the anarchy. Errico Malatesta. ⁕ ⁕ ⁕ 1. T HE WORD ANARCHY COMES FROM THE GREEK AND its literal meaning is without government: the condit- ion of a people who live without a constituted authority, without government. Before such an organization had begun to be considered both possible and desirable by a whole school of thinkers and accepted as the objective of a party, which has now become one of the most important factors in the social strug- gles of our time, the word anarchy was universally used in the sense of disorder and confusion; and it is to this day used in that sense by the uninformed as well as by political opponents with an interest in distorting the truth. We will not enter into a philological discussion, since the question is historical and not philological. The common interpretation of the word recognizes its true and etymo- logical meaning; but it is a derivative of that meaning due to the prejudiced view that government was a necessary organ of social life, and that consequently a society without government would be at the mercy of disorder, and fluctu- ate between the unbridled arrogance of some, and the blind vengeance of others. The existence of this prejudice and its influence on the public’s definition of the word anarchy, is easily explained. Man, like all living beings, adapts and accustoms himself to the conditions under which he lives, and passes on acquir- ed habits. Thus, having being born and bred in bondage, when the descendants of a long line of slaves started to think, they believed that slavery was an essential condition of life, and freedom seemed impossible to them. Similarly, workers who for centuries were obliged, and therefore accus- tomed, to depend for work, that is bread, on the goodwill of the master, and to see their lives always at the mercy of the owners of the land and of capital, ended by believing that it is the master who feeds them, and ingenuously ask one how would it be possible to live if there were no masters. In the same way, someone whose legs had been bound from birth but had managed nevertheless to walk as best he could, might attribute his ability to move to those very bonds which in fact serve only to weaken and paralyze the muscular energy of his legs. If to the normal effects of habit is then added the kind of education offered by the master, the priest, the teacher, etc., who have a vested interest in preaching that the masters and the government are necessary; if one were to add the judge and the policeman who are at pains to reduce to silence those who might think differently and be tempt- ed to propagate their ideas, then it will not be difficult to understand how the prejudiced view of the usefulness of, and the necessity for, the master and the government took root in the unsophisticated minds of the labouring masses. Just imagine if the doctor were to expound to our fictional man with the bound legs a theory, cleverly illustrated with a thousand invented cases to prove that if his legs were freed he would be unable to walk and would not live, then that man would ferociously defend his bonds and consider as his enemy anyone who tried to remove them. So, since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order. ⊱ 2 ⊰ Nor is the phenomenon without parallel in the history of words. In times and in countries where the people be- lieved in the need for government by one man (monarchy), the word republic, which is government by many, was in fact used in the sense of disorder and confusion—and this meaning is still to be found in the popular language of al- most all countries. Change opinion, convince the public that government is not only unnecessary, but extremely harmful, and then the word anarchy, just because it means absence of govern- ment, will come to mean for everybody: natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom within complete solidarity. Those who say therefore that the anarchists have badly chosen their name because it is wrongly interpreted by the masses and lends itself to wrong interpretations, are mis- taken. The error does not come from the word but from the thing; and the difficulties anarchists face in their propa- ganda do not depend on the name they have taken, but on the fact that their concept clashes with all the public’s long established prejudices on the function of government, or the State as it is also called. Before going on, it would be as well to make oneself clear on this word State, which in our opinion is the cause of the real misunderstanding. Anarchists, including this writer, have used the word State, and still do, to mean the sum total of the political, legislative, judicial, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the powers to make the laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if ⊱ 3 ⊰ need be, by the use of collective force. In this sense the word State means government, or to put it another way, it is the impersonal, abstract expression of that state of affairs, personified by government: and there- fore the terms abolition of the State, Society without the State, etc., describe exactly the concept which anarchists seek to express, of the destruction of all political order based on authority, and the creation of a society of free and equal members based on a harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social respons- ibilities. But the word has many other meanings, some of which lend themselves to misunderstanding, especially when used with people whose unhappy social situation has not given them the opportunity to accustom themselves to the subtle distinctions of scientific language, or worse still, when the word is used with political opponents who are in bad faith and who want to create confusion and not understanding. Thus the word State is often used to describe a special kind of society, a particular human collectivity gathered to- gether in a particular territory and making up what is called a social unit irrespective of the way the members of the said collectivity are grouped or of the state of relations be- tween them. It is also used simply as a synonym for society. And because of these meanings given to the word State, opponents believe, or rather they pretend to believe, that anarchists mean to abolish every social bond, all collective work, and to condemn all men to living in a state of isolation, which is worse than living in conditions of savagery. The word State is also used to mean the supreme ad- ministration of a country: the central power as opposed to the provincial or communal authority. And for this reason others believe that anarchists want a simple territorial decentralization with the governmental principle left intact, ⊱ 4 ⊰ and they thus confuse anarchism with cantonalism and com- munalism. Finally, State means the condition of being, a way of social life, etc. And therefore we say, for instance, that the economic state of the working class must be changed or that the anarchist state is the only social state based on the princ- iple of solidarity, and other similar phrases which, coming from us who, in another context, talk of wanting to abolish the State can, at first hearing, seem fantastic or contradictory. For these reasons we believe it would be better to use expressions such as abolition of the State as little as possible, substituting for it the clearer and more concrete term abolit- ion of government. Anyway, it is what we shall do in the course of this pamphlet. 2. We said that anarchy is society without government. But is the abolition of governments possible, desirable or foreseeable? Let us see. What is government? The metaphysical tendency,† in spite of the blows it has suffered at the hands of positive science, still has a strong hold on the minds of people today, so much so that many look upon government as a moral institution with a number of given qualities of reas- on, justice, equity which are independent of the people who are in office. For them government, and in a more vague way, the State, is the abstract social power; it is the † Which is a disease of the mind in which Man, once having by a logical process abstracted an individual’s qualities, undergoes a kind of hallucination which makes him accept the abstraction for the real being. ⊱ 5 ⊰ ever abstract representative of the general interest; it is the expression of the rights of all considered as the limits of the rights of each individual. And this way of conceiving of government is encouraged by the interested parties who are concerned that the principle of authority should be safe- guarded and that it should always survive the shortcom- ings and the mistakes committed by those who follow one another in the exercise of power. For us, government is made up of all the governors: and the governors — kings, presidents, ministers, deputies, etc. — are those who have the power to make laws regulating inter-human relations and to see that they are carried out; to levy taxes and to collect them; to impose military con- scription; to judge and punish those who contravene the laws; to subject private contracts to rules, scrutiny and san- ctions; to monopolize some branches of production and some public services or, if they so wish, all production and all public services; to promote or to hinder the exchange of goods; to wage war or make peace with the governors of other countries; to grant or withdraw privileges. . . and so on. In short, the governors are those who have the power, to a greater or lesser degree, to make use of the social power, that is of the physical, intellectual and economic power of the whole community, in order to oblige everybody to carry out their wishes. And this power, in our opinion, constitut- es the principle of government, of authority. But what reason is there for the existence of govern- ment? Why give up one’s personal liberty and initiative to a few individuals? Why give them this power to take over willy nilly the collective strength to use as they wish? Are they so exceptionally gifted as to be able to demonstrate with some show of reason their ability to replace the mass of the people and to safeguard the interests, all the interests, of everybody better than the interested parties themselves? Are they infallible and incorruptible to the point that one ⊱ 6 ⊰ could, with some semblance of prudence, entrust the fate of each and all to their knowledge and to their goodness? And even if men of infinite goodness and knowledge existed, and even supposing, what has never been observ- ed in history, that governmental power were to rest in the hands of the most able and kindest among us, would gov- ernment office add anything to their beneficial potential? Or would it instead paralyze and destroy it by reason of the necessity men in government have of dealing with so many matters which they do not understand, and above all of wasting their energy keeping themselves in power, their friends happy, and holding in check the malcontents as well as subduing the rebels? Furthermore, however good or bad, knowledgeable or stupid the governors may be, who will appoint them to their exalted office? Do they impose themselves by right of con- quest, war or revolution? But in that case what guarantee has the public that they will be inspired by the general good? Then it is a clear question of a coup d’etat and if the victims are dissatisfied the only recourse open to them is that of force to shake off the yoke. Are they selected from one particular class or party? In which case the interests and ideas of that class or party will certainly triumph, and the will and the interests of the others will be sacrificed. Are they elected by universal suffrage? But in that case the only criterion is in numbers, which certainly are proof neither of reason, justice nor ability. Those elected would be those most able to deceive the public; and the minority, which can well be the other half minus one, would be sacrificed. And all this without taking into account that experience has demonstrated the impossibility of devising an electoral machine where the successful candidates are at least the real representatives of the majority. ⊱ 7 ⊰ 3. Many and varied are the theories with which some have sought to explain and justify the existence of govern- ment. Yet all are based on the prejudiced view, whether ad- mitted or not, that men have conflicting interests, and that an external, higher, authority is needed to oblige one section of the people to respect the interests of the other, prescribing and imposing that rule of conduct by which opposing in- terests can best be resolved, and by which each individual will achieve the maximum satisfaction with the least pos- sible sacrifice. The Authoritarian theoreticians ask: if the interests, ten- dencies and aspirations of an individual are at odds with those of another or even those of society as a whole, who will have the right and the power to oblige each to respect the other’s interests? Who will be able to prevent an individu- al from violating the general will? They say that the freedom of each is limited by the freedom of others; but who will establish these limits and who will see to it that they are respected? The natural antagonisms of interests and temper- ament create the need for government and justify authority which is a moderating influence in the social struggle, and defines the limits of individual rights and duties. This is the theory; but if theories are to be valid they must be based on facts and explain them—and one knows only too well that in social economy too often are theories invented to justify the facts, that is to defend privilege and make it palatable to those who are its victims. Let us in- stead look at the facts. Throughout history, just as in our time, government is either the brutal, violent, arbitrary rule of the few over the many or it is an organized instrument to ensure that dom- inion and privilege will be in the hands of those who by force, by cunning, or by inheritance, have cornered all the ⊱ 8 ⊰ means of life, first and foremost the land, which they make use of to keep the people in bondage and to make them work for their benefit. There are two ways of oppressing men: either directly by brute force, by physical violence; or indirectly by deny- ing them the means of life and thus reducing them to a state of surrender. The former is at the root of power, that is of political privilege; the latter was the origin of property, that is of economic privilege. Men can also be suppressed by working on their intelligence and their feelings, which constitutes religious or “universitarian” power; but just as the spirit does not exist except as the resultant of material forces, so a lie and the organisms set up to propagate it have no raison d’être except in so far as they are the result of poli- tical and economic privileges, and a means to defend and to consolidate them. In sparsely populated primitive societies with uncom- plicated social relations, in any situation which prevented the establishment of habits, customs of solidarity, or which destroyed existing ones and established the domination of man by man — the two powers, political and economic, were to be found in the same hands, which could even be those of a single man. Those who by force have defeated and intimidated others, dispose of the persons and the be- longings of the defeated and oblige them to serve and to work for them and obey their will in all respects. They are at the same time the landowners, kings, judges and execut- ioners. But with the growth of society, with increasing needs, with more complex social relations, the continued existence of such a despotism became untenable. The rulers, for secur- ity reasons, for convenience and because of it being imposs- ible to act otherwise, find themselves obliged on the one hand to have the support of a privileged class, that is of a ⊱ 9 ⊰ number of individuals with a common interest in ruling, and on the other to leave it to each individual to fend for himself as best he can, reserving for themselves supreme rule, which is the right to exploit everybody as much as possible, and is the way to satisfy the vanity of those who want to give the orders. Thus, in the shadow of power, for its protection and support, often unbeknown to it, and for reasons beyond its control, private wealth, that is the owning class, is developed. And the latter, gradually concentrating in their hands the means of production, the real sources of life, agriculture, industry, barter, etc., end up by establish- ing their own power which, by reason of the superiority of its means, and the wide variety of interests that it embraces, always ends by more or less openly subjecting the political power, which is the government, and making it into its own gendarme. This phenomenon has occurred many times in history. Whenever as a result of invasion or any military enterprise physical, brutal force has gained the upper hand in society, the conquerors have shown a tendency to concentrate gov- ernment and property in their own hands. But always the government’s need to win the support of a powerful class, and the demands of production, the impossibility of con- trolling and directing everything, have resulted in the re-establishment of private property, the division of the two powers, and with it the dependence in fact of those who control force—governments—on those who control the very source of force—the property-owners. The governor inevitably ends by becoming the owners’ gendarme. But never has this phenomenon been more accentuated than in modern times. The development of production, the vast expansion of commerce, the immeasurable power as- sumed by money, and all the economic questions stem- ming from the discovery of America, from the invention of machines, etc., have guaranteed this supremacy to the ⊱ 10 ⊰