of the best informed and usually most level-headed, well-balanced men.
Parted from the anarcho-individualist stock! When have Merlino and I ever been individualists? And what on earth is this anarcho-individualist stock? In Italy, all anarchists were long socialists, indeed socialism here was born anarchist, nearly thirty years ago. Gnocchi Viani must remember that. So-called anarchist “individualism” came along much later, and in both Merlino and I, it has met with an adversary.
Evolved towards the method of organization and political action! But which of us has ever stopped acknowledging and advocating for the overriding necessity of organization and of political struggle? On the first count, we have always argued that the abolition of government and capitalism is feasible only once the people, organizing themselves, are equipped to perform those social functions performed today—and exploited to their own advantage—by rulers and capitalists. Therefore, wanting no government, we have more reason than anyone else to be warm in our advocacy of organization.
And on the second point, who has outdone us in arguing that the battle against capitalism has to be harnessed to the fight against the State, meaning the political struggle?
There is a school of thought these days in which political struggle means achieving public office through elections: but Gnocchi Viani must be aware that logic forces other methods of struggle upon those seeking to do away with government, rather than capture it.
Merlino and I have been in agreement on pointing out the mistakes that, according to us, had wormed their way into anarchist theories and the woes that had afflicted our party—and Merlino, I am pleased to acknowledge, has invested more effort there than I have. But now that the woes bemoaned by us are acknowledged by just about everybody, when the mistakes are beginning to be shunned and party organization starting in earnest, raising our hopes, Merlino believes that he has found salvation in the electoral approach, which, from long experience, has already proved such a great blight upon the socialist cause and he deserts us. Too bad. We shall carry on regardless, without him.
This is not to say that we have travelled somewhat further or somewhat less along the same road, but rather that, together, we travelled a certain road and then, having come to a fork in the road, we parted company, each going in our own direction. Wouldn’t Gnocchi Viani agree?
* * *
Here in London we have set up a Social Studies Circle into which “all who mean to fight the bourgeoisie” are welcomed, and we hope to be able to do good propaganda work, although the Italian element over here is one of the most impervious.
On this score, by way of “correspondence from London,” Milan’s Lotta di Classe a few weeks ago or thereabouts, published a parcel of lies, insults, and calumnies that offer a very good insight into the sectarianism of some people who then level accusations of intolerance and sectarianism at us. According to Lotta, “the anarchists, with Malatesta” apparently went to a socialist meeting in order to provoke violent arguments and yet again showed that, rather than fighting the bourgeoisie, the anarchists have a tendency to obstruct socialism’s progress. In spite of this, however, the meeting allegedly passed a resolution affiliating to the Italian Socialist Party and constituted itself as a branch of the party.131
The facts are, rather, as follows:
At the invitation of the promoters of that meeting, we attended with the intention of proposing that a Social Studies Circle be formed among the socialists of every hue, in order to mount propaganda on behalf of generic socialism and to promote the establishment of resistance societies among the Italians. Let anarchists, we stated, organize with other anarchists, parliamentarists with other parliamentarists; but one and all could cooperate on all matters on which they see eye to eye. Unfortunately, in dealing with the mass of London Italians, there is a long way to go before reaching the point where anarchists and non-anarchists take different views.
Instead, the promoters offered the statute of the Italian party for approval. We asked for some prior discussion of its program, but the response was that this was a gathering of socialists, and the program could be assumed to be accepted. Our response was that we were well known as anarchists and, having invited us, they could hardly have assumed that we would endorse their program. At which point, somewhat confused, they said that they had invited us “by mistake.” We replied that since we were there due to some mistake on their part, courtesy made it their duty to debate with us; that if they then meant to drive us from the hall we would go, but would be within our rights to regard them as ill-mannered and rude people.
Two of the five promoters said that we were right: the other three protested that they had no intention of driving us away but insisted upon their statute’s being endorsed.
The motion was put to a vote, and attracted barely 5 or 6 votes from the fifty-odd present, and that included the votes of the promoters. As a result, the promoters wound up the meeting, stating very appropriately that they would hold another meeting exclusively with those who were in agreement with them over setting up a branch of the party.
We then moved that, party differences aside, a Social Studies Circle be set up as neutral ground where all might come together to debate and engage in whatever ventures might suit both parties. This motion was accepted by anarchists and non-anarchists alike and, with everyone’s agreement, the Circle was launched.
How come Lotta di Classe misrepresents the facts the way it does, and seizes opportunity for mischief-making innuendo? Its correspondent in London, a member of the Circle as we are, states that he wrote the facts and that the paper tampered with his correspondence. Is this a lie by the correspondent, or is it the editors in Milan who have such an odd grasp of journalistic integrity?
I have raised this issue, not because I place too much importance on the rabid lies of some anarchist-eater at Lotta, but because it strikes me as high time that the canard depicting anarchists as intolerant people incapable of respecting the freedom of others, a canard seized upon by those who dare not debate with us, is nipped in the bud.
Yours,
Errico Malatesta.
124 The location reference is untrue, for by then Malatesta was already in Ancona. In order to bolster this pretense, the March 21 issue of L’Agitazione carried this item in its Piccola Posta (editorial mail) section: “London, E.M.—Received. Your articles must reach us no later than Tuesday.”
125 The second of the four sections that comprise this article was translated as “Enrico Malatesta to Saverio Merlino,” Solidarity (New York) 1, no. 16 (July 15, 1898). The translation was to be continued, but the periodical ceased publication with this issue. We have used this translation, integrating it with an original translation of the remaining sections.
126 Merlino’s letter to Il Messaggero in reply to Malatesta’s response to that paper was published on February 10, 1897. The Chicago conference took place in September 1893. Malatesta and Merlino each contributed to the debate from London, where both were living.
127 This paragraph is missing from the Solidarity translation.
128 The Solidarity translation ends at this point.
129 The first part of the original article ends at this point.
