A-Infos (en) A Second Letter To Malatesta, by Nestor Makhno

Following the publication in 1926 of the "Organization Platform of the General 
Union of Anarchists (Draft)" by the Group of Russian Anarchists Abroad in the 
pages of their journal "Delo Truda", over a period of about five years there 
took place within the anarchist movement a long debate over the merits and 
demerits of the project for a new anarchist international organization. One of 
the best known parts of this debate was the exchange of opinions between the 
Ukrainian anarchist Nestor Makhno, one of the Platform's authors and supporters, 
and the éminence grise of the international anarchist movement, Errico 
Malatesta. We are now at last able to read the "final instalment" of this 
debate, with the publication in English of Makhno's second reply to Malatesta, 
originally published in the French anarchist paper, "Le Libertaire" in 1930.

By way of background, the preceding elements of this debate can be found online 
at the Makhno Archive (see below). The letter is also available in French, 
Spanish, Italian and Greek.

N. McNab
Nestor Makhno Archive

***********************

"Organizational Platform of the General Union of Anarchists (Draft)", GRAA (1926)
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/newplatform/org_plat.htm

"A Project of Anarchist Organisation", Errico Malatesta (1927)
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep1.htm

"About the Platform", Nestor Makhno (1928)
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/abouplat.htm

"A Reply to Makhno", Errico Malatesta (1929)
http://www.nestormakhno.info/english/mal_rep2.htm


A Second Letter To Malatesta
by Nestor Makhno


Dear comrade,

I waited to read a Russian translation of your letter before replying to you in 
turn. In your letter you say that before getting into an argument, something I 
might say I had not thought to do, you would like me to set out my ideas on 
anarchism. I will therefore explain these ideas and, at the same time, the 
causes to which I attribute the weakness of our movement.

As any anarchist, I reject authority in general, I am an adversary of all 
organization based on centralism, I recognize neither the State nor its 
legislative apparatus, I am a convinced enemy of bourgeois democracy and 
parliamentarianism - considering this social form to be an obstacle to the 
liberation of the workers - in a word, I rise up against any regime based on the 
exploitation of the workers.

So, anarchism for me is a revolutionary social doctrine that must inspire the 
exploited and oppressed. However, in my opinion, anarchism does not at present 
possess all the means it requires to carry out even one social action; hence the 
swamp in which we find ourselves. And we will not be able to remedy the 
situation by remaining as we are now.

We can understand as much as we like; as far as I am concerned, I believe that 
anarchists must not be afraid of abandoning their traditional opinions when 
drawing the logical conclusions that derive from the thinking of our 
theoreticians. For example, one question arises. Does anarchism - and 
consequently the mass of revolutionary workers - need to envisage permanent 
organizations that can guarantee the useful social functions that the State 
currently takes upon itself, organizations that must be a tool with which 
practical policies consistent with the anarchist ideal can be established? Or is 
this the role of the workers' syndicates and agricultural cooperatives or of 
others that, in their current form, are ideologically influenced by the sort of 
anarchist action groups that exist today?

I am inclined to believe that once this primordial question has been resolved by 
anarchists, other problems of equal importance will face our movement.

In particular, anarchists must fully grasp what Kropotkin intended with the 
expression "common law social institution" in order to be able to determine, 
concretely and in a manner adequate to our times, the nature of these 
institutions whose relationship with anarchism has no need to be proved.

These deductions will be of the utmost importance, not only for the 
revolutionary masses in general, but also for anarchists in particular, as let 
us not forget that 90% of us have never considered these questions; since 
neither Malatesta nor Faure nor any of our old comrades has dealt with these 
problems and say nothing about the deplorable state of our movement, these 
comrades are left to deduce that everything is fine and that anarchists are 
ready to play their indispensable destructive and constructive role in the 
revolution of tomorrow. However, the reality is entirely different: year after 
year our movement loses more and more influence among the workers and, 
consequently, it gets weaker. It is true that certain theoreticians "in our 
Russian circles in particular say that anarchism's strength lies in its 
weakness, and its weakness in its strength", so there is no need to worry if 
anarchist organizations lose their influence... But on closer
  examination, this statement is seen to be entirely stupid, it is simply an 
evasive formula designed to mollify the chatterboxes when it comes to explaining 
the real state of anarchism.

I believe that a truly social movement, such as I conceive the anarchist 
movement to be, cannot have positive policies until such times as it has given 
itself with relatively stable organizational forms that can provide the various 
means that are required for the struggle against the different authoritarian 
social systems. It is the absence of these means that results in anarchist 
action - above all in the revolutionary period - degenerating into a sort of 
local individualism all because, in declaring themselves to be the enemies of 
"all constitutions", anarchists have in general seen the wide masses move away 
from them, as they inspire no hope of any sort of practical achievement.

In order to struggle and win, we need tactics whose nature must be expressed in 
a programme of practical action. Only when anarchists have such a programme will 
they be able to rally the exploited masses around them and prepare them for the 
great revolutionary battle with an equally great chance to achieve a radical 
social transformation.

But, let me repeat, such a test cannot be attempted without a permanent 
organization. Believing that today's propaganda groups will suffice for this 
revolutionary task is an illusion. In order for any social organization to play 
a role, it must be known by the popular masses before the revolutionary process 
begins its course.

So then, instead of spending their time rejecting left, right and centre, I 
believe that anarchists would be better occupied getting to grips with what they 
do want and proposing something realistic to the workers, in place of all the 
things they reject.

Then, and only then, will anarchists be able to expect with good reason to fill 
the role that they would take upon themselves, that is to say the "vigilant 
guardians of liberty against the power and against the tyranny of the majority, 
should it arise".

Unfortunately, as things stand anarchism is strong only in its philosophy. It 
lacks practical means. It is unable to manifest itself completely, even in times 
of revolution, and those spontaneous movements with an anarchist spirit that do 
appear, seem to the eyes of the wide masses to be merely desperate attempts. And 
that only goes towards making anarchism's tragic state even worse.

You ask if the way I conceive the role of anarchists before and during the 
revolution is the same as your view, as set out in your reply. By way of answer, 
I would say that I am in total agreement with you as regards the role to be 
played, but I believe that such a role can only be played successfully when our 
Party is ideologically homogeneous and unified from the point of view of 
tactics, something which is not the case at present. Experience teaches us that 
anarchist action on a wide scale will only achieve its goals if it possesses a 
well-defined organizational base, inspired and guided by the principle of the 
collective responsibility of its militants.

"How do you wish to guide the masses?", you ask. In reply, I would say that, 
during the course of events, every social movement, especially every 
revolutionary movement of the wide popular masses, is required to formulate 
certain proposals designed to help the intended goal be achieved. The mass is 
too heterogeneous to be able to do this. Only ideological groups with 
clearly-defined policies are capable of driving this process, particularly 
towards the beginning of the revolution. Only they will be able to throw enough 
light on events and clearly define the unconscious desires of the masses, and 
setting an example through actions and words. It is for this reason that our 
Party must, in my opinion, make clear its political unity and organizational 
character. In the domain of practical achievements, the autonomous anarchist 
groups must be able to face up to every new situation that presents itself, in 
establishing the problems to be resolved and the
  responses to make without hesitation and without altering the goals and the 
spirit of anarchism.

With fraternal greetings,

Nestor Makhno.

"Le Libertaire", 9 August 1930
Translated from the French by Nestor McNab.


The Nestor Makhno Archive
http://www.nestormakhno.info


From: Nestor Makhno Archive <makhno_archive -A- yahoo.com>
_________________________________________
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
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en