transport service, etc., and that therefore cannot degenerate into a means of oppression and domination.
Preparing for such forms and ensuring their success over the present authoritarian practice or the like constitutes the very mission of anarchist socialists. But they will not be carrying out that mission if they say that anarchy is only feasible once society has no further need of protection against crime—in that no more crimes will be committed.
Of the relations between one people and another you say: These days States make peace and war, abide by certain standards of justice in their dealings (people’s rights, etc.) without a Government, a Parliament, or an international police force. Why don’t you realize that there is a Government of Governments, that is, that Power or those Powers that command the greatest number of cannons and the largest numbers of men to load and defend them? And how can you not realize that the relations between people at present are in the embryonic stage and that trade treaties, postal, health and monetary conventions, and the so-called law of nations are the first sketch of an organization of international interests that will carry on expanding after today’s states have ceased to exist?
We should see to it that such organization takes place along federative, libertarian lines rather than deny its necessity and usefulness. Frankly, it seems to me that you still stand halfway between Individualism and socialism.
II.
And now let me return from the issue of principles to that of tactics.
In the editorial of no. 3, you turn to the recent elections and say:
“Frankly, we are greatly delighted by the socialists’ successes, because, no matter etc., it still goes to show that the idea of Socialism is gaining ground, that the numbers rebelling against the orders of master, priest, and policeman are on the rise and that, after all, this Italy is not really the land of the dead that it had appeared to be in recent years.”166
A valuable admission, which really surprises me. You abstentionists—who preach that a people that votes is surrendering its sovereignty into the hands of a few, now view the recent vote by Italian electors, no less, as a rebellion against the orders of master, priest, and the powers-that-be—such a significant assertion of the rights and aspirations of the people that you can merrily exclaim that said elections have demonstrated that Italy is not the land of the dead she had seemed to be in recent years.
Does that assertion seem a trifling matter to you?
You chalk up the compromises, the watering down of programs, corruption, etc. to parliamentarism. But such woes can never outweigh the enormous benefit of having felt the throbbing heart of a people that, as you say, looked as if they were dead and consigned to the stillness of the grave.
Now, if it is all right for you to say after the elections that they turned out to be a splendid affirmation of Socialism, I could scarcely be prohibited from saying, in advance of those elections, that we ought to see to it that they would amount to just such an affirmation. If there is no impediment in anarchist principles to your rejoicing in the socialists’ successes, there should likewise be no impediment to my declaring that I was yearning for that. Your rejoicing would never have come about had someone not worked towards socialism’s triumph in the elections. And I am not wrong to persist in arguing that anarchists can do rather better than act as onlookers and rejoice in the success of others.
For Government to endure, rather more than the material force of the bayonet is required; it also needs a moral force that it expects from elections—a semblance of popular endorsement. And we should challenge its attainment of such moral force; because, if it can be whittled down to material force alone, we will be able to combat it successfully at the earliest opportunity.
One last word. You claim that all anarchists are abstentionists. How wrong you are! The fiercest abstentionists vote for the republicans, for the socialists, for their personal friends, not to mention the Azzarrettis, which are quite a few! What is gained by abstentionist tactics is to take part in elections not in the name of our own principles, but under a false name and to the advantage of other parties.
Saverio Merlino
Merlino is developing an odd approach to debate. From what is said to him he picks out some phrase that he then wrenches out of its context, toying with it and twisting it and, because he then ignores the context, he manages to depict you as saying whatever suits him. Besides, he never answers questions put to him nor replies to rebuttals; but swoops on some incidental example or detail and addresses it, ignoring the essential point at issue; so that the subject of contention is never the same from one response to the next.
And actually, who could guess that we were in the throes of debating whether parliamentarism is or is not compatible with anarchy?
If things carry on like this, we can spend a good century arguing without ever discovering whether we agree or not.
Anyway, let us follow where Merlino leads.
Why is Merlino saying that “we are gradually becoming closer?”
Is it because we concede the need for cooperation and agreement between the component members of society and because we defer to conditions outside of which cooperation and agreement are not possible? But, sure, that is socialism and Merlino knows perfectly well that we have always been socialists and therefore always very “close.”
The point, now, is whether socialism is to be anarchist or authoritarian, that is, whether agreement should be voluntary or imposed.
And what if people refuse to agree? Well, in that case, there will be tyranny or civil war, but not anarchy. Anarchy is not brought about by force; force can and should be used to sweep away the material stumbling blocks and allow the people a free choice as to how they wish to live; but, beyond that, it can achieve nothing.
So, if “a handful of good-for-nothings or hotheads, or even a single individual pig-headedly say no, is anarchy then to be ruled out?” Damn it! Let’s not bandy phoney arguments. Such individuals are free to say no, but they will not be able to stop others from pushing for yes—and so they will have to fit in as best they can. And if “good-for-nothings and hotheads” were sufficiently numerous as to be in a position to seriously thwart society and prevent it from blithely functioning, then… sad to say, anarchy would still be a way off.
We do not depict anarchy as some idealized paradise indefinitely postponed precisely because it is too beautiful.
Men are too flawed, too used to competing with and hating one another, too brutalized by suffering, too corrupted by authority for a rearrangement of society to be likely to turn them all, overnight, into ideally good and intelligent beings. But no matter the measure of the impact we can expect that rearrangement to produce, the system needs changing and, in order to change it, we must bring about the essential preconditions that allow for such change.
Our reckoning is that anarchy is feasible in the near future, because we think that the requisite conditions for it to exist are already embedded in the social instincts of men today; so much so that, one way or another, they keep society afloat in spite of the disruptive, anti-social operations of government and property. And we reckon the remedy and bulwark against the noxious tendencies of some and against the dangers posed by the conflicts of interests and inclinations, is not government, whatever its hue, but freedom; being made up of men, any government cannot help but tilt the scales in favor of the interests and tastes of those who are in government. Freedom is the great reconciler of human interests, as long as it is rooted in equality of conditions.
Whilst we want to see anarchy made a reality, we are not waiting for crime or the possibility of crime
