US, WSA Ideas & Actions - Malatesta and Syndicalism By Emilio L?pez Arango

A note from the translator: ?This is a never before translated piece by Lopez Arango, one 
of the main theorists of the pre-1930 FORA, that goes against Malatesta?s ideas on the 
unions. The prose is filled with flourish and it not straight forward at all. I tried to 
take liberties to make it more readable in English? It has some really interesting 
elements in it: focus on the method of struggle, rejection of unions in post-rev society, 
rejection of anarcho-syndicalism as a concept, clarity of the dynamic of struggle between 
pre-revolutionary periods and ruptures, etc. The FORA was way ahead of their time.? ---- 
From the weekly supplement of La Protesta, July 13, 1925 ---- Emilio L?pez Arango ---- In 
a translation of ?Pensiero e Volonte? from Rome, an article by Malatesta was published 
about the relation in theory and fact between anarchism and syndicalism.

The aforementioned comrade raised a point of contradiction between those two terms, and 
explains how the role of the labor movement and activity of anarchists outside and inside 
of the unions, and in a final note subtlety gathered words written in La Protesta. The 
article of Malatesta generalizes a problem not yet sufficiently discussed and clarified.

He expresses his point of view that deserves the greatest respect, and despite offering 
some suggestions to share we don?t rush to pick it up with the only intention of outlining 
our thesis on the subject. But the note added at the end there of the comrade Malatesta, 
forces us to clarify the value of some words that may have different meaning in Italy and 
Argentina, as terms now in vogue lend themselves to frequent and unfortunate confusion.

When we refer to the cultural work of political anarchism, we don?t want to say that 
specific anarchist organizations (like the Italian or French, for example) are limited to 
making propaganda via the book, pamphlet and newspaper, or capturing adherents with 
conferences in social centers, ateneos, etc. We also don?t want to be guilty of 
attributing the intention of these militants to wait for all workers to develop before 
social revolution is possible. Yes, we note the existence of a cultural movement diluted 
in the environment, imprecise in its form of activity with tendencies of covering all of 
humanity with ideals of redemption. And we do not believe in the efficacy of that medium, 
which for it?s own inaccuracy goes unnoticed by the workers themselves, we oppose 
systematic propaganda in the union and the anarchist objective in the economic 
organizations that Malatesta and other comrades consider neutral ground in the struggle of 
tendencies that divide the proletariat. Malatesta concludes that from this interpretation 
of the labor movement, particularly held by us in this country, our opposition to 
political anarchism-of party or cultural center- follows and is inspired by the 
anarcho-syndicalist perspective. That is precisely his error, that anarcho-syndicalism is 
a combination of the anarchist and syndicalist tendencies, a hybrid product of this 
confusing period. In that grammatical compound is disguised the old reformist tendency 
applied to the labor movement in some way the product of preaching ideological neutrality 
in the unions. Without wishing to insult the old master, we declare that Malatesta as 
Fabbri-the theorist of the unity of the classes and of the doctrinal disregard in the 
workers movement- is closer than we are to anarcho-syndicalism.

Words don?t have the same meaning everywhere, especially when new labels are applied to 
old theories. In Germany, for example, anarcho-syndicalism is a new form of expression: it 
is, according to Rocker, the fundamental revolutionary tendency, bordering on anarchism,
founded after the war in the actions of workers in order to put forward new tactics of 
struggle and new theoretical conclusions beyond social democracy and to find, therefore,
the means of bringing about a collapse of the central organizations of the German 
proletariat. But in Latin countries, with the libertarian and federalist traditions, where 
the word anarchy doesn?t scare anyone, what use is there to use an ambiguous label? 
Defined theoretically, the union of anarchism and syndicalism is not possible, nor even in 
words. Hence, the partisans of doctrinal neutrality only interests in calling the 
syndicalists apolitical and performing their activities on two distinct planes: in the 
unions as employees, and in the parties as adherents of a particular social or political 
creed.

We are, as we mentioned, very far from that tendency that now is labeled 
anarcho-syndicalist. We have defined our own situation in the labor movement, not so as to 
impose our conditions on the workers-for the economic link as Fabbri calls it as 
indispensible to the success of proletarian organization and avoiding the break down of 
the unity of the class-, but because we have seen in the unions an efficacious means of 
propaganda, and that practice of daily struggle demonstrates that it is not possible to 
train the proletariat from a plane situated outside or above the proletariat itself. 
Anarcho-syndicalism, aims to be a revolutionary theory situated between reformist 
syndicalism and doctrinalist anarchism, takes the first means of action, direct or 
indirect depending on the case, appropriates corporatist practices and their economic 
formulas, and while adorned with the words of the second, the more suggestive is the 
empirical. The ?compound? is a real potato salad, something that looks appetizing, but 
ultimately is difficult to digest.

Malatesta may charge, and with him all the defenders of political anarchism as well ? from 
specific organizations at the margins of the worker?s movement and in opposition to the 
electoral parties- that acceptance of the anarchist label in unions implies a tendency of 
exclusivity, and for reasons already stated they reject it. But this imposition, which 
already otherwise occurs in all spheres of human activity in spite of our libertarian 
agitation, is not an act of violence in the labor movement. We do not force the workers of 
a trade or industry, only for having identical interests as employees, to submit to our 
organizations. We prefer to unite workers according to their ideas and not only by the 
bond of class. Hence, we prefer organizing as many trends as divide the proletariat to 
divisions of improvised corporations on economic bases subjected to rigid discipline. 
There is nothing more absurd than class unity, fostered by political parties to 
consolidate their own power over workers. Without participating in these purposes with a 
false interpretation of the labor movement, according to our view, Malatesta and Fabbri 
also support this unity, and lead by example by giving up any propaganda for secessionist 
purposes.

In so doing, Malatesta and Fabbri reconcile with their own thinking. They could no longer 
hold a contradictory position, a falsehood evident in recent years. If they support 
doctrinal neutrality in unions and class unity as a means of making any action against the 
bourgeoisie possible, it was not logical at the same time support the Italian Trade 
Union[1] produced by a split, as opposed to the proletarian entity the CGT, who within her 
womb contains most of organized labor and plays the role of a neutral space open to all 
trends ? on condition that the official organization not accept the program of the ruling 
clique. In reality, it is political anarchism which proposes the conjunction of the two 
antithetical words ?anarcho-syndicalism?, that expresses nothing as a doctrine despite the
efforts of certain theorists of ambiguity. Do we need to bring those two words together to 
describe our activity as militants and demonstration the orientation of the movement that 
drives us within the proletarian grouping? We do not hold the ambiguity of those who are 
anarchists in the party or group, and syndicalists in the union. In the same way we reject 
subdivisions that select a specialty of propaganda: the antimilitarists, rationalists, the 
anti-alcoholics, vegetarians, Esperanto, etc., and we believe that anarchism is only one 
in all the infinite variety of revolutionary activities, so we combat all the capricious 
divisions of the anarchists in the economic camp and in the political arena. And we do not 
give credence to the allegation those who, to justify their own specialty, declare that 
other specialties are wrong or dangerous hotbeds of corruption.

We are told that the union is reformist in nature. But it is necessary to explain the 
scope of the word. The conquest of economic improvement, the daily struggle against 
capitalism, resistance to abuse of power, is this the work of reformers? Do you suppose 
the desire to create something that is finally enshrined in law, as opposed to future 
conquests? In the area of wages, every conquest is transient, perishable, as it is subject 
to economic contingencies that capitalists can not regulate. Consequently, there is no 
legal reform, but only constant change in the value of the means of exchange and it?s 
equivalence of the worker?s work, which is measured by the bourgeoisie with its economic 
bevel.

That same defensive action is carried out by political parties in the parliamentary 
sphere, giving reform in its true expression. And political anarchism, even while 
repudiating electoral groups and dispensing with the parliament and reformist actions, 
does nothing to encourage such changes in economic conditions of the people when involved 
in protests against the high cost of living or while engaging in popular agitation aimed 
at curbing the exploitation of capitalism. That is the relationship in the economic field 
between union activity and anarchist propaganda inspired by transient improvements. 
Everything depends, then, on how that struggle is carried out. The anarchists who are 
active in the trade unions, if they can act as such and exert effective influence over 
their fellow workers (will that moral dictatorship also be pernicious?) can prevent many 
strikes being resolved in government offices and in the halls of ministries. That single 
work is a relatively important contribution to fighting faith in the law and the worship 
of the politics, which are the true foundations of reformism.

Any revolutionary propaganda made in a non-revolutionary period is based on immediate 
goals which can be included in any program of social reforms. But what interests us is not 
the object pursued by the proletariat in actions and protests, peaceful or violent, but 
rather the way they express their discontent against the injustices and crimes of 
capitalism, the state, and the means used to secure their conquests. Is not it absurd to 
restore equivalence between political action aiming at social reform through protective 
laws, and the anarchist who favors a strike to win a gain that contradicts the most 
advanced legislation and is in opposition to the plans of parliamentary reformism? As long 
as social revolution is not a fact, workers will be forced to defend against capitalism 
with their specific weapons of struggle: strikes, sabotage, boycotts, etc. That will be 
reformist work easily exploited by advanced political parties, but the question resides in 
preventing unions legislating on labor and legalizing the reform which is otherwise not 
pursued by the defenders of the formula: all power to unions and Marxists disguised using 
the anarchosyndicalist label.

What matters is to discuss whether the unions, as a weapon for defense of the proletariat, 
can provide a broad scope for the anarchists. We argue yes, and in saying this we rely on 
the experience of our movement. Within the frames of the F.O.R.A. anarchist propaganda 
developed unhindered. And that is an achievement more important than all that can be done 
outside the proletarian sphere, in environments not conducive to the spread of redemptive 
ideas.

If anarchism does not have in the labor movement one of its most logical expressions- the 
principle base of its revolutionary activity ? on what basis can we bring about the 
triumph of the revolution and anarchy? Malatesta considered that unions could exercise a 
reformist function, but not that they serve as elements of ideological capacitation of the 
proletariat. He substantiates as well the necessity of syndicalism as a front against the 
bourgeoisie, recommending to the anarchists to contribute their energies to the defensive 
action of the working class. We on the other hand, without attributing to the unions any 
post-revolutionary functions or economic organizations nor strive to improvise economic 
organization for the capitalist organs after the liquidation of the present regime, we 
understand that the union offers to the anarchists an excellent means to propagate their 
ideas and oppose the prevailing authoritarian tendencies in the workers movement in most 
countries.

This subject lends itself to many other considerations ? But we leave it for another day 
since this article was already too long.