academiccompositionab
Empowerment Equalizer
SSaragian
Antony Sammeroff
Ann Sterzinger
Rodney
RJ
busterjames
cainusmaxus
Craig FitzGerald
David Heleniak
Caity & Dan Greene
keirmartland
Keith Preston
Bill the Butcher
ljp711
MRDA
Jack Donovan
Rachel Haywire
comrade hermit
Michael
Vince
Regan
robertstark2014
Noonan
S E Pearson
Rachel Haywire
Nexus X HumectressBy Cake Boy
I was reading Malatesta, some days ago (the famous anarho communist thinker). And some things I noticed. I noticed how different he is from what I would have thought. And how different his theory actually is from what modern ancoms (anarcho communists) make of it. I don’t think modern anarcho communists even read these works.
I was looking at the most important parts of the book. What actually does Malatesta propose? What is the practical side of his theory? I found this at the end of the book. basically, he is proposing a sort of panarchy approach, which i wouldn’t have thought. He says communism is great, but of course, you can’t force it on people. He sees state communism as disgusting. So, he talks about voluntary communism. I think the most modern ancoms are actually state communists. They want to force communism, economically and culturally. This is something i noticed, a lot of the modern leftist anarchists are actually masked leninist. We can also see this in the way they align themselves with all kinds of Marxist and communist organisations, which they call ‘their comrades’.
Malatesta doesn’t talk about identitarian issues in the book. You don’t hear him talk about men, women, blacks, whites, gays, straights, trans, non trans, sex workers, whatever. This is something that came later into ancom. Modern ancoms got this from third world marxism, and Frankfurt marxism.
Malatesta’s theory goes a bit like this : The state monopolises land, and let landlords have it, and this leads to exploitation. We need to take back the land, and create all kinds of voluntary communities on that land, Some will be communist, some mutualists and some individualist (now we would say, libertarian, probably, instead of individualist).
Malatesta does want a revolution to get to this world. I personally don’t think that this is possible. I think violent revolutions always lead to centralised outcomes. Because someone has to monitor the whole process, a vanguard will be created, and this vanguard will lead to top-down policies. I think Proudhon is right when he says change has to go naturally, organically, gradually, and voluntarily.
Philosophically, Malatesta’s work is based on a sort of Christianity/humanism. His thinking is based on love for people, he tells us. The weak should revolt against the strong, and this is then seen as justice. The last will be the first.
It’s not strange; Malatesta grew up in a Christian culture. Christian cultures will often redefine their Christianity in a secularist manner. We also see this in my country, where even secular people quote the Bible or Jesus.
We read that Malatesta didn’t like the Stirnerite approach to anarchism. He saw that as rebellion, not anarchism. Rebellion of the strong against the unjust order. What Malatesta had in mind was not an individual revolt but a revolutionary process towards a more just society based on communal land ownership and social/economic plurality. Malatesta believed we could reach that world in a short amount of time. He was in a hurry. He was very optimistic about the potential of common people. Common people are not stupid; the moment they find their collective strength, they will make big steps in their progression.
A contradiction in Malatesta’s work is his humanism and love for people, combined with his emphasis on revolutionary violence. He even talks about ‘holy violence’. In revolutions, people don’t show their most loving face, often. Revolutions tend to get stuck in mass behavior, mass hysteria, and random acts of cruelty. This ‘holy violence’ will mean that a lot of innocent people will die. People that are seen as too ‘reactionary’, because they own a bible, for example, or because they go to church, or becaues they voted for a republican party, or they use words that are not used by the working class, or they listen tot he wrong music, or they own a restaurant, or they posted something ‘transphobic’, or whatever.
So, the interesting thing to see was that Malatesta allready talked about voluntary organisation, and pluralism. He is a communist, but he is seemingly not against free markets (libertarian unity?). The money and the markets are not the problem, but the monopolisation of land, and landlordism is. We never hear modern ancoms about this.
It’s interesting to see that Malatesta didn’t discuss cultural issues in the book. His revolution is a political/material revolution, not a cultural one. It’s about taking the land and ending hunger. When we read these old books, we also see how leftist anarchism has changed. In the past, the anarchist program was clearer. People could really understand what these anarchists actually wanted, and they were literally fighting for it. In the core, their struggle was about taking control over the land.
For now, a theory like Malatesta’s could be useful in a third-world country. I could see people in a South American country actually creating something out of Malatesta’s work. And this is, in a way, true because something like the Zapatista movement has anarchist traits. In the West, his kind of political program will never happen, in my view. It’s a bit too radical for Europeans and Americans.
Attack the System
Categories: Uncategorized
Good on highlighting the difference between cultural and material revolutions. It takes a certain kind of comfort (and boredom) for a full-on diversion from material struggle into cultural theatrics.
On a side note, what I’ve always found underrated about Malatesta is how much of a people’s organizer he was. He drew massive crowds. Tens of thousands of people would show up for him without using mass media, in a time when being an anarchist could get you locked up. He worked with everyone. He was in the streets, in union halls, in people’s kitchens, making anarchism real to people who’d never read a single pamphlet. In some ways, his influence hit harder on the ground than a lot of the “big name” theorists of his time.
> He is a communist, but he is seemingly not against free markets (libertarian unity?)
Only with mutualists, maybe. He would not have supported unity with ancaps.
The material revolution makes the most sense. The struggle is physical in the core
Modern ancom, is also influenced by calvinist christianity. To modern ancoms, ancom is not about changing the economy, material conditions, but its about ‘being a good person’ and show other people (your parents?) that you are a good person. They still have Jezus in the back of their mind, watching over them. So, modern ancom nonsense its influenced by both christianity and cultural marxism.
Another thing, reply to the next person
Yes, so this is very important to understand
Look, in the core Malatesta said : the government now owns all the land. And they give it to some cronies. Landlord cronies.
We must end this, the people should own the land in common. Not the state, and not capital, and not the church. This is the core of the whole struggle. Its in a way the same as what Henry George wrote about, but he was less radical than Malatesta, and had different ideas. But he also said : take back the land, from those who claim it. That is the main objective.
Malatesta than says: take back the land, and let people create their own social orders on it, as long as its voluntary. This could also mean, that one social order is based on voluntary capitalism. The problem is not capitalism, the problem is forced capitalism, in his logic. And i agree with him. The problem is not landlordism, the problem is that people are forced into landlord relations. If a very small percentage of people, want to live in an ancap situation, than they can do so. Look, suppose you can choose between ancom, mutualism, or ancap. Than the ancap isn’t a problem. If there is one place, where everyone likes to pay landlords 70 % of their income, than thats up to them. Some people are masochists
So, let the people take back the land, and let them create their own voluntary systems on that land. Malatesta doesn’t say how these systems should look. They can be based on money, barter, communism, progressivism, or conservatism.
We see that Malatesta’s system of thought is very differen than the current black/red groups out there. Its more open to classical liberalism, i would say. He really opposes marxism, and he isn’t against free markets. So, we see something that is closer to liberalism, than to marxism. You could see it as a radical form of classical liberalism
Yes, so we see that Malatesta could reach ten thousands of people, with his vision. This is logical, because he could reach both the middle class, business owners and the workers, and the farmers, who all didn’t like the landlords. Who where all suffering from landlordism. Masses of people. In this period of time, this is still the case. The worker, the intellectual, the farmer, and the business owner, all suffer from the exsessively high rents. This is also the big issue, of this time.
In this period, the red/black protests consist of twenty kids, who have patches of punkrock bands on their trousers. They wave rainbow flags, and refuse to talk to the press, because the press is ‘fascist’. The people laugh at these kids, and throw eggs at them. Malatesta would have distanced himself from them, if he would live in this period of time. He would be very ashamed, of what became of anarchism. An anarchism coopted by NGO’s and communists
Just so you know, I respect people with opinions I don’t agree with. I have nothing against him. He, like other anarchists of the 19th and 20th century, is an example of a strong spirit and a real rebel, unlike our contemporaries. And that’s why he had a different opinion from us. He should be revered and his biography and prose studied. Even if you’re ancap, natan or any other current of an right-anarchist who rejects planned economy, communism or culture leftism. Including so that there are no misunderstandings like we have now.
Here is the quote – https://s.42l.fr/Db17g8gL
Malatesta called liberalism is “anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie”. Voluntary capitalism you wrote about above hits too. If someone started building an “Ancapistan” on the free terrain of anarchy, he would go to war on them with his comrades or his successors. Since he didn’t consider it correct anarchy. In Malatesta’s eyes it would look like a restoration of the state. And this must be stopped urgently. There is no need to hide that the Ancaps (there was no such word back then, despite the fact that there were already people with similar views) weren’t accepted and befriended by everyone. They were considered then just more radical liberals, “quasi-anarchists” as Marx called them. Subj apparently didn’t perceive them either. It wasn’t common at all. The only person who actively searched among them and even found support, even if only 2-4 people and one and only two were alive at his time was Benjamin Tucker. Errico Malatesta was not the man. Please, don’t put ideas into an author’s vision that he would clearly reject.
I reread your article. I mischaracterized him. He seems more naive than I thought. But he was right to criticize rebellion. But he would still be unhappy if the Ancaps were to build their “Anсapistan” and if they succeeded, for the reason I described above. It doesn’t matter anyway. Thank you for the article. Keep up the good work.
Another thing i wanted to say
So this is the main issue, for anarchism. Look, when its a monopoly, it doesn’t work
If anarchism means, that a commitee of people, decide that everyone in a region has to work in communes, and share everything, and have the same cultural values/ideas, than thats just a form of communism. I would call it antifa communism/totalitarianism.
If anarchism means, that a landlord baught all the land, and everyone can rent by them, than its just neoliberalism. I would call it, Milei neoliberalism
If anarchism means, we all democraticly own the land, and divide it into cantons and regions, which people can freely join, or leave. Than its libertarian. This is what Malatesta is talking about. And this vision got lost, somewhere. People lost the nuances in the culture war, i gues.
So, Malatesta ancom, would mean that people should make a social bodies, which will redistribute land, to all kinds of social and economical groups, in a democratic manner. If 30 percent wants communism, they get 30 percent of the land, if 20 percent wants mutualism, they get 20 percent etc. If the native americans want 5 percent, they get 5 percent. Its all about land reform, in the end. Land reform, and political decentralisation. You could say, its about taking back the idea of the commons, in a modernist way
Its offcourse pretty hard, to put something like this in to practice. But when people actually want it, and if its serious, than it could be a political movement
cake sensei
The last thing i want to say
The word ‘ancom’ is a bit misleading, for Malatesta his thought
He himself, liked the idea of communism. A guy who thinks living in communes is a good idea, would you call that a communist?
If i say : i think sharing and working together, is a good idea. Would that make me a communist? Than hippies are communists. Are hippies communists? I never saw them like that
When people think of communism, they think of Lenin statues etc. The whole idea of communism, is force, centralisation, creating massive industries and armies etc.
People use the colors red and black, for ancom thought. But i don’t know if red is the right color. The thought of Malatesta, is very different from both socialism and communism. Its very different, from red thought. So, the red in the flag is also misleading, in my view.