(...) cabe señalar que vivenciamos un contexto complejo. Se nos avecina un frío invierno que trae a colación lo indigno del sistema público de salud y, a la par, los medios escritos y digitales abogan incesantemente por el fortalecimiento del aparato represivo. Junto a ello, la odisea eleccionaria se nos aproxima de la mano de un populismo asqueroso que no distingue entre la copia barata del progresismo europeo y el ala derechista que se decanta por un recalcitrante conservadurismo –pinochetismo– al estilo Make America Great Again.

Durante los últimos meses, el flamante progresismo chileno, autoproclamado heredero de las movilizaciones estudiantiles del 2006 y 2011, ha confirmado –nuevamente– el rol histórico que juegan las democracias liberales al momento de enfrentar la agudización de la miseria capitalista. El “gobierno del pueblo” no es más que una quimera desvanecida entre leyes represivas, corrupción estatal, prisiones preventivas y el sacrificio de tres peones –traidores a su clase– para salvar “a la reina” o, mejor dicho, al General director de Carabineros, Ricardo Yáñez.

Como bien sabemos, Yáñez estaba siendo enjuiciado por las violaciones a los Derechos Humanos efectuadas en el contexto de la revuelta del 18 de octubre de 2019. Dicho sujeto estaba ad portas de abandonar su cargo a fin de no entorpecer el proceso investigativo, teniendo como fecha límite el 7 de mayo. No obstante, hace unos días los paladines de la desinformación encontraron nueva savia donde clavar su ponzoñosa verborrea: la muerte de tres carabineros.

Al parecer, esos tres esbirros fueron sacrificados como tontos útiles con el objetivo de extender el mandato de su general, a quién, paradójicamente, le aplazaron en 5 meses la audiencia de formalización. Por su parte, la hija ilustre de la alegría que nunca llegó y actual ministra del interior, Carolina Tohá, aseguró que: «en este momento no puede haber cambio en el mando de carabineros, porque sería un golpe en una institución que está muy golpeada». Y claro que está golpeada, eso sí, por la venta de armas al narcotráfico, el asesinato de jóvenes como Maximiliano Rodríguez, los 34 muertos durante el estallido social y un largo etcétera.

La televisión y la prensa, enemigas indiscutidas del pueblo, no han hecho más que un caldo de cultivo ante la situación. Titulares como «Atentados y violencia: así es la peligrosa carretera P-72, donde fueron asesinados tres carabineros en Chile», del medio El País, profundizan la sensación de inseguridad que el quinto poder ha instaurado en el subconsciente de las personas. Así pues, la tónica Mapuche, migrante y delictual se roba el escenario –des–informativo de los matinales y noticiarios.

En esta línea, creemos importante ahondar también en lo respectivo a la supuesta crisis de seguridad y la agravante tendenciosa que los medios de comunicación han posicionado: el fenómeno migratorio. Más allá de las estadísticas, es un hecho que la temática “seguridad” devino en el tópico más importante en lo que a preocupaciones de nuestra clase respecta; el actuar violento del crimen organizado, la propagación del narcotráfico, los secuestros y el sicariato han sido el motor del pánico generalizado que, lamentablemente, se encauzó a través del racismo y la xenofobia.

Según un reportaje de la revista Doble Espacio, «sólo 5.722 extranjeros ocupan las cárceles chilenas, un 12,1% del total de 47.360 reclusos, lo que equivale al 0,38% de la población migrante del país, acorde al Servicio Jesuita a Migrantes». No obstante, personas como Sergio Mancilla –asesor político de Gloria Neveillán– y el diputado por Antofagasta, Jaime Araya, afirman que se deberían impulsar políticas que criminalicen la migración por pasos no habilitados, llegando incluso a solicitar un proyecto que lo considere abiertamente un delito. Por su parte, Araya no dudó en señalar que las cárceles están sobrepobladas mayoritariamente de colombianos y venezolanos, cuando las estadísticas de la misma gendarmería –institución miserable que no tendría porqué camuflar aquello– evidencian otra cosa.

Ahora bien, cualquiera sea la razón de los índices penitenciarios, a la hora de la verdad, el dogma racista y xenofóbico se entremezcla con la criminalización de la pobreza para, al final del día, enviar tras las rejas a lxs hijxs del pueblo sin importar un ardite la nacionalidad. En los hechos, lxs pobres de allá y acá se congregan en espacios comunes donde, pese a las diversas trayectorias individuales, generan una experiencia colectiva que decanta en una respuesta unificada a la crisis del capital. Esto es visible en las tomas de terreno, el comercio ambulante e, incluso, en las mismas poblaciones donde una parte importante de quienes atienden los negocios y los puestos de las ferias arribaron desde las más variadas latitudes y comparten, codo a codo, la tiranía del trabajo asalariado y la miseria capitalista con la clase oprimida local.

En consecuencia, la Ley Nain-Retamal, la Ley Anti-tomas y la Ley de Seguridad Interior del Estado son la materialización del vigilar y castigar en la figura de un Estado policial que hace gala de su itinerario represivo. Imaginamos que el “compañero presidente”, Gabriel Boric Font, no está lejos de promulgar una ley anti-pobres, ya que, al parecer, desprecia tanto a nuestra clase como en su momento lo hizo su padre, Luis Boric Scarpa, ex gerente de Enap Magallanes y reconocido demócrata cristiano, además de famosísimo enemigo de los enapinos de planta baja o, como ellos se denominaban, “changarines”.

De esta manera, entre el legado histórico-familiar y la excusa de desarticular el crimen organizado, es muy probable que se decrete un Estado de Excepción permanente que –más directa que indirectamente– busque alejarnos de las calles, la protesta y todo cuestionamiento al orden establecido. Para algunos, la era del capital llegó para quedarse, cual dios omnipotente que guía irremediablemente nuestros destinos hacia el abismo; para otros, dicho sistema es uno más en la larga historia de la humanidad y, al igual que en el pasado, sólo necesitamos un golpe brusco que gatille la caída del sistema.

Esto último, no pasará de la noche a la mañana, el entrelazamiento de experiencias debe proyectarse de manera consistente en el tiempo. Al día de hoy, son innumerables las luchas populares que van germinando en los territorios; desde los movimientos por la vivienda a la ofensiva contra la precarización laboral y la vida misma; de la disputa sindical a la confrontación al extractivismo y la eliminación del patriarcado.

En la actualidad, el escenario de mayor conflictividad social ha sido liderado por lxs pobladorxs de distintos lugares de la región chilena. Así, ante la crisis urbana habitacional, las respectivas movilizaciones han puesto sobre la palestra el fracaso del modelo subsidiario, implementado en dictadura y administrado por el progresismo, que solo alimentó y sigue alimentando los negocios de la Cámara Chilena de la Construcción.

Como Federación Anarquista Santiago saludamos las ya mencionadas luchas de lxs pobladorxs y destacamos los múltiples despliegues de disputa que han tenido, donde la tomas de terreno, la movilización callejera y la autogestión superan el asistencialismo y el clientelismo.

A modo de cierre, cabe señalar que vivenciamos un contexto complejo. Se nos avecina un frío invierno que trae a colación lo indigno del sistema público de salud y, a la par, los medios escritos y digitales abogan incesantemente por el fortalecimiento del aparato represivo. Junto a ello, la odisea eleccionaria se nos aproxima de la mano de un populismo asqueroso que no distingue entre la copia barata del progresismo europeo y el ala derechista que se decanta por un recalcitrante conservadurismo –pinochetismo– al estilo Make America Great Again.

Frente a este escenario, no queda más que seguir promoviendo y construyendo una alternativa política basada en la creación y el fortalecimiento de organizaciones populares, así como, en el desarrollo de la autonomía de clase, la despatriarcalización de todas nuestras prácticas y la gestión comunitaria como motor de vida. Creemos que esto último debe ser el eje programático para abordar el abanico de necesidades que nos aquejan, vale decir, gestionar comunitariamente la salud, educación, vivienda, alimentación, entre otros. Sólo la propagación de las comunidades organizadas y los lazos vecinales, harán de esta inminente crisis del capital un período más seguro y llevadero.

Lunes 29 de abril. 6:00 pm

Encuentro Ácrata: Estatización y coyuntura laboral en Colombia.

Lunes 29 de abril. 6:00 pm
Librería Prosa del Mundo (Calle 43 #19-08) Bogotá
Entrada libre

Grupo Libertario Vía Libre

In August 2023, we, anarchist organisations from five continents, launched an international solidarity campaign. Its aim was and is to support Sudanese anarchists fleeing war and repression in their country and to ensure that they arrive safely in a destination country of their choice. Six months have now passed since our first call for solidarity. In this short text, we would like to report on the current situation and the continuation of our campaign.

Content warning: This text involves talking about sexual violence and death.

In August 2023, we, anarchist organisations from five continents, launched an international solidarity campaign. Its aim was and is to support Sudanese anarchists fleeing war and repression in their country and to ensure that they arrive safely in a destination country of their choice. Six months have now passed since our first call for solidarity. In this short text, we would like to report on the current situation and the continuation of our campaign.

First things first: the majority of the small group of anarchist comrades with whom we have been in contact since 2022 and whom we have been supporting in their journey into exile since last year have now managed to leave Sudan. A small number of comrades is still in the country and is part of the resistance committees in Sudan. Among other things, they are working to support displaced people. The resistance committees help women in refugee camps to form their own committees to defend themselves. They also organize independent activities for children and young people because there is currently no school due to the war. But working under the military emergency law is dangerous. Our comrades on the ground need support to leave the country, because the political situation for activists and revolutionaries is increasingly uncertain and there are many arbitrary arrests. A terrible piece of news that recently reached us showed just how dangerous the situation is: In her attempt to flee the capital Khartoum, our comrade Sarah was raped and murdered by members of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). We share the deep pain of our comrades over this loss.

The fact that we have been able to carry out international solidarity work at all - albeit on an extremely limited scale - is thanks to the great support of many organizations and individuals from all parts of the world. With their help we have been able to significantly exceed the original donation goal of 2000 US dollars. We would like to take this opportunity to express our warmest thanks to all those people who have supported this campaign and put their solidarity into practice!

However, the costs of our project have also significantly exceeded expectations. The main reason for this is the extremely unstable and worsening situation in Sudan. The war between the Sudanese army and the RSF militia has been going on for almost a year now. The fighting intensifies with each passing month. Over 14,000 people have already been killed. More and more parts of the country are being drawn into the fighting, more and more blood is being shed, more and more people are being displaced. Mass exodus and war have led to an unbearable famine that is worsening every day. The lives of hundreds of thousands of people are acutely at stake. It is a game that is also being played by international actors. The weapons used by the RSF against the civilian population are partly funded by the European Union. The EU deployed the militia as a border force in the service of its migration defense for at least a few years, has been arming them for this purpose and is very likely still doing so (1,2). Currently, there are in increasing indications that the United Arab Emirates, for example, are supplying the RSF with sophisticated weapons systems to keep the war going (3).

In addition to the war in their own country, the repressive border regimes of the surrounding countries also make it difficult for our comrades to flee Sudan. The prices for VISAs to enter the northern neighboring country of Egypt, for example, have skyrocketed. The few remaining transportation routes have also become enormously more expensive. A large part of the money raised by the campaign has therefore already been spent. We need more money to enable our last comrades to flee Sudan and to finance the continuing journey of the other comrades. We will therefore be stepping up our efforts for the campaign once again in the coming months. In some regions, our organizations will spread the campaign, which has so far mainly had a digital presence, even more widely on the ground. We also want to draw attention to the general, catastrophic situation of the people from below in Sudan and help to break through the blanket of silence that the governments and their press have prepared over the events there.

We call on all trade unions, social and political organisations and all individuals in solidarity to stand with the Sudanese anarchists and continue to support the campaign. Spread the word in your organisations and movements. Use all public channels available to you. Donate to the campaign. Every form of help counts.

Unite against war and repression!
International solidarity with the Sudanese anarchists!

Sources:
1: https://migration-control.info/en/blog/how-the-european-union-finances-oppression/
2: https://www.sudanuprising.net/the-rapid-support-forces-and-the-european-unions-migration-control-policy-in-sudan.html
3: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/29/world/africa/sudan-war-united-arab-emirates-chad.html

(...) la destrucción de lo que nos oprime no vendrá de una de las instituciones que sostiene el sistema de dominación, ningún tipo de Estado ni de proyectos que pacten con él podrán aterrizar cambios significativos en la autonomía de nuestras cuerpas, derechos sociales para las de abajo o construcción de espacios seguros. El caso de Argentina es ejemplificador de aquello, de qué sirve tener un Ministerio de las Mujeres, Géneros y Diversidad o decretar el uso del lenguaje inclusivo en todos los documentos de las instituciones estatales si basta con un cambio de gobierno para desmotar estas medidas con los mismos instrumentos con los que se “ganaron”. Como lo mencionamos en nuestra matriz de análisis, el Estado es una institución central para el actual sistema de dominación, de ahí que las medidas de corto plazo que surgen desde él siempre tenderán a reforzar su legitimidad. Mientras no sean los movimientos sociales, en el marco de la lucha de clases, los que logren conquistas sociales y políticas, prefiguren la sociedad libre y den la batalla ideológica que se contraponga al modelo actual, ningún cambio será duradero ni podrá movilizar y articular a las de abajo por su defensa. En síntesis, no será garantía ni certeza de nada.

CARTA DE OPINIÓN
MARZO 2024

Llega marzo con su acelerado ritmo; los gastos y deudas relacionadas con el inicio del año escolar señalan el retorno, sin tregua, a la producción que echa andar la máquina del capital. La lucha tampoco da tregua, empezamos el año resintiendo a la devastación producida por el cartel del fuego en la quinta región. El incendio arrasó con territorios donde habitan comunidades de personas, animales y bosque eco protegido que son vistos como obstáculos para el avance de proyectos como la ruta periférica Valparaíso impulsada por el Estado, en cabeza del Ministerio de Obras Públicas, y por los intereses del empresariado que explota, día a día, la tierra. Ante esta alianza perversa, que no le importa arrasar con la vida, fue la comunidad la que se levantó con sus diversas formas de resistencia. Así como el bosque va germinando, las redes de acopio se activaron, las voluntades se juntaron para mover escombros, las manos se dispusieron para cocinar grandes ollas y creció la convicción de que solo el pueblo ayuda al pueblo.

Durante esos días, donde se desbordaba la solidaridad de clase, evidenciamos nuevamente que para ciertos sectores de la sociedad y para la prensa burguesa, hay vidas que son más valiosas que otras. La vida de Piñera importaba más que las arrebatadas por el fuego, una vez más, los medios mostraron sus verdaderos intereses y dejaron de trasmitir la situación de las zonas afectadas por el incendio e instalaron la idea de que el tirano Piñera fue poco menos que un santo, limpiando su imagen e intentando sepultar las violaciones a los derechos humanos cometidas durante su mandato, la guerra que libró contra el pueblo y el engrose descarado y delictual de su billetera con los fraudes que hizo junto a sus amigos. Tampoco se habló de su misoginia y de las “memorables” frases que dejó al referirse a situaciones como el abuso y el consentimiento: “a veces no sólo es voluntad de los hombres de abusar, sino también la posición de las mujeres de ser abusadas”, “todas las mujeres se tiran al suelo y se hacen las muertas y todos nosotros nos tiramos encima y nos hacemos los vivos”, “cuando una dama dice ‘no’ quiere decir ‘tal vez’, cuando dice ‘tal vez’ quiere decir que ‘sí’, cuando dice que ‘sí’ no es dama”.

Y entre tanta ceniza y descaro mediático, veremos este 8 de marzo el patético saludo a la bandera que “celebra a las mujeres en su día”, enunciándolas como delicadas y hermosas, invisibilizando las infinitas identidades y diversidades. Nuestras cuerpas y realidades distan mucho de esa imagen de mujer que se publicita, no nos compramos ese cuento de la mujer empoderada mientras se sigue persiguiendo nuestra autonomía y repudiamos el consumismo que promueve el retail, mientras el costo de la vida se encarece haciendo más difícil suplir nuestras necesidades básicas y la de nuestros hogares. Más que celebrar, merecemos conmemorar las luchas de nuestras muertas y la organización de las mujeres trabajadoras que en todo el mundo se han levantado contra el patriarcado y el capital.

Pero ojo ahí: la destrucción de lo que nos oprime no vendrá de una de las instituciones que sostiene el sistema de dominación, ningún tipo de Estado ni de proyectos que pacten con él podrán aterrizar cambios significativos en la autonomía de nuestras cuerpas, derechos sociales para las de abajo o construcción de espacios seguros. El caso de Argentina es ejemplificador de aquello, de qué sirve tener un Ministerio de las Mujeres, Géneros y Diversidad o decretar el uso del lenguaje inclusivo en todos los documentos de las instituciones estatales si basta con un cambio de gobierno para desmotar estas medidas con los mismos instrumentos con los que se “ganaron”. Como lo mencionamos en nuestra matriz de análisis, el Estado es una institución central para el actual sistema de dominación, de ahí que las medidas de corto plazo que surgen desde él siempre tenderán a reforzar su legitimidad. Mientras no sean los movimientos sociales, en el marco de la lucha de clases, los que logren conquistas sociales y políticas, prefiguren la sociedad libre y den la batalla ideológica que se contraponga al modelo actual, ningún cambio será duradero ni podrá movilizar y articular a las de abajo por su defensa. En síntesis, no será garantía ni certeza de nada.

Por lo anterior, y ante la avanzada del fascismo y de sectores ultraconservadores, debemos responder con internacionalismo, apoyo mutuo, lucha y organización. Ante la agenda de los antiderechos hay que seguir fortaleciendo las redes de apoyo, la movilización y el trabajo de base. Este 8M volquémonos a la tarea de visibilizar nuestras luchas, encontrémonos en los territorios, porque es ahí donde cada día hacemos malabares para enfrentar lo costoso de la feria o donde nos apañamos entre vecinxs para sentirnos más segurxs, donde nos damos ánimo con nuestras ideas creativas, donde vemos mayoritariamente a mujeres organizándose para luchar por una vida digna, porque entre nosotrxs hablamos de nuestros problemas y nos sanamos, día a día, para sostener emocional y materialmente a nuestras familias, porque hemos aprendido, en el cotidiano, que la dureza de nuestra realidad se alivia encontrándonos y fortaleciendo nuestras comunidades.

Marzo también conmemora a la juventud combatiente, tanto a aquellxs que con sus luchas del pasado nos inspiran el futuro, como a quienes hoy se organizan y dan esperanza a la construcción de un mundo sin opresiones. Nuestro mejor homenaje es seguir luchando con el ímpetu y la radicalidad de aquellxs jóvenes revolucionarios, teniendo claro que los atajos institucionales impulsados por demócratas y progresistas nos dejaron peor de lo que estábamos y que, por lo tanto, la alternativa de transformación es y será autogestiva y revolucionaria.

Finalmente, mientras en el mundo de la guerra las mujeres defienden a sus hijxs de las masacres y vejámenes en Palestina, en el Wallmapu, en el Congo y en cada hogar donde abunda la injusticia y muerte capitalista, mandamos fuerza y aguante a cada unx de nosotrxs.

¡Arriba lxs que luchxn!

A review of the writings and speeches of Errico Malatesta, the great Italian anarchist and comrade of Bakunin and Kropotkin. Material is taken from the 13 years he spent in London exile. His views remain relevant--and controversial among anarchists.

The Italian Errico Malatesta (1853—1932) was a comrade and friend of Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin. Calling himself an anarchist-socialist, he was respected and loved by large numbers of anarchists and workers, in Italy and other countries. He was closely watched by the police forces of several nations. He had escaped imprisonment in Italy and lived in various countries in Europe, the Middle East, the U.S.A., and Latin America. Four times he spent time in Britain. This volume has collected works from his longest stay there, from 1900 to 1913, from when he was 48 to 61.

Britain, secure in its wealth and imperial power, was the most open European country in providing asylum to political refugees—so long as they obeyed local laws. As a result, the UK had communities of anarchists and other socialists from all over Europe. There was also an overlapping colony of Italians. Malatesta lived in London, supporting himself by running a small electrician’s shop. Only at one point, in 1912, did the police and courts make a serious effort to expel him. This set off massive demonstrations of British and immigrant workers and outcries from liberal newspapers and politicians. The attempt at expulsion was dropped.

However, Malatesta was frustrated by being penned up in Britain. He made several efforts to produce an anarchist-socialist paper which would circulate in Italy, but with limited success. He participated in anarchist activities in Britain, but his English, while apparently serviceable, was not fluent (when not speaking Italian, he preferred French). This volume includes his translated articles, pamphlets, and written speeches, as well as interviews of him by both bourgeois and radical newspapers. There are also reports by police spies (at least one of whom passed as a close comrade). They faithfully recorded his speeches and private comments and passed them on to their superiors.

In the course of Malatesta’s lengthy sojourn in London, he discussed a number of topics which were important to anarchists then and are still important. He was not an major theorist of political economy or history, but he was brilliant about strategic and tactical issues of the anarchist movement. This makes the study of Malatesta’s collected work valuable even today.

Terrorism

Around the time the book begins, in 1900, an Italian anarchist who had been living in the U.S., went back to Europe and assassinated Humbert, the Italian king. Apparently Malatesta had met the assassin, Bresci, briefly while in Patterson NJ. Otherwise he knew nothing about the affair. However the press continually tried to interview him about it, seeking to tie anarchism to assassination.

Malatesta always opposed indiscriminate mass terrorism (such as throwing bombs into restaurants). Nor did he call for assassination of prominent individuals, whether kings, presidents, or big businesspeople. In general, it did not advance the cause. His approach had become one of building revolutionary anarchist organizations, to participate in mass struggles. However, he was understanding of the motives of individual anarchists driven to assassination—and not sympathetic at all to the rulers and exploiters whom they killed. The Italian king, he noted, had previously ordered soldiers to massacre peasants and workers.

When US President William McKinley was shot dead by Czolgosz, who claimed to be anarchist, Malatesta called the president, “the head of [the] North American oligarchy, the instrument and defender of the great capitalists, the traitor of the Cubans and Filipinos, the man who authorized the massacre of the Hazelton strikers, the tortures of the Idaho miners and the thousand disgraces being committed in the ‘model republic.’” (Malatesta 2023; p. 75) He felt no sorrow for the death of this man, only compassion for the assassin, who “with good or bad strategy,” sacrificed himself for “the cause of freedom and equality.” (p. 75)

However, he did not advocate this as a political strategy. It was more important to win workers to reliance upon themselves rather than kings, bosses, and official leaders. “…Overthrowing monarchy…cannot be accomplished by murder. The Sovereigns who die would only be succeeded by other Sovereigns. We must kill kings in the hearts of the people; we must assassinate toleration of kings in the public conscience; we must shoot loyalty and stab allegiance to tyranny of whatever form wherever it exists.” (p. 59)

In another incident in London, a small group of Russian anarchist exiles was interrupted in the process of robbing a jewelry store. There was a shoot-out with the police (led by Home Secretary Winston Churchill) which ended in the death of some officers and all the robbers. As it happened, one of the thieves had met Malatesta at an anarchist club, and ended up buying a gas tank from him, claiming a benevolent use for it. In fact it was used to break open the jewelry safe.

Malatesta patiently explained to the police and the newspapers that he had no foreknowledge of the robbery. However he wrote that it was unfair to link the robbers’ actions with their anarchist politics. Was a murder in the U.S. blamed on the murderer being a Democrat or Republican? Were thieves’ thievery usually ascribed to their opinions on Free Trade versus Tariffs? Or perhaps their belief in vegetarianism? No, they were essentially regarded as thieves, regardless of their beliefs on politics, economics, or religion. The same should be true for these jewelry thieves, whatever their views on anarchism.

Syndicalism/Trade Unionism

By the last decades of the 19th century, many anarchists had given up on only actions and propaganda by individuals and small groups. These tactics had mainly resulted in isolation and futility. Instead many turned toward mass organizing and the trade unions. Anarchists joined, and worked to organize, labor unions in several countries. (Often these efforts were called “syndicalism,” which is the French for “unionism.”)

There remained anarchists who opposed unions: individualists and anti-organizational communists. But most turned in the pro-union direction. This gave a big boost to the anarchist movement at the time.

Errico Malatesta had long been an advocate of unions. He had contacts with militant unionists throughout Britain and other countries. In London in this period, he directly participated in unionizing waiters and catering staff. He gave support to the struggles of tailors to form a union, which led to a large strike.

“Syndicalism, or more precisely the labor movement…has always found me a resolute, but not blind, advocate.…I see it as a particularly propitious terrain for our revolutionary propaganda and…a point of contact between the masses and ourselves.” (p. 240)

But once it was decided that anarchists should participate in the labor movement, the next question was how should they participate? What should be the relation between anarchist activists and the trade unions? On this question, differences among anarchists were made explicit at the 1907 anarchist conference held in Amsterdam.

At the conference, Malatesta took issue with the views of Pierre Monatte, who spoke for the French syndicalist movement. Malatesta argued, “The conclusion Monatte reached is that syndicalism is a necessary and sufficient means of social revolution. In other words, Monatte declares that syndicalism is sufficient unto itself. And this, in my opinion, is a radically false doctrine.” (p. 240)

The unions had great advantages, as they brought together working people in enterprises, industries, cities, and regions. They included only workers, and not capitalists or management. They had the potential of stopping businesses and whole economies, in the pursuit of working class demands. They were schools of cooperation and joint struggle.

Yet, the unions’ very strengths also pointed to certain weaknesses. They are institutions within capitalist society. They exist (at least in the short term) to win a better deal for the workers under capitalism. Therefore they must compromise with the bosses and the state. Further, they need as many members as possible, to counter the power of the bosses. They cannot just recruit revolutionary anarchists and socialists. They must take in workers of every political, economic, and religious persuasion. (A union which only accepted anarchists would not be much of a threat to the bourgeoisie.)

These and other factors brought constant pressure on unions to be more conservative, corrupt, and bureaucratic. All anarchists recognized these tendencies among officials of political parties, even among liberals or socialists. But the same tendencies existed for union officials.

Malatesta drew certain conclusions. Anarchist-socialists should not dissolve themselves into the unions, becoming good union militants (as he understood Monatte to be saying). Instead, they should build revolutionary anarchist groups to operate inside and outside union structures. Nor should they take union offices which gave them power over people. But they could take positions which were clearly carrying out tasks agreed to by the membership—but with no wages higher than the other workers. They should be the best union militants, always advocating more democratic, less bureaucratic, and more militant policies, while still raising their revolutionary libertarian politics.

“In the union, we must remain anarchists, in the full strength and full breadth of the term. The labor movement for me is only a means—evidently the best among all means that are available to us.” (p. 241)

A central concept of the syndicalists was the goal of a general strike. Malatesta had certain criticisms. Not that he opposed the idea of getting all the workers of a city or country to go on strike at the same time. This could show the enormous power of the working class, if it would use it—much more powerful than electing politicians. But there is no magic in a general strike. The capitalist class has supplies stored away with which they could outlast the workers—starve them out. The state has its police and armed forces to break up the strike organization, arrest the organizers, and forcibly drive the workers back to their jobs.

In brief, Malatesta did not believe in the possibility of a successful nonviolent general strike (this is not considering a one-day “general strike” set by the union bureaucrats for show). He felt that a serious general strike would require occupation of factories and workplaces, arming of the workers, and plans for their military self-defense. It would have to be the beginning of a revolution. (Hence the book’s title.)

However much he criticized aspects of syndicalism, Malatesta was completely opposed to “…the anti-organizationalist anarchists, those who are against participation in the labor struggle, establishment of a party, etc. [By ‘party,’ he means here an organization of anarchists—WP] ….The secret of our success lies in knowing how to reconcile revolutionary action and spirit with everyday practical action; in knowing how to participate in small struggles without losing sight of the great and definitive struggle.” (p. 78)

War and National Self-Determination

This collection of writings by and about Malatesta ends in 1913. Therefore it does not cover his response to World War I which began the next year—nor his break with Kropotkin for supporting the imperialist Allies in the war.

However, in the period covered here, he could see the increase in wars, both between imperialist powers and between imperial states and oppressed peoples. “…Weaker nations are robbed of their independence. The kaiser of Germany urges his troops to give the Chinese no quarter; the British government treats the Boers…as rebels, and burns their farms, hunts down housewives…and re-enacts Spain’s ghastly feats in Cuba; the Sultan [of Turkey] has the Armenians slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands; and the American government massacres the Filipinos, having first cravenly betrayed them.” (p. 33)

He opposed all sides in wars among imperialist governments—as he was to do during World War I. The only solution to such wars was the social revolution.

But Malatesta supported oppressed nations which rebelled against imperial domination. (Some ignorant people believe that it is un-anarchist to support such wars. Yet Malatesta did, as did Bakunin, Kropotkin, Makhno, and many other anarchists—even though they rarely used the term “national self-determination”.) Malatesta wrote, “…True socialism consists of hoping for and provoking, when possible, the subjected people to drive away the invaders, whoever they are.” (p. 58)

This does not mean that anarchist-socialists have to agree with the politics of the rebelling people. Speaking of the Boers, who were fighting the British empire, he wrote without illusions, “The regime they will probably establish will certainly not have our sympathies; their social, political, religious ideas are the antipodes of our own.” (p. 59) Nevertheless, it would be better if they win and British imperialists are defeated. For the people of the imperialist country, “It is not the victory but the defeat of England that will be of use to the English people, that will prepare them for socialism.” (p. 58) (The British won.)

The Italian and Turkish states went to war over north Africa around 1912. Malatesta condemned both sides, but supported the struggle of the Arab population. “I hope that the Arabs rise up and throw both the Turks and the Italians into the sea.” (p. 321)

He understood that “love of birthplace” (p. 328) was typically felt by people, including their roots in the community, their childhood language, their love of local nature, and perhaps their pride in the contributions their people have made to world culture. But this natural sentiment is then misused by the rulers to develop a patriotism which masks class division and exploitation.

The rulers “…turned gentle love of homeland into that feeling of antipathy…toward other peoples which usually goes by the name of patriotism, and which the domestic oppressors in various countries exploit to their advantage. ….We are internationalists…We extend our homeland to the whole world, feel ourselves to be brothers to all human beings, and seek well-being, freedom, and autonomy for every individual and group…..We abhor war…and we champion the fight against the ruling classes.” (p. 329)

As can be seen, to Malatesta, internationalism did not conflict with support for “autonomy for every…group.” This included groups of people who held a common identity as a nation. Anarchists are internationalist, but
unlike the centralism of Lenin, anarchists do not want a homogenous world state. They advocate regionalism, pluralism, and decentralized federations. This particular passage went on to support the Arabs against Italian imperialism. “…It is the Arabs’ revolt against the Italian tyrant that is noble and holy.” (p. 329)

Yet Malatesta may be faulted for his lack of concern about racism. In supporting the Boers, and even when listing their extreme (antipodal) differences with anarchists, he does not mention their exploitation of the indigenous Africans. Nor does he make other references to racial oppression (such as in U.S. segregation). This must be put beside his fervent anti- colonialism and support for the rebellion of oppressed peoples.

Similarly, he does not mention the oppression of women or its intersection with class and national exploitation. It is not at all that he was misogynist (like Proudhon). I am sure he treated Emma Goldman as an equal at the 1907 international anarchist conference. But, like most male radicals of his time, he had a “blind spot” in thinking about this major aspect of overall oppression.

Imperialism, war, national oppression, and national revolt are issues which are still with us. Look at Palestine or Ukraine or the Kurds, among other peoples. These issues will be with us as long as capitalism survives, as Malatesta knew.

Other Topics

Besides terrorism, syndicalism, and national wars, Malatesta covered quite a lot of topics in the course of these thirteen years, as we would expect.

He condemned a French anti-clerical town council which outlawed the wearing by priests of their cassocks within the municipal borders. Malatesta was an opponent of religion and certainly of the Catholic Church. But he did not believe that people would be won from it by means of police coercion. That would only provoke resistance. At most, it would replace the religious priests with secularist ones, “which would all the same preach subjugation to masters….” (p. 68)

Today, the French government forbids Muslim girls and women from wearing headscarfs in schools and other public buildings—in the name of “secular” government. The left and feminists are divided on how to respond. “Oh, when will those who call themselves friends of freedom, decide to desire truly freedom for all!” (p.68)

Unlike Kropotkin, Elisee Reclus or (more recently) Murray Bookchin, there was not much of an ecological dimension to Malatesta. However he was concerned with the way landlords and capitalists had kept Italian agriculture backward. He believed that under anarchy, the peasants would be able to make the barren lands bloom.

By 1913, his experience with state socialists was mainly with the reformist Marxist “democratic socialists” (social democrats). This was four years before the Russian Revolution, which ended in the dictatorship of Lenin’s Bolsheviks and the rise of authoritarian state capitalism.

Yet he was prescient enough to write: “…Depending on the direction in which competing and opposite efforts of men and parties succeed in driving the movement, the coming social revolution could open to humanity the main road to full emancipation, or simply serve to elevate a new layer of the privileged above the masses, leaving unscathed the principle of authority and privilege.” (p. 102) The validity of this anarchist insight (which goes back to Proudhon and Bakunin) has been repeatedly demonstrated.

All the subjects Errico Malatesta discussed in this period had one guiding social philosophy. Quoting the famous lines written by, but not created by, Marx: “…The emancipation of the workers must be conquered by the workers themselves.…Throughout history the oppressed have never achieved anything beyond what they were able to take, push away pimps and philanthropists and politicos, take their own fate in their own hands, and decide to act directly.” (p. 220) This was the principle of Malatesta’s revolutionary anarchist-socialism and remains true today.

References
Malatesta, Errico (2023).  The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900—13.  The Complete Works of Errico Malatesta.  Vol. V.  (Ed.: Davide Turcato; Trans.: Andrea Asali).  Chico CA:  AK Press.