is our belief that referring to the trading of services and distribution of social roles, without which there could be no society, as parliamentarism or a remnant of parliamentarism is an unreasonable tinkering with the accepted usage of the word and cannot help but cloud and confuse the issue.
Parliamentarism is a form of government; and government means legislative power, executive power, and judicial power; it means violence, coercion, forcible imposition of the will of the governors upon the governed.
An example will make our thinking plain.
The various states in Europe and around the world connect with one another, have their representatives to one another, organize international services, call congresses, explicitly or tacitly agree upon certain rights for the people, make peace or war without there being any world Government, any legislative power making the laws for every state, and any executive power imposing it upon them all.
These days, relations between the various states are still largely rooted in violence and in suspicion. Added to the lingering atavism of historic rivalries, racial and religious hatreds and the spirit of conquest, there is the economic rivalry generated by capitalism, so that the threat of war hangs over us every day and every day we watch as the bigger states do violence to the smaller.
But which of us would dare argue that, in order to rectify this state of affairs, every state would need to appoint representatives who, gathered together, would sort out between them and by majority vote the principles of international law and criminal sanctions to be used against transgressors, and little by little would lay down the law on every state-to-state issue; and be able to call upon a force to ensure that their decisions were abided by?
That would amount to parliamentarism applied to international relations; and, far from introducing harmony between the interests of the various states and banishing the causes of conflicts, the tendency would be for it to consolidate the ascendancy of the strongest and conjure up a new class of international exploiters and oppressors. Something of the sort already exists in germ in the “concert” of the great powers, and the freedom-murdering impact of that is there for us all to see.
* * *
And now, for a few more words about the issue of electoral abstentionism.
Merlino persists in talking about the propaganda activity that might be pursued by means of elections; but fails to consider what might happen if, repudiating electioneering, such activity was to be pursued in another theater more congruent with our principles and our purposes.
Merlino does not believe in capturing public office; but we cannot see any such capture being made, neither by ourselves nor by anyone else, not even if we were to believe it feasible. We are opposed to the principle of government and do not believe that anyone coming to government would then be in any hurry to surrender the power captured. The peoples who want freedom tear down the Bastilles; tyrants, on the other hand, wish to garrison and strengthen them, on the pretext of defending the people from their enemies. Hence it is not our wish that the people should get used to hoisting their friends, or alleged friends, into power and look to their rise to power for emancipation.
To us, abstentionism is a matter of tactics; but one of such importance that, when one foreswears it, one finishes up foreswearing one’s principles as well. Because of the natural connection between means and ends.
Merlino is sorry that he cannot see eye to eye completely, neither with us nor with the democratic socialists; but he says that he cannot renege upon what he has said.
We are certainly not asking him to renege upon it and go against his beliefs and his conscience. But permit us to make this observation to him.
No matter how good it may be, a tactic only has value to the extent that it is embraced by those tasked with implementing it. Now, rightly or wrongly, we and every other anarchist want no truck with the tactic being put forward by Merlino. Would he not be better sticking with us, with whom he shares his ideals and his chief methods of struggle, instead of squandering his efforts on a venture that we are sure will get nowhere, unless he turns his back on anarchy and looks to the ranks of his and our opponents for his supporters?
145 “From London. For the Record,” see p. 19.
Filth
Translated from “Cose sporche,”
L’Agitazione (Ancona) 1, no. 3 (March 28, 1897).
From Marsala we have received a newsletter signed by Antonino Azzaretti, inviting socialists and anarchists to cast their votes for Crispi’s well-known henchman Abele Damiani, and proclaiming him “a proud man of integrity, a long-time revolutionary, his soul tempered by struggles in which he has never bent the knee.”
For several years now Antonino Azzaretti has been describing himself as an anarchist and he has been the editor of the Marsala newspapers Il Proletario and Il Proletariato, which have much helped sow the bad seed of confusion and corruption in anarchist ranks.
He is the one who argued that the true anarchist should think only of himself; who said that the feature of the true anarchist should be incoherence; who preached individualism and disorganization; who opposed the workers’ Fasci in Sicily, and who, when Giolitti threatened to disband them, was elated and exclaimed: “That will teach peasants the damage that organization can do!”146
And at the same time, when a friend of ours remonstrated with him, he wrote: “I stand ready to steer this paper in whatever direction you choose, if you will commit to furnish the copy and the cash.”
And now—in a fitting end to such a career—behold him acting as agent for Crispi’s party, and all still in the name of socialism and anarchy and in the supposed “interests of the cause.”
We dislike personality issues and our purpose is to keep at all times to the level-headed terrain of discussion and propagation of ideas, but in certain circumstances, the personal attack becomes a duty.
At all costs, we must rid ourselves of these knaves who have infiltrated our ranks. No longer is it a matter here of tactics or principles; it is a matter of sincerity and personal integrity. There should be no one among us who has sold out or who is on the market for sale.
A party, any body of men, that fails to spew out such rottenness, in a simple reflex of revulsion, can have no claim to the respect and regard of the public, much less advocate for a new era of nobler social living.
146 The workers’ Fasci was a movement of peasants, miners, and industrial workers that arose in Sicily in 1893. It started with economic demands but escalated into a revolt, with strikes, attacks on city halls, destruction of custom-houses, and a refusal to pay taxes. The word “fasci” is the plural for “fascio” (bundle), a term that symbolized the strength of union and bore no relation but etymological with the later Fascist movement.
Endorsements for the
Abstentionist Manifesto
Translated from “Adesioni al manifesto astensionista,”
L’Agitazione (Ancona) 1, no. 3 (March 28, 1897).
We would urge those who approve of the manifesto and who have yet to give notice of their support to do so as soon as possible.
Some
