and regional organization and liaise with one another by means of free, ad hoc groups and by means of the press and individual correspondence.149
It is undeniable that this gap exists. It is not for us to judge who is right or wrong; that is better left to Time who is a gentleman; so I shall not waste a single word to prove that I am right and coherent with my past in belonging to the ranks of the libertarians.
But whilst we are divided and cannot be friends, we also ought to respect one another and ensure that there are no slandered and slanderers among us.
Because whoever joins us in good faith neither can nor should slander others the way the London single issue “Anarchia” has done.150
Slanderers deserve the punishment reserved for…
We ought to convince ourselves that among the anarchists there are no mischief-makers, on the simple basis that the mischief-maker is not and cannot be an anarchist.
Together with the cretins, the mischief-makers make up the ruling group, and one name for them is as good as any other, but they are certainly no comrades of ours.
But, I will be asked, how are we to distinguish between the mischief-makers and the anarchists? Easy, I reply. The mischief-makers are out for themselves, like the bourgeois, and anarchists are out for themselves and for others. The former are egoists and the latter altruists.
My conclusion: our theater of operations is huge and each of us can pursue whatever work he thinks best, without seeking to act as father…
A handshake from yours,
Icilio Parrini151
We have published this letter—editing out only a few phrases lest we become a platform for old resentments and be dragged into personal squabbles that do no service to the cause—because we know Parrini to be a prickly fellow, to be sure, but one who is, deep down, kindly and sincere, and because it provides us with an opportunity to sort out a number of matters over which anarchists argue and on which real differences of opinion are complicated and overshadowed by thousands of misunderstandings and battles over words.
We agree with Parrini that the difference between the socialist anarchists and the other motley factions that equally claim the name of anarchists is great and serious. However, his classification strikes us as incomplete and mistaken. In particular, the name libertarians which he would employ for those on his side strikes us as likely to generate further confusions because the term is accepted and used by all anarchists and, outside of Italy, is especially favored by those desirous of steering clear of the label “anarchist,” precisely because they are afraid of being lumped with anarchists from the faction that Parrini favors.
In our next issues, we shall be dealing with the various currents existing within the anarchist movement, and setting out our views on organization, “individualism,” etc., in part because we are keen to explain ourselves on all these matters that are debated within our camp, so that we may then be free to devote ourselves to the popular propaganda that is the specific purpose behind our publication.
In the meantime, we shall answer those of Parrini’s claims that are most strikingly mistaken.
Parrini says that the socialist anarchists accept the collective deed and reject the individual deed. We know of no comrade of ours who would subscribe to this claim.
Assuming that all else is equal, the collective deed is more important than individual deeds, but none of us measures the morality of any deed by the numbers of those who carry it out. A good action is every bit as good and may be more praiseworthy when done by one individual as if it were done by a hundred thousand.
We take exception to certain deeds that strike us as hurtful and harmful because of the deeds per se rather than their having been carried out by one man acting alone. One’s assessment of a given deed may vary, both on account of the intelligence and temperament of those assessing it, and on account of one’s more or less complete knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the deed. But no matter what the deed may be, it cannot be deduced from it that other, similar deeds are to be assessed similarly simply because of the number of perpetrators, or the accoutrements used, or other incidental factors.
This writer, for instance, disapproved of the Terminus Café outrage that so pleases Parrini, on the grounds that it struck him as unjust, vicious, and senseless—that being his assessment, not of Henry’s intentions and personality, since this writer is not well versed in guessing at psychology, but of the social implications of the objective action, which is to say, the good or bad that it managed to deliver to others. Whereas we can all agree on admiring so many acts of selflessness and self-sacrifice that have brought humankind glory and honor down through the ages.
We cannot delve into details, since—you never know!—it might be that we approve of some deed condemned by the Chief Prosecutor, who would then be quite capable of impounding us for glorifying… that which displeases him. But, with a modicum of good will, Parrini will get our point.
On the other hand, we were taught at school, and we believe that the aforementioned Procurator was too, that Pietro Micca was a hero!152
Let us move on to another point.
Parrini wants no mischief-makers in anarchist ranks, and he labels as slanderers and would like to see cruelly punished our London friends, who in the single issue L’Anarchia doubted whether we were all paragons of virtue.
If that doubt were unfounded, we would be very happy and we reckon the London ones would be too, even should the groundless suspicion cost them a puncture wound in the kidneys from an avenging dagger…153 But the problem is that Parrini raises a straightforward question of definition and definitions, be they good or bad, leave things just as they are, unfortunately. There are no mischief-makers among the anarchists “on the basis that the mischief-maker is not an anarchist.” Fine. Then we shall say—most readily—that mischief-makers purporting to be anarchists are false anarchists. But, that said, if there are mischief-makers, they still remain where they are!
By the way, what did the people around the London Anarchia say? They said that we had been infiltrated by poisonous elements who had nothing to do with anarchist ideas—and they strove to be rid of them, that is, to get it across to the public that these were no anarchists, but men who had stolen the anarchists’ clothing. The very point that Parrini makes! Parrini therefore needs to see that he would be well advised to weigh his opinion carefully before thinking about punishment… unless he belongs to that brand of “anarchists” who argue that an anarchist has no right to judge anybody, but has every right to condemn and kill.
One more thing. Parrini says that he saw Merlino’s evolution coming years ago. We, too, have been active in the anarchist camp for many years and we foresaw nothing, so we can but marvel at his perspicacity.
But a suspicion stings us. Back when Parrini foresaw Merlino’s evolution, Merlino subscribed to the very same ideas as we do. So in all likelihood Parrini also foresees us undergoing an evolution of the same sort, and, being a cautious prophet eager to keep his feet on solid ground, is waiting for the facts to prove him right before he says so. If that is the case, we wish him joy of it, but… heaven forbid!
To conclude, let Parrini know that we have no wish to act as father, or as mother to anybody, but we do want to be able to express our view on everything and everybody, and always will, as long as we deem it useful, with no fear, let him rest assured, of any threats of “punishment.” And in the meantime, let him practice that mutual respect so dear to his heart.154
148 The abbreviation “s.
