an anarchist congress merely debates and proposes resolutions that have no executive implications until they have received the endorsement of the mandatories and then only for those of them that endorse them?
Or have words changed their meanings now that Merlino has changed his mind?129
* * *
Osvaldo Gnocchi Viani, speaking in Lotta di Classe about the discussion between myself and Merlino about the electoral struggle, says that Merlino and I “have parted from the anarcho-individualist stock and have evolved towards the method of organization and political action,” and therefore concludes that Merlino and I have evolved along similar lines, with the only difference that one has travelled further than the other and that I am neither able nor willing to “push that far,” that is, as far as embracing electoral tactics.130
All of these misconceptions might be understandable in someone utterly ignorant of the history of our movement in Italy: but, coming from Gnocchi Viani, they are really surprising
