
"Anarchism: Left, Right, or Center?"

This paper was written in my first year of undergraduate school, for a class on
radical political philosphies, and their "place" in the right/left/center
spectrum. This particular teacher was fond of dissecting political theories and
locating how they could stand for radicalism, and yet espouse opinions which
could easily fit into the camp of the center or the right. He was perhaps the
only teacher I ever had who got excited when I said I was an anarchist, and
encouraged me to dissect the theories which I subscribed to. I learned a lot.

The paper primarily analyzed the works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Malatesta, Goldman,
and Berkman. This is the section dealing with Malatesta. It's not a masterpiece,
but it's a good introduction if you're not familiar with his writings.


Errico Malatesta, an Italian anarchist who spent most of his life in exile
published his work, Anarchy, in 1891. This fifty-four page work is by no means
as extensive or detailed as many of anarchists' works, but has a generous amount
of thought and theory to offer regardless of its length. In this work, Malatesta
begins by explaining how it is that the word "anarchy" has come to represent
chaos and disorder: 

The existence of this prejudice and its influence on the public's definition of
anarchy is easily explained. Man, like all living beings, adapts and accustoms
himself to the conditions under which he lives, and passes on acquired 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 accustomed, to depend for work, that
is bread, on the goodwill of their 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 ingeniously ask one how would it be possible to
live if there were no masters.

...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. 

Malatesta's definition of collectivist anarchy, then, is as follows: 

... and therefore 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 responsibilities. 

Malatesta also makes critical comment of an "individualist" form of anarchy,
which in his opinion, has only complicated and hindered the development of the
goals of the afore mentioned theory of anarchy: 

The principle of each for himself, which is the war of all against all, arose in
the course of history to complicate, sidetrack, and paralyze the war of all
against nature for the greatest well-being of mankind which can be completed
successfully only by being based on the principle of all for one and one for
all. 

But there are also problems with this passage- specifically with Malatesta's
statement regarding the "war of all against nature for the greatest well-being
of mankind." Firstly, the statement is a confusing one. Is Malatesta using the
term "nature" to imply the inherent nature of people, or does he refer to nature
in the literal sense? In reading this passage, I made the assumption that he
was, in fact, referring to nature in the literal sense. It has historically been
the approach of Western/European culture or civilization to treat nature as it
were something to be tamed, controlled, conquered, or even destroyed. 

In the late 19th century, and throughout most of this century, environmental
concerns were limited and rarely, if never, applied to political or ideological
movements, including the anarchist movement. Nature, and all of nature's
creatures, were always thought of as lesser than the "superior" and dominating
species - homo sapiens. (With the exception of thinkers like Thoreau, Gandhi,
Whitman, etc.) It wasn't until much later, within the last 15-20 years, that
environmental concerns became a part of the agenda of political groups and
movements. Now, the ideas of Deep Ecology are beginning to be fused with
political groups such as the Greens, and by some anarchists, with the movement
as a whole - as it has been recognized by these groups and individuals that
nature and homo sapiens are one and the same, and we must learn to coexist
rather than attempt to dominate. 

Near the end of his work, Malatesta makes a very interesting point about the
nature of the anarchist movement, or at least, the way he desires the approach
of the movement to be: 

Anarchists offer a new method: that is free initiative of all and free compact
when, private property abolished by revolutionary action, everybody has been put
in a situation of equality to dispose of social wealth. This method, by not
allowing access to the reconstitution of private property, must lead, via free
association, to the complete victory of the principle of solidarity. Viewed in
this way, one sees how all the problems that are advanced in order to counter
anarchist ideas are instead an argument in their favour, because only anarchy
points the way along which they can find, by trial and error, that solution
which best satisfies the dictates of science as well as the needs and wishes of
everybody. 

How will children be educated? We don't know. So what will happen? Parents,
pedagogues and all who are concerned with the future of the young generation
will come together, will discuss, will agree or divide according to the views
they hold, and will put into practice the methods which they think are the best.
And with practice that method which in fact is the best, will in the end be
adopted.

And similarly with all problems that present themselves. 

Unique to Malatesta's concept of anarchy, (and by this I do not not mean that he
held these concepts exclusively - many others shared/share his ideas), is the
idea that a movement does not have the right to dictate, and demand something,
or anything of the people. The idea is that certain common values and
understandings will be held by the people - such as the equality of all people -
and that everything beyond those basic values will be decided upon by the people
themselves... and where there is a differing of opinion, individuals will not
have to succumb to a "majority rules" form of society, but rather will have the
option of pursuing their own interests either alone, or with a "minority" of
individuals. 

(Above excerpts from Malatesta, Errico, Anarchy, Freedom Press, 1974. ) 

