A review by Natale Musarra of my book The Anarchist Method appeared in
Sicilia Libertaria in February. I do not intend to respond to the
review, because this would not be of interest, but I would like to take
inspiration from a sentence of the reviewer to discuss a topic that may
be of general interest. The reviewer reproaches me for «the use of
concepts, foreign to anarchism, such as those of leader and party head».
Speaking of "concepts", I assume that the reviewer himself makes a
distinction between "leader" and "party head" (otherwise they would just
be two different expressions to express the same concept). Let's leave
aside the "party leader", because I hope it is obvious that my use of
this concept, in reference to anarchism, is a hallucination of the
reviewer. In the book, however, I applied the term "leader" to anarchism
three times, two of which were accompanied by an explicit explanation,
to avoid any misunderstandings. In one case I referred to «individuals
who enjoyed greater visibility, prestige or influence» and in the other
I clarified that «"leadership" must be understood as an informal and
spontaneous recognition on the part of anarchist militants, not as a
formal and hierarchical relationship». I therefore ask myself: is the
concept of "leader" in this sense really foreign to anarchism?
Mine is a history book, so it describes, not judges. You may not like
the fact that anarchist leaders exist, but not liking something is not
enough for it not to exist. Weren't Luigi Galleani and Armando Borghi
leaders? And Durruti? And Makhno? Malatesta was inappropriately called
"Pontiff" and "Lenin of Italy", but there must be a reason why these
names fell to him and not to others. In 1913, while he was directing
Volontà, he was called to hold rallies in all parts of Italy and didn't
know where to turn. After the outbreak of the war, when his adversaries
were already beginning to speculate on his "symptomatic silence" and the
wait for his position was growing, his five main articles had 47
editions in at least seven languages. In 1920, as director of a
newspaper, he held three or four rallies a day every day. His pamphlets
have circulated in millions of copies. Can we say that Malatesta was not
a leader? Or maybe he wasn't an anarchist?
But then, what is it that he is foreign to anarchism? They are
obedience, the cult of personality, the ipse dixit of the medieval
Aristotelian philosophers. We know that we discuss everything, from God
to the worm. But precisely because we discuss everything, speaking,
writing, opining, judging, exhorting, persuading cannot be foreign to
anarchism. And it is a fact of life that due to diversity of talent,
culture, devotion to the cause, spirit of initiative, all those things
can be done with more or less clarity and effectiveness and that
therefore one can be listened to and followed to different degrees. Is
there something authoritarian in having more influence than others?
Maybe it's just the word "leader" that bothers you. If so, no big deal.
Let's look for another word to express the same concept. Personally, I
didn't find it. But here too we are careful, because if we have to avoid
all the words that have a bad reputation due to the authoritarians, the
vocabulary becomes a minefield for anarchists. In a 1925 article on
gradualism, Malatesta gave examples of the terms "possibilist",
"opportunist" and "transformist". For my part, I have been criticized by
super-anarchist reviewers for the very use of the term "gradualist" in
reference to Malatesta! Today even the word "communism" is unpublished
and the qualification of "libertarian" is on the same path, which the
reactionaries of America already boast of having stolen from us. At this
rate the next word to be abandoned will be "anarchy", because for
everyone except us it means "chaos".
In my modest work as a historian, one of the major concerns, perhaps the
greatest one, is to refute the many stereotypes that are attached to
anarchists, using the technique that in English they call "scarecrow": a
false simulacrum of the adversary is constructed and then destroy it
easily. The most untenable opinions are attributed to the opponent and
then triumphantly refuted. And so anarchists are presented as
impossibilists, purists, utopians, fideists, irrealists and so on.
However, it must be recognized that sometimes anarchists put their own
spin on it and put the scarecrow hat on their heads themselves.
Davide Turcato
February 17, 2024
Ed. In the next issue the discussion started by Davide Turcato will be
continued with an intervention by Natale Musarra.
http://sicilialibertaria.it
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Sicilia Libertaria in February. I do not intend to respond to the
review, because this would not be of interest, but I would like to take
inspiration from a sentence of the reviewer to discuss a topic that may
be of general interest. The reviewer reproaches me for «the use of
concepts, foreign to anarchism, such as those of leader and party head».
Speaking of "concepts", I assume that the reviewer himself makes a
distinction between "leader" and "party head" (otherwise they would just
be two different expressions to express the same concept). Let's leave
aside the "party leader", because I hope it is obvious that my use of
this concept, in reference to anarchism, is a hallucination of the
reviewer. In the book, however, I applied the term "leader" to anarchism
three times, two of which were accompanied by an explicit explanation,
to avoid any misunderstandings. In one case I referred to «individuals
who enjoyed greater visibility, prestige or influence» and in the other
I clarified that «"leadership" must be understood as an informal and
spontaneous recognition on the part of anarchist militants, not as a
formal and hierarchical relationship». I therefore ask myself: is the
concept of "leader" in this sense really foreign to anarchism?
Mine is a history book, so it describes, not judges. You may not like
the fact that anarchist leaders exist, but not liking something is not
enough for it not to exist. Weren't Luigi Galleani and Armando Borghi
leaders? And Durruti? And Makhno? Malatesta was inappropriately called
"Pontiff" and "Lenin of Italy", but there must be a reason why these
names fell to him and not to others. In 1913, while he was directing
Volontà, he was called to hold rallies in all parts of Italy and didn't
know where to turn. After the outbreak of the war, when his adversaries
were already beginning to speculate on his "symptomatic silence" and the
wait for his position was growing, his five main articles had 47
editions in at least seven languages. In 1920, as director of a
newspaper, he held three or four rallies a day every day. His pamphlets
have circulated in millions of copies. Can we say that Malatesta was not
a leader? Or maybe he wasn't an anarchist?
But then, what is it that he is foreign to anarchism? They are
obedience, the cult of personality, the ipse dixit of the medieval
Aristotelian philosophers. We know that we discuss everything, from God
to the worm. But precisely because we discuss everything, speaking,
writing, opining, judging, exhorting, persuading cannot be foreign to
anarchism. And it is a fact of life that due to diversity of talent,
culture, devotion to the cause, spirit of initiative, all those things
can be done with more or less clarity and effectiveness and that
therefore one can be listened to and followed to different degrees. Is
there something authoritarian in having more influence than others?
Maybe it's just the word "leader" that bothers you. If so, no big deal.
Let's look for another word to express the same concept. Personally, I
didn't find it. But here too we are careful, because if we have to avoid
all the words that have a bad reputation due to the authoritarians, the
vocabulary becomes a minefield for anarchists. In a 1925 article on
gradualism, Malatesta gave examples of the terms "possibilist",
"opportunist" and "transformist". For my part, I have been criticized by
super-anarchist reviewers for the very use of the term "gradualist" in
reference to Malatesta! Today even the word "communism" is unpublished
and the qualification of "libertarian" is on the same path, which the
reactionaries of America already boast of having stolen from us. At this
rate the next word to be abandoned will be "anarchy", because for
everyone except us it means "chaos".
In my modest work as a historian, one of the major concerns, perhaps the
greatest one, is to refute the many stereotypes that are attached to
anarchists, using the technique that in English they call "scarecrow": a
false simulacrum of the adversary is constructed and then destroy it
easily. The most untenable opinions are attributed to the opponent and
then triumphantly refuted. And so anarchists are presented as
impossibilists, purists, utopians, fideists, irrealists and so on.
However, it must be recognized that sometimes anarchists put their own
spin on it and put the scarecrow hat on their heads themselves.
Davide Turcato
February 17, 2024
Ed. In the next issue the discussion started by Davide Turcato will be
continued with an intervention by Natale Musarra.
http://sicilialibertaria.it
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten