If you’re here, it’s because you decided
you’d like to learn more about anarchist
theory. In this series, we’ll be talking
about Ericco Malatesta’s 1892 pamphlet:
Anarchy. My name is Shawn and welcome to Germinal.
Before we start, I’d like to preface this
by saying that these videos don’t replace
Malatesta’s book. What I strongly recommend
you to do is to read a chapter and then watch
the video about this chapter. For example,
this video is about chapter 1, so I strongly
encourage you to read it before watching the
rest of this video, the link to the text is
in the description. The audiobook version
is also available on youtube and it takes
less than 10min to listen to chapter 1. If
you don’t like reading, well, if I can make
you read one short chapter at a time and help
you understand the content of each chapter,
it will be a great achievement.
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 these videos.
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?
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 has always been that way.
This was also noted by Étienne de la Boétie
in The Discourse of 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.” »
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 are really just
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. 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 attack 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 to
be dependant on an authority for our societies
to survive.
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 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 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 is no longer.
If you want to know why, join us next episode
for Chapter 2 of Malatesta’s Anarchy.
Thank you for watching!
