Wednesday
Errico Malatesta, syndicalism and violence
Errico Malatesta (1853 – 1932) was an Italian libertarian communist / social anarchist. He spent a large part of his life in exile from “his homeland” of Italy and altogether spent more than ten years in prison.
Already in 1907, he was less interested in syndicalism than many of the social anarchists were.
Murray Bookchin :
Malatesta insisted that syndicalism could be regarded only as a means, and an imperfect means at that, since it was based on a rigid class conception of society which ignored the fact that the interests of the workers varied so much that "sometimes workers are economically and morally much nearer to the bourgeoisie than to the proletariat." . . . The extreme syndicalists, in Malatesta's view, were seeking an illusory economic solidarity instead of a real moral solidarity...
He also had a more moral view on violence than libertarian syndicalism.
I will quote Errico Malatesta four times:
Anarchists are opposed to violence; everybody knows that. The main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations…
It is abundantly clear that violence is needed to resist the violence of the adversary, and we must advocate and prepare it, if we do not wish the present situation of slavery in disguise, in which most of humanity finds itself, to continue and worsen. But violence contains within itself the danger of transforming the revolution into a brutal struggle without the light of an ideal and without possibilities of a beneficial outcome; and for this reason one must stress the moral aims of the movement, and the need, and the duty, to contain violence within the limits of strict necessity.
We do not say that violence is good when we use it and harmful when others use it against us. We say that violence is justifiable, good and 'moral,' as well as a duty when it is used in one's own defence and that of others, against the demands of those who believe in violence; it is evil and 'immoral' if it serves to violate the freedom of others …
We consider violence a necessity and a duty for defence, but only for defence. And we mean not only for defence against direct, sudden, physical attack, but against all those institutions which use force to keep the people in a state of servitude…