the Socialist Party becomes inside the Chamber—in proportion to its strength—the less it will be inclined or aware of the need to agitate across the country, so that the inevitable trend will be for it to turn into a party increasingly conducting its activities in a serenely law-abiding context.” And let them think about what a correspondent from Imola wrote to Avanti!, explaining Costa’s unexpected defeat on his home-town ticket in terms of the socialists’ having served in the town administration and their having failed to do anything for the people.
The parliamentary socialists make a promise they cannot keep, that many of them, once in power, would no longer intend to keep. May they stop their descent down this slippery slope!
In the meantime, it falls to anarchists to salvage socialism’s integrity and purity.
To work, comrades! The example of the socialists shows you what activism and consistent effort can achieve. Their work is certainly much easier, because their method calls for fewer sacrifices and has fewer dangers for the fighters; and because they are abetted by so many semi-deserters from the bourgeoisie who manage, in their ranks, to reconcile socialist aspirations with the shares and honors of bourgeois existence. Whereas we ask of any bourgeois who wish to travel with us that they sever all ties with the class from which they come and renounce a desire for personal pre-eminence.
But the results that we could achieve are all the greater and more authentic for it!
From a Matter of Tactics to a
Matter of Principles
Translated from “Da una questione di tattica ad una questione di principii,” L’Agitazione (Ancona) 1, no. 3 (March 28, 1897).
We received the following article from Saverio Merlino under the title above and we are pleased to publish it.
Merlino may rest assured that in us he will always encounter the level-headedness and unbiased love of truth that he wishes. Moreover, we agree with him that anarchists have often shown themselves to be intolerant and too quick to anger and to entertain suspicions, but in the enthusiasm of the mea culpas, there is no need to take all the blame ourselves and to forget that others most often set the example and provocation for us. Without harking back to Bakunin’s day and the infamous slanders and far-fetched lies with which youngsters unfamiliar with our history are still being regaled, we need only remember the conduct of the democratic socialists at recent international congresses vis à vis the anarchists, and certain articles carried, not so long ago, in the social democratic press in several countries.
In any event, whatever our adversaries may do and say, let us strive, if we may, to be fair.
Here is Merlino’s article:
Let us see if a continued debate free of anger and suspicion, such as it started out, is possible. It would be something of a novelty and such a good omen that I would rejoice at having offered my friends the chance to demonstrate that the anarchist party is beginning to educate itself in the observance of the principles that it professes.
And first of all, am I an anarchist?
My answer: if abstentionism is a dogma of anarchist faith, no. But then I do not believe in dogmas. The defense and exercise of our rights—no matter how slight—I do not believe to be at odds with our principles. I do not believe that in exercising the right to vote, which we have been granted, we are giving up on greater rights, which are denied us and which we should be demanding.
I believe that electoral agitation offers us the means and opportunity for propaganda, which would be folly to renounce especially in this hour and in Italy where virtually every other form of affirmation is banned, and I believe that the advocacy of abstention prevents us from best profiting from that opportunity. (We have seen this tested lately here in Rome where, by standing Galleani as a candidate, we were able to hold rallies, distribute manifestos, and win the sympathies of many who were hostile or indifferent to us—which we would never have been able to do had we remained abstentionists.) Besides, I do not believe in capturing public office: I contend that both the fight for freedom and the fight for economic emancipation have to be waged primarily outside of Parliament. I contend that the efforts of socialist and revolutionary labor deputies are useful, not per se, but in support of the extra-parliamentary struggle. And if, in thinking along such lines, I am not in perfect agreement with either the anarchists or the social democrats, I am honestly sorry for it, but can I unsay it?
It seems to me that by now pretty much everything that there is to say for and against participating in elections has been said. So, I am pleased that the issue has been hoisted by Malatesta on to a plane of principle, and partly for that reason, I am not at all sorry that I raised it.
There can be no denying that our principles—which are, if properly construed, true—are surrounded by a seething mess of mistakes and sophisms.
One of these is that men ought to do everything for themselves, individually; that one man should not have another represent him; that minorities should not defer to majorities (it being likelier that the latter are deluded than the opposite); that in the society to come, men will miraculously see eye to eye, or, if not, the dissidents will break away and each will act as he sees fit; that any other behavior would be contrary to our principles.
Here I should like to repeat verbatim the very fair and clear-sighted remarks that Malatesta makes (not for the first time, either) in the first issue of L’Agitazione against placing such a construction upon Anarchy, concluding with the words:
“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.”145
I must take issue with him on two counts, however. For one thing, Malatesta seems to believe that the matters upon which agreement is necessary—for the various reasons he puts forward—are all of little consequence. This is apparent from the examples he cites. I drop in at the café; I find the best seats taken: I have to make do with standing in the doorway or go away. I see some people talking in muffled tones: unless I want to be indiscreet I have to move away, and so on. I, on the other hand, believe (and Malatesta may well believe although he does not say) that among the matters on which agreement will be needed and, therefore, on which, unless we can get agreement from everybody, a compromise will have to be thrashed out, there are some very serious ones: and all matters relating to the overall organization of society and all major public interests fall under that heading. In a society, there may be somebody who thinks that revenge is just, but the majority is entitled to decide that it is unjust and to prevent it. There might be a minority that would rather organize the rail transport sector on a cooperative, collectivist, or communist basis, or on some other basis, but since there can be only one organization, the view of the greater number must prevail. There might be someone who finds oppressive the measures taken to prevent the spread of some contagious disease, but society is entitled to protect itself from outbreaks of disease.
The second point of disagreement between Malatesta and me is this: that I do not feel that I can prophesy that in the society of the future the minority will always and in every instance gladly defer to the opinions of the majority. Whereas Malatesta states:
“But the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will determined by a consciousness of necessity.”
And what if the will is not there? What if that awareness of a necessity is not to be found in the minority? What if the minority is, rather, persuaded of its duty to resist? Plainly the majority, unwilling to defer to the wishes of a minority, will lay down the law and give
