A Guide to Anarchy | Errico Malatesta

0:00 Errico Malatesta Anarchy We all have gaps in our knowledge of the world, that’s part of the human condition. Very often, these gaps are filled with preconceived ideas we haven’t yet critically examined. Also, information, and especially opinion, comes with biases. In this video, I want to disclaim one of my biases, a philosophy through which I see the world which, I believe, reflects in all my videos. I am an anarchist. This video isn’t only made as a disclaimer of my biases, but also as a way to correct preconceived ideas of what it is. If you’re generous enough to give me some of your time, even if you disagree with the ideas of anarchism, at the very least, you’ll be able to say you understand it. As an introduction to Anarchism, we’ll be taking a look at Errico Malatesta’s 1892

0:47 pamphlet: Anarchy. It’s a very short text, but we’ll still summarize it chapter by chapter. That way, if you decide to read along, you can follow these summaries and get the most out of it. The link to the online version of the text is in the description. If you prefer a physical copy, I’m giving out these to my 10$ tier patrons on Patreon.com/thecanvas This video obviously doesn’t replace Malatesta’s book and I do strongly recommend you to read a chapter and then watch the section of the video about this chapter. But if you don’t like reading, well, hopefully I can make you read one short chapter at a time and, through this video, we might get more out of it together. If after reading Chapter One you decide that reading just isn’t for you, that’s fine, you’ll still learn a whole lot about anarchist theory from

1:45 this video. So, when you’re trying to define a word, a good place to start can be etymology. That’s how Malatesta opens the first chapter of his book by stating that the greek roots of the word Anarchy mean “without government”. But this is not how we usually understand it. The common usage of this word is highly pejorative and is synonymous with chaos and disorder. But why?

2:31 Malatesta thinks that it comes from a prejudiced view that government is necessary for any society to function. That a lack of government is some kind of pathological problem and would necessarily lead to a dysfunctional and chaotic society. This unjustified belief comes from habit. Humans adapt to their condition and pass on habits, but this does not justify these conditions, nor these habits. For example, descendants of a long line of slaves could believe that slavery is an essential condition of life because it’s always been that way. This was also noted by Étienne de la Boétie in Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, written in 1576 : “We should exonerate and forgive them, since they have not seen even the shadow of liberty, and, being quite unaware of it, cannot perceive the evil endured through their own slavery.”

3:20 Similarly, workers depend on work to feed themselves and believe that it’s because of business-owners that they don’t die of starvation. They believe that these masters feed them and then ask themselves “how would we eat if there were no masters to feed us?” Another example Malatesta gives is the image of someone whose legs were bound from birth, but still managed to walk. That person could think that the very reason they can walk is because of these bonds which, in reality, are limiting them. Now, imagine a whole system of ideas constructed around the necessity for this person to wear bonds to their legs. Doctors would come up with explanations and theories as to why, by removing these bonds, this person could not walk.

4:05 That person would protect these bonds with their life and consider anyone who are trying to free them an enemy. These constructed ideas, the ones that try to explain how the state is necessary, are very present in our society and Malatesta, throughout this short book, will deconstruct these ideas. He says that, like the worker or the slave, we believe that without an authority, we could not live properly. He also says that, like for the bound person, we live in cultures in which the idea that government is necessary is hammered into our heads: by the masters, the priests, the teachers, etc... This is why the word anarchy has been synonymous with chaos and destruction. We believe ourselves to be dependant on authority to survive.

4:52 But Anarchy isn’t the first word to be misused for political reasons. Just a couple of centuries ago, when people believed in the necessity of a one-man government – a monarchy – the word republic was used as a synonym of chaos and disorder. So if we can convince people that not only is the government not needed, but that we could do much better without one, the word anarchy could be understood as we anarchists understand it: “natural order, unity of human needs and the interests of all, complete freedom within complete solidarity”. Now, before going any further into the book, Malatesta feels like it’s necessary to define the State. It’s “the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial

5:37 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.” The idea of delegation here is pretty important as it implies representational democracy, which Malatesta goes back to in the following chapters. He follows this by saying that, because we often mix up the idea of State with the idea of Society, he will use the term government instead of the State. He also defines what he means by the abolition of the State: “[...] the destruction of all political order based on authority, and the creation of a society of free and equal

6:24 members based on a harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social responsibilities.” So when anarchists say they want to abolish the State, they don’t mean that they want to abolish social cohesion, collectivities and social bonds. They believe that these things will actually be strengthened once authority no longer exists. 2 But, what is the government? Commonly, we believe the government to be an abstract social power, an invisible entity, independent of whoever is holding office. It’s the abstract representation of the will of the people and is usually associated with great qualities such as justice and equity.

7:11 And this view is greatly encouraged by the people in power, believing that the idea of authority should always be defended, even if the authority can sometimes be bad and do the opposite of promoting justice and equity. Commonly, we believe that the government is a good thing for society. Now, let’s see what anarchists think. Anarchists don’t really see the government as an abstract representation of the will of the people. They see it as governors. Kings, presidents, ministers, what have you. A government is someone or a collection of people with the power to regulate the workings of society through laws. Such laws, Malatesta says, are there to regulate “inter-human relations and to see that they are carried out; to levy taxes and to collect them; to impose military conscription; to

8:02 judge and punish those who contravene the laws; to subject private contracts to rules, scrutiny and sanctions; 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”. So, the governors are the ones who can make use of the social power, being the community’s collective physical, intellectual and economic power. This concentration of power in the hands of a few governors “constitutes the principle of government, of authority.” But now that we answered what the government is, we have to answer if the government is

8:47 desirable. Malatesta asks the question as follows: “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 could, with some semblance of prudence, entrust the fate of each and all to their knowledge and to their goodness?” So here are some amazing questions. They imply that nobody is so exceptionally gifted to replace the mass of the people,

9:33 act in their interest and not be corrupted by power. Malatesta says that the responsibility of such authority is too big to be undertaken by a few people. Anarchists believe that no human can bare such responsibility, such power, without being corrupted and, in consequence, we shouldn’t trust anybody with that kind of power. We can’t trust someone, not even an anarchist, with a concentration of power. But it’s not only about “absolute power corrupting absolutely”, it’s also about abilities. What makes someone so much more suitable to make decisions rather than the community itself? I won’t quote many millionaires here, but what Michelle Obama said illustrates my point:

10:18 “I have been at probably every powerful table that you can think of, I have worked at nonprofits, I have been at foundations, I have worked in corporations, served on corporate boards, I have been at G-summits, I have sat in at the U.N.: They are not that smart.” Alright, well what if there WAS an infinitely good and infinitely wise group of people. Would the concentration of power into their hands still be beneficial? If a government could be justified, it’s certainly a government of all-wise and all-good individuals. Malatesta says that the government, in that case, would still be pointless. These people, now at the government, wouldn’t benefit society more than they already do.

11:04 Perhaps, it would slow down the development of society as these people would have to deal with so many different subjects without fully understanding each and everyone of them, from agriculture to education all the way to health services and culture. Plus, a government, even if managed by very good people, would still spend resources and energy in preserving itself and fighting off dissidents. And still, no matter if they’re infinitely good or not, we have to determine who will put them in power. Should they impose themselves by rights of conquest, war or revolution? Well certainly not, how would we be sure that they would act for the benefit of all? Should they be selected from a particular class or party? Again, absolutely not, as the interests of that said party or class will most-likely

11:54 be defended over the general interest. But what about voting them in? Well here’s an interesting question on suffrage. Malatesta says that numbers are not an indicator of reason, justice nor ability. Being elected doesn’t mean you’re the best and it doesn’t mean you’re the most honest; it just means that you’re good at getting votes, you’re good at convincing a public. Malatesta also expresses concern for minorities which, in this case, are not accounted for. So, to anarchists, a government is undesirable because, even if its governors are infinitely good and incorruptible (which is impossible), they wouldn’t be able to manage society as effectively as communities could, for they have, like any other humans, limited knowledge;

12:41 they can’t make decisions on everything. And, added to that, it would be hard to find a fair and equitable way of putting them into power without alienating a large part of the population because concentrating power into one entity necessarily leaves a lot of people powerless. 3. Alright so we asked if the government was desirable. Now, let’s see how it’s justified. Part I: The justification for the existence of a government Malatesta argues that every justification for the existence of a government can be boiled down to the prejudiced view that society is consisted of individuals with conflicting interests.

13:27 This would mean that a higher power, an authority, would be needed to make decisions to protect the different interests of all. The government would then find the best way to achieve the maximum satisfaction with the least possible sacrifice. I would call this method of justification: The government as mediator. In other words, without the government, who will force anybody to respect the interests of others? It’s the whole idea of “the freedom of each is limited by the freedom of others” and authoritarians will say “if nobody establishes and enforces these limits, what would stop people from ignoring them?”. From there comes the idea that, in anarchy, nobody cares about the freedom of others, or, in one word, Chaos.

14:13 But that couldn’t be further from the truth. Historically, governments have pretty much always been a tool of domination. They weren’t there to enforce order and to make people respect each other’s freedoms, they usually destroy freedoms. They were not mediators. Most of the time, and anarchists would argue that it hasn’t changed, governments were comprised of a minority (kings, emperors, aristocrats) using governmental power (by power I mean armed groups such as armies or the police force) to oppress and to enrich themselves off of the people’s work. Malatesta establishes two ways of oppressing: 1. Directly with physical violence - that is to say – power or political privilege or whoever owns armies.

14:59 2. You can oppress indirectly by taking the means of life away from the people you’re dominating. In other words, private property or economic privilege. I think we should take a moment to talk about this second way of oppressing masses as it’s not as obvious as physical violence. Anarchists strongly oppose private property because it’s a tool of domination, but without proper explanation, it’s hard to understand why. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the first man to declare himself an anarchist, wrote an entire book on the question of property in What is Property, published in 1840. In a nutshell, private property, or broadly the private ownership of land and buildings, is a tool of domination because, in a world with limited resources, claiming a land to

15:45 be his/her own takes away the ability for others to work on it. In other words, imagine a world where humans would need a specific resource to live. If one class owned, in some way, all the means to produce this resource, then everybody outside of that class would be subjected to it, they’d become their slaves. Or, imagine you live on an island with 3 other people and claim it for yourself; you say that the island is yours. Then these other people wouldn’t be able to feed themselves. No matter how hard they’d want to work, they couldn’t because they’d have no land to work on. What you then could do is use that land as a tool of domination and have them work your land.

16:30 In return, you’ll give them food and you’ll get food without having to work one bit. You’d be exploiting them. This idea that private property is one of the foundations of domination isn’t new. The very well-known 18th century political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote about it in Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men: “The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying This is mine, and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying

17:17 to his fellows, "Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.” Today, most people are born without any property. They come to this world and, when they become independent, they have to work, not for themselves, but to bring profit to their bosses. In other words, to be able to sustain yourself, you can’t just work for yourself, you need to work for someone and that relationship is fundamentally exploitative. In a fair society, you wouldn’t have to sell your labour and get exploited solely because you don’t own land. In a fair society, land (or any other means of production) would be owned by everybody

18:06 and could be worked by everybody without oppression. Here’s one last example from Karl Marx’s Capital: “Mr. Peel [...] took with him from England to Swan River, West Australia, means of subsistence and of production (so like machinery) to the amount of £50,000. Mr. Peel had the foresight to bring with him, besides, 300 persons of the working class, men, women, and children. Once arrived at his destination, “Mr. Peel was left without a servant to make his bed or fetch him water from the river.”” Why? Because Mr. Peel’s workers could work on their own land in Australia. They didn’t have to work for Mr. Peel anymore, they didn’t have to be oppressed.

18:52 They had access to land. When all the land is appropriated by capitalists, these free people would have to go back to making Mr. Peel’s bed and fetch him water from the river. This is why private property is oppressive. Anyway, we were saying that there are two ways to oppress, power and private property. Keeping that in mind, we can now move on to mankind’s history of oppression. You first had, a long time ago, some small societies in which both powers, political and economic, were in one single pair of hands. Through intimidation, that person got their community to work for them. They were the landowner, the ruler, the judge and the executioner, all at the same time. But, as society expands and grows more complex, a small class of owners also grows.

19:43 Slowly, they start accumulating the means of production (tools, land, etc) and establish their power as the people who control the very source of life: production. By doing so, they can manipulate political power and have it protect them. Malatesta demonstrates how this has happened when conquerors take control of societies. Conquerors will own the government and property, but, because it’s so hard to manage, will eventually give the property back to the owners. This results in the government (or force) becoming dependent – and subservient – to the owners (the source of force). But this relationship, Malatesta adds, has never been so apparent now than it ever was.

20:28 With wealth increasing so much, the power of the owners multiplied. The discovery of the Americas and the Industrial Revolution strengthened the owners’ power so much that the capitalists themselves obtained political power. This was the birth of modern democracies: governments consisted of capitalists defending capitalist interests. Malatesta critiques our modern democracies, which he doesn’t consider democratic: “In many countries workers nominally have a more or less important say in the election of the government. It is a concession made by the bourgeoisie, both to avail itself of popular support in its struggle against the monarchical and aristocratic power, as well as to dissuade the people from thinking of emancipation by giving them the illusion of sovereignty.

21:18 But whether the bourgeoisie foresaw it or not when they first gave the people the vote, the fact is that that right proved to be entirely derisory, and served only to consolidate the power of the bourgeoisie while giving the most active section of the working class false hopes of achieving power. Even with universal suffrage — and we could well say even more so with universal suffrage — the government remained the bourgeoisie’s servant and gendarme.” So Malatesta doesn’t think that the government is a mediator for conflicting individual interests, but more of an instrument to impose certain interests on all. While it says it protects the general interest, anarchists believe that it’s protecting the interests of a small, but powerful, minority.

22:03 And this is not only applicable now; it has always been that way. The government is oppressive and is using instruments of domination (i.e. tax collectors, the police force, education) to maintain this oppression. Malatesta does recognize the fact that the government, while being oppressive, has also had some beneficial actions, but also says that it doesn’t redeem it. We’ll get back to that in chapter 6. But, of course, a government would try to hide the fact that it works with the wealthy class and here is how, according to Malatesta, the government hides its true nature: “[The government] cannot impose respect for the lives of privileged people if it does not appear to demand respect for all human life, it cannot impose acceptance of the privileges

22:51 of the few if it does not pretend to be the guardian of the rights of all.” They also need to be the guardian of the rights of all in fear of a worker’s rebellion. If governments adopted a reform like, for example, a law that would regulate the length of a working day to 8h, it would be to stop the angry masses from rising up. In other words, to Malatesta, if the government appears to be on the worker’s side, it’s just preventing a worker’s revolution that would lead to the destruction of capitalist privilege. If it wasn’t for that, the capitalists, or the government, would not care at all if workers got mad. So we’ve seen how the government is, and always was, protecting the privileges of the wealthy class. But is there anything else that would qualify the government as a tool of domination.

23:40 To Malatesta, there is. Governments make anything become a means by which to oppress, to surveil and to police. It corrupts the sentiment of justice, as private property is strongly defended while worker’s conditions are sometimes outright ignored. It also corrupts education, as it becomes a way to shape minds and create docile workers. And all of this domination would make sense if, according to authoritarians, society is just a bunch of (potentially violent) individuals with opposing interests. In a world where people compete to protect their interests, there are winners and losers and the people who win over the government, well... they’re the winners. The winners won’t use their hard-earned power to protect the rights and interests

24:26 of the vanquished and they won’t limit their own power. The idea that the government is just a moderator and the defender of the public good is a lie. It’s a myth to make the “losers” accept their domination. Malatesta adds that it’s “an illusion, a utopia never achieved and never to be realized”. I would like to point out how interesting it is that Malatesta calls the people who believe in governments utopians. Most of the time, anarchists, or more broadly socialists, will be labelled utopians, but here, the roles are reversed. For those interested, Kropotkin did the same in Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal: “Ah, if men were those superior beings that the utopians of authority like to speak to us of, if we could close our eyes to reality, and live, like them, in a world of dreams

25:15 and illusions as to the superiority of those who think themselves called to power, perhaps we also should do like them; perhaps we also should believe in the virtues of those who govern. With virtuous masters, what dangers could slavery offer?” It’s more utopian to believe in a fair society with a government, than a fair society without one. But yes, if man was truly wolf to man (which is how people justify the existence of a government), then the government would logically be used, not as a tool to enforce justice and equality, but as a way for some people to dominate others. Part II: Mutual Aid Thankfully, this justification, that individuals in a society all compete against each other

26:02 and wouldn’t respect each other’s liberty if it weren’t for the government, is wrong. “Man’s fundamental essential characteristics are the instinct of his own preservation, without which no living being could exist, and the instinct of the preservation of the species, without which no species could have developed and endured. He is naturally driven to defend his individual existence and wellbeing, as well as that of his offspring, against everything and everybody.” With that being said, Malatesta identifies two ways of surviving: One is individual struggle, that is to say: by struggling against nature and the individuals of the same species (and by nature I mean natural forces that work against our survival: hunger, thirst, the need for shelter...).

26:49 In that case, you’d be all alone and providing for your own needs and the ones of your offspring. But another way of surviving is by Mutual Aid, which is a subject Peter Kropotkin wrote about in his book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution, published in 1902. This way of surviving is by association; by struggling against nature as a collective force. Humans could only develop through cooperation, through Mutual Aid. We’re extremely vulnerable when we’re alone, especially against predators, but collectively, we are an incredible force. We have evolved as a species to act in a cooperative way because this is what our survival and our wellbeing hinges upon. It’s so deeply rooted in us that we have developed a moral sense from it.

27:38 We feel bad when treating another human wrong because doing so harms the community. Humans with strong moral feelings, such as this one, were more likely to survive as it made their community stronger, which resulted in us, humans, being an extremely cooperative specie. We evolved to be very social, our brains and our speech organs allow us to communicate and share very complicated ideas such as the ones I’m explaining right now! All of this makes humans what they are. We are dependent on social life and without it, Malatesta argues, we wouldn’t be humans anymore. “Every struggle aimed at gaining advantages independently of or at the expense of others, is contrary to the social nature of modern Man and tends to drive him back towards the

28:23 animal state.” “Solidarity, that is the harmony of interests and of feelings, the coming together of individuals for the wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing of each, is the only environment in which Man can express his personality and achieve his optimum development and enjoy the greatest possible wellbeing. This is the goal towards which human evolution advances; it is the higher principle which resolves all existing antagonisms, that would otherwise be insoluble, and results in the freedom of each not being limited by, but complemented by [...] the freedom of others.” So humans, in cooperation, are not in constant conflict. The rule of “the freedom of each is limited by the freedom of others” doesn’t justify governments because it just doesn’t apply to humans.

29:12 Humans are naturally cooperative, our freedoms compliment each other. The freer you are, the better off I am and this is exactly what we’ll expand on in the next chapter. 4. At the end of chapter 3, Malatesta wrote about solidarity and how it’s a fundamental characteristic in human beings. Chapter 4 expands on that with a quote by Mikhail Bakunin: “My freedom is the freedom of all...” Let’s see what he meant by that. Individuals aren’t independent, they are strongly influenced by each other. You are a product of your environment. If your neighbour is in chains, you will greatly be affected by that. Your existence, Bakunin argues, will be determined by their slavery.

30:00 “I who want to be free cannot be because all the men around me do not yet want to be free, and consequently they become tools of oppression against me.” And by that logic, even if you only care about your self-interest, you will strive towards solidarity. Your own interest and the interest of society are one. But this solidarity and this cooperation can be used perversely. Cooperation isn’t always consensual. You can create something very similar to cooperation, by forcing people to work for you. Take, for example, a fast food production chain where all workers cooperate, but not because it’s better for them to do so, but because they’re forced to: it’s more productive.

30:45 They do it for the boss’ profit and, if they don’t, they won’t receive a wage and they won’t be able to feed themselves. In this case, the fruits of cooperation don’t go to the parties agreeing to it, but to the person forcing this cooperation. This is a fundamental contradiction in humankind: We are very cooperative, yet, we divide ourselves into different individuals, different nationalities, different races and different genders. This contradiction is most apparent in a capitalist system. We cooperate together to mass-produce, but we’re also in competition with one another. “The principle of each for himself, which is the war of all against all, arose in the course of history to complicate, to sidetrack and paralyze the war of all against nature

31:32 for the greatest wellbeing of mankind which can be completely successful only by being based on the principle of all for one and one for all.” Malatesta sees this tendency to divide and dominate as animalistic and contrary to our human instincts. The principle of each for him/herself, as we have seen earlier, can’t guarantee an individual’s well-being. The fight against nature has to be fought collectively. “Mankind has suffered great harm as a result of this intrusion of domination and exploitation in the midst of human association. But in spite of the terrible oppression to which the masses have been subjected, in spite of poverty, in spite of vice, crime and the degradation which poverty and slavery produce

32:20 in the slaves and in the masters, in spite of accumulated antagonism, of wars of extermination, in spite of artificially created conflicting interests, the social instinct has survived and developed.” This is how strong our instinct for cooperation is. We could even say that because of these hardships, we are able to connect and understand each other when suffering. On top of that, Malatesta says in 1891, that travel, communication, science, literature, production have all developed so much that all of humanity is even more linked than before. Imagine what he would say now. Now more than ever, the growth and development of individuals across the world contribute

33:07 to our own development and well-being. And, to go back to Bakunin when he said “My freedom is the freedom of all.”, our well-being hinges upon all circumstances acting on all human beings because all human beings are, in some way, connected. Malatesta explains how someone living in the Apennines isn’t only strongly affected by the conditions of the Italian people, “but also on workers’ conditions in America or Australia, on the discovery made by a Swedish scientist, on the state of mind and material conditions of the Chinese, on there being war or peace in Africa; in other words on all the circumstances large and small which anywhere in the world are acting on a human being.” This vast solidarity is mostly unconscious.

33:55 People don’t consciously calculate how helping others actually benefit them. It’s spontaneous and Malatesta says that this is evidence to show how solidarity is a human instinct, it’s a natural law amongst men and it survives even a system which combats it. Now, Malatesta goes on to show how this basic principle of “I do better if people around me do better”, should lead to the abolition of private property. Of course the liberation of every worker around the world is extremely beneficial for every worker, but it would also be beneficial for the former wealthy class, because they to are connected to workers and by giving up their exploitative attitude, they will create a better and safer environment for their own growth. Now, with the abolition of property, people will stop working for others and put their

34:43 labor, not in the service of the interest of a few, but for their own interest (the interest of humankind). And if we traded domination and economic privilege for human solidarity by abolishing property, why would we need a government? “Once private property has been abolished, government which is its defender must disappear. If it were to survive it would tend always to re-establish a privileged and oppressing class in one guise or another.” We are used to a minority imposing and directing cooperation for their own interest, but here, “cooperation would be free, voluntary and directed to everybody’s interests; and therefore it would become that much more widespread and effective”.

35:28 Once individuals understand that their interest resides in the interests of all, we’ll possibly unlock inconceivable potential for the human race. Our methods of cooperation, our sociability, will develop as we grow collectively. We will finally organize in order to achieve the greatest wellbeing and the greatest freedom for all. People will see their neighbours as comrades with whom they fight against natural forces. They won’t try to accumulate the most comfort for themselves, but for everybody, because they’ll understand that if everybody is comfortable, the environment that determines us will be much more fertile and will make us grow tenfold. “This society of free people, this society of friends is Anarchy”.

36:15 5. In the last few chapters we saw how governments are necessary to maintain unjust societies. They need to exist to defend social inequalities: to defend private property. We have seen that competition between individuals goes against human nature and that progress is done through cooperation. And finally, we saw that we should abolish private property and its protector, the government, in order work together for the common interest. In this chapter, Malatesta answers a couple of possible objections to these points. The listed objections are by authoritarians and by authoritarians, Malatesta doesn’t only mean the proponents of dictatorships and monarchies, but anybody who supports authority,

37:01 both on the right and on the left. The first objection to the abolition of the government comes from authoritarian socialists and it goes as follows: Once private property is abolished and there are no more class and privileges, the government would change its nature. It would be impossible for it to defend the interests of a particular class since there wouldn’t be anymore classes. The government could then truly defend the interests of all, organize our society and protect us against people who try to reintroduce privilege. We’ll go back to that in a minute. Malatesta then lists other objections such as: Some positions in society are just too important to leave to the “free will of individuals”. If it isn’t the government, who would distribute food, provide healthcare and education? Who would organize large-scale projects such as bridges, scientific research, etc.

37:50 Who would have the power to prevent and punish crime? What about people who don’t care about solidarity; who wouldn’t want to work, who would spread diseases by not taking care of themselves or people that would use violence for their own pleasure? Who would stop them, if not the government? Taking down the government would mean the destruction of social organization, everyone for oneself. The domination of one over the other. In one word: Chaos. .Malatesta will answer all these questions and concerns in the following chapters. First, he answers to the authoritarian socialists by saying that, even if you abolish private property and change the social conditions of society, the government wouldn’t change its nature. It would still seek to dominate. Malatesta talks about it in terms of organ and function.

38:39 An organ has a function: A heart pumps blood. Now, if you take away the function of an organ, it will either die or find a way to reestablish that function. Now lets apply this to a social organ: an army. Its function is to fight. If the army has no reason to fight, if there are no threats, the army would either have to create a fight or disintegrate. The police force, if there are no crimes, would either have to create crime, or disappear. Finally, a government and its function, defending privileges, would either have to create privileges or collapse in the absence of privileges to defend. And we could argue that, in a classless society, a government couldn’t defend the interests of one particular class...

39:25 Unless the government itself was a class. The group of people, the one that governs, is in charge of the collective power. It has immense power and, because of that, we have to recognize that they form a privileged class. They have power and privileges and everything would lead us to believe that they would protect that power and these privileges. If someone, or a group of people, contests that power, or a decision the government made, they would have to be dealt with. “And then the old story of the privileged class which arises through the complicity of the government starts all over again and, in this instance, if it did not seize the land would certainly capture key posts, specially created, and would oppress and exploit no less than the capitalist class.”

40:11 “And thus government would be passed to and fro in the same hands, and democracy, which is the alleged government of all, would end up, as usual, in an oligarchy, which is the government of a few, the government of a class. And what an all-powerful, oppressive, all-absorbing oligarchy must be one which has at its service, that is at its disposal, all social wealth, all public services, from food to the manufacture of matches, from the universities to the music-halls!” Keep in mind, Malatesta wrote this in 1891, decades before the 1917 Russian revolution. Next chapter, we’ll ask ourselves “What if a government wasn’t a class?” and we’ll see if that would justify the existence of a government in a socialist society.

40:59 We’ll also answer the very interesting question asked earlier “Who would have the power to prevent and punish crime?” 6 Let’s assume that, last chapter, we were wrong about the government being a dominant class. For a moment, let’s agree with those who Kropotkin called “the utopians of authority”, or people that believe that authority won’t be used to oppress others. Even then, more questions arise: What purpose would this government serve that communities couldn’t? How would a government strengthen solidarity? Malatesta goes back to the image of the bound man from chapter one. “We are used to living under a government which takes over all that energy, intelligence

41:45 and will which it can direct for its own ends; and it hinders, paralyses and suppresses those who do not serve its purpose or are hostile — and we think that everything that is done in society is carried out thanks to the government, and that without the government there would no longer be any energy, intelligence or goodwill left in society.” It’s as if we believe that without a master we can’t feed ourselves because the masters monopolize private property. We also believe that, without a government, we can’t organize, because the government monopolizes the instruments of solidarity. The land-owner doesn’t create food out of nothing. We can produce food without him. The government doesn’t organize out of nothing.

42:31 We can organize ourselves without it. In other words, the government uses the moral and material forces already present in society, it doesn’t create them. It can’t create forces out of nothing; all it can do is use the force in society that already exists. This can throw us into a discussion on what makes societies progress: Individual initiative or social action? Does it come from individuals or the collectivity (or we could say the government)? Malatesta says that the question is a bit misguiding: “it is in the organism of every individual that all thoughts and human actions inevitably have their origin, and from being individual they become collective thoughts and acts when

43:16 they are or become accepted by many individuals. Social action, therefore, is neither the negation nor the complement of individual initiative, but is the resultant of initiatives, thoughts and actions of all individuals who make up society” So with or without a government, social progress comes from individuals. There is no need for a government to initiate that progress. Furthermore, the government could actually be slowing that progress down: “And if instead, as do the authoritarians, one means government action when one talks of social action, then this is still the resultant of individual forces, but only of those individuals who form the government or who by reason of their position can influence the policy of

44:02 the government.” Under a government, a society will only progress from the forces of a small amount of individuals, the governors, which is extremely far from a society progressing from the forces of all individuals. So hopefully now you understand that, when anarchists speak of liberty, they don’t mean becoming more independent from society, or freeing themselves from social constraints, “But rather it is a question of preventing some individuals from oppressing others; of giving all individuals the same rights and the same means of action; and of replacing the initiative of the few, which inevitably results in the oppression of everybody else. It is after all a question of destroying once and for all the domination and exploitation of man by man, so that everyone can have a stake in the commonweal, and individual forces,

44:53 instead of being destroyed or fighting among themselves or being cut off from each other, will find the possibility of complete fulfilment, and come together for the greater benefit of everybody.” So if we go back to the utopians of authority, even if the government wasn’t a privileged class, it would still reduce the potential of the productive, organizing and protective forces of society because they only take in account the forces coming from the governors. If non-governmental forces of society demand a change, then the government will oppose it until this demand is thoroughly fought for. Malatesta quotes French Historian Jean de Sismondi on that thought: “The State is always a conservative power which legalizes, regularizes and organizes the victories of progress, but never introduces them.

45:42 These victories are always started down below, they are born in the heart of society, from individual thought which is then spread far and wide, becomes opinion, the majority, but in making its way it must always meet with and combat in the powers-that-be, tradition, habit, privilege and error.” We have seen this from women suffrage, to the Civil Rights movement and queer rights. This is not only applicable for the defence of minority rights. The fight for cannabis legalization in Canada, for example, started down bellow, with governments slowing that progress down. But one government did finally concede and legalized, regularized and organized the victories of that progress. Now some may think that it’s because of the government that such progress was made,

46:28 but we could could argue that it is actually in spite of the government. Alright! So governments are bad but how would society work without a government? Look around you. Most of our social activities don’t come from the government: work, barter, study, travel and morality in general. When the government does intervene, it usually ads unnecessary steps which renders the social activity more difficult. On a large-scale, government-less cooperation also happens with large associations spreading across countries, such as capitalist corporations or other “associations which, inspired by a love of one’s fellow beings, or by a passion for science, or more simply by the desire to enjoy oneself and to be applauded, are more representative of the groupings as they will be in a society in which, having abolished private property and the internecine struggle

47:17 between men, everybody will find his interest in that of everybody else, and his greatest satisfaction in doing good and in pleasing others.” Malatesta argues that all aspects of society could be organized that way if it wasn’t for the obstacles imposed by governments, the dissensions created by private property and the discouragement felt by most people as a result of the seizure of all wealth by a few. In other words, in a society that promotes competition and discourages this kind of association, it won’t happen. As we have said earlier, the government doesn’t create out of nothing. If the government didn’t take care of the postal service, for example, people would organize and do it. The government adds nothing. “And the more the need is universal and urgent, the more volunteers will there be

48:06 to carry it out. If the people had the power to deal with the problems of production and food supplies, oh! have no fear that they might just die of hunger waiting for a government to make the necessary laws to deal with the problem.” People don’t need a government to work, cooperate and eat. They won’t let themselves starve. Not only that, but they will carry out these jobs more productively: “if we do things now which only interest a few, we will do them that much better and more intensively when they will be of interest to everybody." Add to that the fact that the workplace would be democratic and people would work to strengthen their community, not out of fear of starvation. Remember, if people work and allow themselves to be exploited, it’s to feed themselves

48:52 Anarchist associations still organize and have administrators, but Malatesta formulates a clear distinction between governors and administrators: While a governor is privileged and can make his or her ideas prevail, administrators are workers just like any other and can’t impose their ideas like governors can. But let’s get to one of my personal favourite parts of this book, the answer to the following question: Without a government, how could a society defend itself without a police force or a justice system? “Many suppose that if there were no carabineers, policemen and judges, everyone would be free to kill, to ravish, to harm others as the mood took one; and that anarchists, in the name of their principles, would wish to see that strange liberty respected which violates

49:38 and destroys the freedom and life of others.” Of course, this is absurd. We believe that in a society with no private property, where the needs of everyone would be taken care of, when competition is traded for cooperation, the reasons which make people act immorally (often stemming from poverty) would disappear. There would therefore be a lot less violence in an anarchist society because we’d be eliminating the roots of evil. “But supposing that as a result of the kind of education received from present society, or for physical misfortune or for any other reason, someone were to want to do harm to us and to others, one can be sure that we would exert ourselves to prevent him from so doing with all the means at our disposal.

50:25 Of course, because we know that man is the consequence of his own organism as well as of the cosmic and social environment in which he lives; because we do not confuse the inviolable right of defence with the claimed ridiculous right to punish; and since with the delinquent, that is with he who commits anti-social acts, we would not, to be sure, see the rebel slave, as happens with judges today, but the sick brother needing treatment, so would we not introduce hatred in the repression, and would make every effort not to go beyond the needs of defence, and would not think of avenging ourselves but of seeking to cure, redeem the unhappy person with all the means that science offered us.” This quote is pretty self-explanatory. Anarchist societies will defend themselves against anti-social acts, but they would see

51:13 anti-social acts like we would, today, see an illness. If your conditions, mental or social, pushed you to believe that crime was what you should do, then something is wrong and we should try to fix what’s wrong, not punish. Crime is not the problem, but the symptom of a problem. Anyhow, Malatesta also argues that unwritten laws, such as customs, not being regulated by the government, are better followed because they’re socially enforced by the community. Because they don’t rely on an external force - the government - to apply these rules, the community does it itself and it’s super effective. Malatesta gives an example of desert caravans in Africa, where water is so precious it can’t be wasted. Wasting water isn’t illegal, but people understand the custom and know that it’s

52:02 regulated by their close ones. The social consequences of wasting water are, again, very effective. Malatesta continues: “Is it perhaps because of the gendarmes that more people are not killed? In most of the villages in Italy the gendarmes are only seen from time to time; millions of people cross the mountains and pass through the countryside far from the protecting eye of authority, one could strike them down without the slightest risk of punishment; yet they are no less safe than those who live in the most protected areas. And statistics show that the number of crimes is hardly affected by repressive measures, whereas it changes dramatically with changes in economic conditions and in the attitudes of public opinion.”

52:47 So the government, and its police force, claim to be protecting the individual’s security, but at the same time, protect private property. Yet, private property concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, creating economic conditions which stimulate crime, risking the security of individuals. It’s almost as if the cops and the government try to fight crime, while protecting a system which encourages crime. So yeah, the government doesn’t help when it comes to preventing crimes. Its justice system is, in its essence, unfair as it privileges a small part of the population. Anatole France, a French poet wrote this simple, yet very telling, line: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under

53:34 bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.” 7. After reading the previous 6 chapters, you might be saying: “Anarchism does sound pretty cool, but I don’t want to blindly jump into it. Give me the details of how an anarchist society would function.” Malatesta makes a list of many questions that anarchists might face: “What methods will be used to teach children? How will production be organized? Will there still be large cities, or will the population be evenly distributed over the whole surface of the earth? And supposing all the inhabitants of Siberia should want to spend the winter in Nice? And if everyone were to want to eat partridge and drink wine from the Chianti district? And who will do a miner’s job or be a seaman?

54:21 And who will empty the privies? And will sick people be treated at home or in hospital? And who will establish the railway timetable? And what will be done if an engine-driver has a stomach-ache while the train is moving?” Malatesta does recognize that most of these questions are extremely important, but it would be absurd to expect definitive answers from an anarchist. If you do, then you have failed to understand what anarchism is about. “We are no more prophets than anyone else” says Malatesta. It would be weird for us to prescribe particular ways of functioning for tomorrow’s societies, since, by doing that we’d pretty much become a government ourselves. What we think works now, could work better a different way tomorrow. We don’t know how people will perform without domination and without poverty, without the

55:10 struggle amongst one another. It’s hard to predict how much we’ll develop economically and scientifically, once all the resources we create will be invested to benefit everybody. Maybe we could put a lot of resources into automation to free people from work, or maybe that won’t be possible. We’ll see the problems that face us as a community and solve them as a community. “What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organisation of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within

55:58 the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means.” So anarchism isn’t an end goal. We don’t believe that once anarchy is completed, everything will be fixed and everything will be fine. We will still face problems. Anarchism isn’t an end goal, it’s a method. There are two popular non-anarchist methods: authoritarianism and liberalism. Authoritarianism believes that a minority can make decisions for the majority, which inevitably leads to oppression as seen earlier. Liberalism, not in the American “progressive” sense, but in the promotion of liberties, defence of property, reduction of government, etc., is the ideology the Western world subscribes

56:44 to right now. Liberalism, of course, does not defend liberty for all, but only for the powerful as they have the liberty to exploit the powerless, which leads, again, to authority. This does not lead to harmony, but to more tensions within society as it promotes the “each for him or herself” principle: competition. So what is the anarchist method? The victory of the principle of solidarity through the abolition of property. This means that everybody will be needed to communally decide how to organize and that’s what anarchy points you towards: Not to a solution, but a way for you to find a solution. Don’t rely on authority and don’t rely on me or any other anarchists to tell you how to build a better society.

57:30 Rely on yourself. Through trial and error, through the counselling of academics and by considering the needs and wishes of everybody, you can find a solution, along with your community, to the questions you’re asking. Anarchism empowers you. If you remember, at the beginning of this chapter, the first question asked to anarchists was: What methods will be used to teach children? Here’s Malatesta’s answer: “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.”

58:19 Now, apply this to all the questions asked at the beginning of the episode. This is the answer. “Anarchy, in common with socialism, has as its basis, its point of departure, its essential environment, equality of conditions; its beacon is solidarity and freedom is its method. It is not perfection, it is not the absolute ideal which like the horizon recedes as fast as we approach it; but it is the way open to all progress and all improvements for the benefit of everybody.” For the next chapter, we’ll be talking about chapter 8 and 9 as they strongly complement each other. We’ll look over one last argument against anarchism, see what we’ve learned and talk a bit about revolution. 8 & 9

59:07 So far, we established that anarchy is the best method to achieving the greatest good for humankind, since it abolishes classes economically and politically, and therefore, abolishes competition between individuals. We also established that applying this method is possible. Malatesta brings up what is, to me, one of the best arguments against anarchism. This argument acknowledges the fact that anarchism is probably the best method to achieving a thriving society, but it also says that it would be very hard, if not impossible, to make humans work together if they were brought up in a competitive environment. Bear with me for this long quote, but I really think it’s important: “We find ourselves in a world which has always been divided into oppressors and oppressed;

59:55 and if the former are full of the spirit of domination and have all the vices of tyrants, the latter are broken by servility and have the even worse vices that result from slavery. The feeling of solidarity is far from being dominant in contemporary society, [...] it is competition which presses on everybody, workers and masters alike, and makes every man into an enemy in the eyes of his neighbour. How will these men, brought up in a society based on class and individual conflict, ever be able to change themselves suddenly and become capable of living in a society in which everyone will do as he wishes and must do, and without outside coercion and through the force of his own will, seek the welfare of others? With what single-mindedness, with what common sense would you entrust the fate of the revolution

1:00:45 and of mankind to an ignorant mob, weakened by poverty, brainwashed by the priest, and which today will be blindly bloodthirsty, while tomorrow it will allow itself to be clumsily deceived by a rogue, or bow its head servilely under the heel of the first military dictator who dares to make himself master?” So here, the argument recognizes the fact that an educated community brought up in cooperation wouldn’t need a government, but it says that humans, lacking education and brought up in a world based on competition, both side-effects of capitalism, won’t be able to adapt themselves to a completely different worldview. How could someone who grew up in a capitalist society, who got the minimum education required to work and who sees their neighbour as someone they compete with, be fit to live in an anarchist

1:01:35 society? Someone who advocates for the destruction of hierarchies might favour a democratic government which would gradually educate people to become independent and cooperative. Once that happens, then the government could disappear. This is an idea marxists call “the withering away of the state”: It’s the belief that once there is no more competition, “The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away.” Friedrich Engels But, anarchists believe that the state can’t wither away.

1:02:22 Being a concentration of power, it will always seek to preserve itself, to defend its existence, to protect its privileges. On top of that, as stated earlier, the government doesn’t add anything to the current forces of society. Everything that happens in the world is done by people. If you want to educate people, teach them how to cooperate and show them that cooperation is in their interest, you can do it without a government. The current forces of society, without being monopolized by the government, can organize an anarchist revolution because the government doesn’t add anything to these forces. There are no reasons to lead a revolution through a government. Without a government, people will still influence each other. We don’t need to force people to cooperate, we’ll cooperate out of necessity.

1:03:09 Abolishing the government won’t mean we’ll stop talking to each other and that we’ll stop working together. We are mutually dependent! We will organize when the government is abolished, no matter how corrupted by capitalism we are, because “The abolition of this mutual influence would be death. And when we vindicate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them; what we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official.” Mikhail Bakunin. In chapter 9, Malatesta gives examples as to how, after a revolution, people would still organize without a government: If people want to teach and spread knowledge, they’ll become teachers.

1:03:56 A government could not just create such people magically out of nowhere. The government would just force these teachers to do what they love in a strictly regulated method, a method that most likely will reinforce the power of the ones imposing it. A revolution wouldn’t destroy the forces that already exist, but let them free! Free to develop in the direction they want, free from domination! This would unlock an unknown potential that will most likely be very beneficial to society. “And this is the only way that the masses can raise themselves, for it is only through freedom that one educates oneself to be free, just as it is only by working that one can

…