Anarchy

by Errico Malatesta

Classic introduction to the subject by the Italian activist.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Anarchism, Theory, History, Italian Literature

56 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1891

About the author

Errico Malatesta (December 14, 1853 – July 22, 1932) was an Italian anarchist. He spent much of his life exiled from Italy and in total spent more than ten years in prison. Malatesta wrote and edited a number of radical newspapers and was also a friend of Mikhail Bakunin. He was an enormously popular figure in his time. According to Brian Doherty, writer for Reason magazine, "Malatesta could get tens of thousands, sometimes more than 100,000, fans to show up whenever [he] arrived in town." (Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Anarchy is a slim book, just 54 pages altogether, of which the first 15 are the translator’s introduction. Malatesta’s style, though, is dense - arguments come thick and fast, but with extreme clarity. Of course, in such a short book, not everything can be examined in great depth. But as a brief, clear introduction to anarchist thought, this is hard to beat. It’s a hard book to summarise, because it’s already a very concise summary of a whole body of thought. Still, here’s a distillation of Malatesta’s already distilled argument:

Anarchy literally means “without government”. It has taken on the common secondary meaning of “disorder and confusion” only because people have been conditioned to believe that the abolition of government is impossible. In the days when people believed that the abolition of monarchy was impossible, the word “republic” carried a similar meaning to “anarchy” today. The purpose of Malatesta’s book is to show that anarchy is desirable, and that life without government would be a state not of chaos but of solidarity.

He begins by reminding us that government does not physically exist - it is merely a “metaphysical tendency”. We speak of the government doing this or that, but the government has no life of its own - it is a collection of individuals who have power over other individuals.

So why do we give up our personal liberty and initiative to a few individuals? There are many theories of government, but all are fundamentally based on the idea that “men have conflicting interests, and that an external, higher authority is needed to oblige one section of the people to respect the interests of the other.” This is what Malatesta rejects, going back to the origin of human beings to show how, ill-equipped physically to survive against larger carnivorous animals, people banded together and survived through mutual aid. Alone, we died; together, we survived and prospered. Cooperation, not competition, is what makes us human.

However, there’s a problem:

“Man discovered that he could … achieve the advantages of cooperation by subjecting other men to his will instead of joining with them; and … obliged the weakest to work for him, preferring dominion to association.”

So we end up with the paradox that the basic human attribute of cooperation, instead of being used for the benefit of all, is harnessed by a privileged few to work for their benefit alone. Government exists to support this unequal state of affairs. The solution, Malatesta believes, is to abolish private property and inequality, and therefore the need for government. This would lead to a return to the sharing and cooperation on which human progress was initially built.

Malatesta never denies the individualist instinct, but he describes it as a “relic of our ancestors” which has “not only proved useless in ensuring individual wellbeing, but also is harmful to everybody, victors and vanquished alike.” We may still regress to individualist struggle sometimes, but it takes us backwards. Long-term, human progress lies in the higher principle of solidarity, “the coming together of individuals for the wellbeing of all, and of all for the wellbeing of each.” Individual freedom is actually enhanced, not limited, by the freedom of others.

In the latter part of the book, Malatesta deals with the question of whether, after the abolition of private property, there could be a “good” government, one which enhanced individual freedom and protected the gains made. His answer is an emphatic “no”, effectively a rebuke to his socialist rivals of the day, but also a pretty prescient description of the flaws of State socialism as practised later in the 20th century. His description of government becoming its own privileged class, acting in the name of the people but inevitably oppressing them, is pretty much what happened in the Soviet Union and elsewhere.

The problem is that a lot of questions remain unanswered. To some extent, this is the nature of the work - it’s a deliberately short, concise book, and doesn’t seek to answer everything. But part of it is also due to Malatesta’s thought process - he says that he can’t predict the future, and doesn’t have all the answers. The point of anarchism is for all the people to decide, not just one. Here he is, for example, discussing education:

“How will children be educated? We don’t know. So what will happen? Parents, pedagogues and all who are concerned with the future of the young generation will come together, will discuss, will agree or divide according to the views they hold, and will put into practice the methods which they think are the best. And with practice that method which in fact is the best, will in the end be adopted. And similarly with all problems which present themselves.”

This is an admirable approach when it comes to details, but the trouble is that there are some pretty big questions that do need to be answered. How will private property be abolished? Who will do it? What kind of system will replace it? How will the rights of those who disagree with the new system be guaranteed? What’s to stop the person with the most guns from setting himself up as the new authority? I’m sure you can think of plenty more valid questions, and none of them are really answered in this book. Malatesta simply says that a revolution will take place, private property will be abolished and the social wealth will be placed in the hands of the people, who will somehow forget the antagonisms they have learnt and revert to the “natural” human principle of solidarity. I’m sorry, but this is not convincing to me.

This, I find, is often the problem with radical social theories. The end result may be desirable, but how to get from A to B? If current society is so irredeemably broken, then how do you change it without riding roughshod over the rights of people to disagree with you? People are, after all, shaped to a great degree by the society they live in, a problem Malatesta recognises:

“How will these men, brought up in a society based on class and individual conflict, ever be able to change themselves suddenly and become capable of living in a society in which everyone will do as he wishes and must do, and without outside coercion and through the force of his own will, seek the welfare of others?”

It’s a question he doesn’t answer convincingly enough for me. The old A to B problem again. Still, I loved reading about B, a place in which “my freedom is the freedom of all, since I am not truly free in thought and in fact, except when my freedom and my rights are confirmed and approved in the freedom and rights of all men who are my equals” (Bakunin). B sounds like a place I could be happy. Perhaps, somehow, we’ll get there in the end.

[Φώτης Καραμπεσίνης · Rating 3 out of 5]

Κάποτε μάζευα σωρηδόν βιβλία του Ελεύθερου Τύπου. Τώρα, απλά στέκομαι μπροστά τους και αναρωτιέμαι: Ποιος ήταν, αλήθεια, εκείνος ο αναγνώστης τους; Πού να βρίσκεται τώρα; Απάντηση δεν έχω.

[muthuvel · Rating 3 out of 5]

This particular work of Errico Malatesta provides a substantial ground in clarifying the typical uncomfortable questions a beginner would have regarding the notions on Anarchism. Would be a good source to begin with, of course, for the disturbed souls.

"It is a fact that each fights daily against every one else, and competition presses upon all, workmen and masters, causing every man to become a wolf towards every other man. How can these men, educated in a society based upon antagonism between individuals as well as classes, be transformed in a moment and become capable of living in a society in which each shall do as he likes, and as he should, without external coercion, caring for the good of others, simply by the impulse of their own nature?"

"Wherever a government exists, it must wait until the people have first organized everything, and then come with its laws to sanction and exploit that which has been already done. It is evident that private interest is the great motive for all activity."

"It matters much to me what all other men are, for however independent I may seem, or may believe myself to be, by virtue of my social position, whether as pope, czar, emperor, or prime minister, I am all the while the product of those who are the least among men. If these are ignorant, miserable, or enslaved, my existence is limited by their ignorance, misery, or slavery. I, though an intelligent and enlightened man, am made stupid by their stupidity; though brave, am enslaved by their slavery; though rich, tremble before their poverty; though privileged, grow pale at the thought of possible justice for them. I, who wish to be free, cannot be so, because around me are men who do not yet desire freedom, and, not desiring it, become, as opposed to me, the instruments of my oppression."

"All individuals, even the most gifted and strongest, indeed most of all the most gifted and strongest, are at every moment of their lives, at the same time, producers and products. Equal liberty for every individual is only the resultant, continually reproduced, of this mass of material, intellectual and moral influence exercised on him by all the individuals around him, belonging to the society in which he was born, has developed and dies. To wish to escape this influence in the name of a transcendental liberty, divine, absolutely egoistic and sufficient to itself, is the tendency to annihilation."

"By the free association of all, a social organization would arise through the spontaneous grouping of men according to their needs and sympathies, from the low to the high, from the simple to the complex, starting from the more immediate to arrive at the more distant and general interests. This organization would have for its aim the greatest good and fullest liberty to all; it would embrace all humanity in one common brotherhood, and would be modified and improved as circumstances were modified and changed, according to the teachings of experience. This society of free men, this society of friends would be Anarchy."

[abclaret · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably the best single introduction to Anarchist Communism your ever going to read. Malatesta uses a plain language and his concern is approaching arguements from the view of the skeptic, using philosphy and concrete examples to show how Anarchists could organise a new and better society. Surely a must in the library or propaganda of any Anarchist.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was pretty good, but nothing special. Kinda like a poor man's Bakunin (or Kropotkin in some sections). It suffers from the same problem that most lefty anarchist literature suffers from. Namely a vagueness about definitions of things like "private property," upon which the coherence of the entire thing rests. But its very anti-state and anti-government, and pro-emergent order and voluntarism in a way which most lefty anarchist literature is, but which righty anarchists don't seem to realize oftentimes because they havent read this. I wouldn't suggest giving this to a righty anarchist as an intro because of the aforementioned problem about private property though.

[Christopher · Rating 1 out of 5]

A childish and frankly stupid lack of any understanding of humanity or reading of history. Not a book on anarchy at all but a lazily concealed promotion of socialism and class warfare through atheistic, Darwinian, and Marxist principles. Miserably fails in attempting to replace one utopian vision for another.

[misael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Manifesto anarquista do histórico militante anarco-comunista italiano Errico Malatesta, em que o teórico discorre, essencialmente, sobre as bases da fundação da sociedade anárquica, alicerçada no princípio da livre cooperação e da solidariedade.

Extremamente interessante e bem escrito, antecipando-se a críticas e leituras transviadas e declarando os princípios concretos e desenvolvidos da nova sociedade livre da propriedade privada e do Estado. Embora não concorde com tudo, é dos pensadores anarquistas de que mais me aproximo – pelo seu afastamento do individualismo grassante em muitos teóricos anarquistas e pela sua lucidez materialista.

[Lukifryrr · Rating 2 out of 5]

I chose to give this book a 2 star for its great introduction into what government is, what Anarchy isn't, and for a comprehensive explanation of human nature. On the issue of Anarchy itself, or what should be called Socialist Anarchy, Malatesta's ideal is a revolution to take all private property and distribute it amongst all men (much like communism) and thence punish through self-defense, which is still a form a punishment - despite the author's claim - anyone who decides to declare rights upon property (regardless of the labor used to create it).

The very idea is against Anarchy as it sets a very strict rule against private-property (punishable!) and calls for the forceful acquisition of any form of existing property. It sounds very much like the government he described in the beginning pages, though with the guise of "solidarity".

To sum: not a good representation of the anarchist ideals.

[mariana ૮₍˶ᵔ ᵕ ᵔ˶₎ა (perrito lector) · Rating 4 out of 5]

un manifiesto anarquista muy directo y conciso!! refuta de manera clara y sencilla los argumentos planteados desde el autoritarismo y el liberalismo en contra del anarquismo y evidencia cómo el estado es poco más que el mecanismo de protección de las clases privilegiadas. le recomendaría mucho este libro a alguien que quiere iniciarse en el anarquismo y no sabe por dónde comenzar, es una exploración muy cools de los principios de solidaridad q representa el movimiento anarquista ! : ) 🏴

[Ilenia Romano · Rating 2 out of 5]

Utopico e ripetitivo

[Karla Ortiz · Rating 4 out of 5]

muy buen libro para las primeras aproximaciones a la teoría anarquista; sirve mucho para cuestionar las doctrinas de los filósofos contractualistas entre el s. XVII y s. XVIII (mención honorífica a los conceptos de la supuesta naturaleza humana que se nos ha impuesto creer, véase a Hobbes, John Locke, etc) y el constitucionalismo meramente dogmático. gracias cham por tu review si ves esto, fue lo que me animó a leerlo.

manita arriba :)!!

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A strong pamphlet, more frenetic and engaging than the communist manifesto. Pretty short - give it a read

[Maria · Rating 3 out of 5]

"A police force where there are no crimes to solve or criminals to apprehend, will invent both, or cease to exist."

[Dylan]

“government is by its nature oppressive
and plundering, and that it is in origin and by its attitude, inevitably inclined to defend and
strengthen the dominant class; indeed it confirms and aggravates the position.”

[Laszlo · Rating 4 out of 5]

With a sharp eye and a clear and relatable style of writing, Malatesta zeros in on the principle notions of anarchism and addresses its critics with a backhand slap of freedom and faith in the capacity of self-organization and solidarity of man, long lost in the mental bounds imposed by our masters, be they slaveholders, feudal lords, kings or parliaments.

Malatesta discusses the fundamental tenets of anarchism, freedom, solidarity and mutual aid, attacks the concept of government and its monopoly of violence in using coercion to keep society on a narrow path of understanding and makes compelling arguments for what anarchism (the socialist kind, that is) stands for and for what goals it wants to achieve.

Definitely a great intro to newcomers or those curious, albeit, I feel it does not answer fully some of the questions that they might have, indeed, if Anarchy bases itself on freedom and if it is to be achieved, how will this transition be accomplished, comes down to a trust and faith in the human condition. Unfortunately, after so many centuries of anguish and suffering and more yet on the horizon with the current state of the world, radicals need to consider more the transition phase, its accomplishment and concrete goals. The world we live in, where the prospect of climate collapse and economic inequality, cultural and social degradation and commodification of the most basest parts of life and experience require more than faith in our ability to organize ourselves. If the faith is there and freedom shines the way, it must be followed by action and by courage to frame in a clearer shape the future of mankind past the horrors of neoliberal capitalism.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

Errico Malatesta, friend of Bakunin, spent ten years in prison and died in 1932. Sadly, he was not a fan of anarcho-syndicalism but he made for some nice quotes for the rest of us here: “In all times and in all places, whatever may be the name that the government takes, its essential function is always that of oppressing and exploiting the masses, and of defending the oppressors and exploiters.” “A government could never satisfy everybody, it must therefore always be defending itself against the discontented, and for that reason must ally itself with the satisfied section of the community for necessary support.” “Under Individualism, the repressive power of government must always increase.” “Liberty is not possible without equality.” And last but not least, “Cooperation among men (whether forced or voluntary) has become the sole means of progress.” Great book, but I would also recommend his “At the Café” and his “Dialogue Between Two Workers.”

[Bernard · Rating 3 out of 5]

In many ways a better composed piece of agitation than what I've read from Kropotkin or from Bakunin. Malatesta is an excellent orator, and the translation offered here is an eloquent one that manages to sound modern whilst maintaining the weight of the history behind it. At the same time however, there's little in actual theoretical proposals that is earth shattering, and Malatesta's conception of social revolution falls into the same general pitfalls of ascribing an essentialist component to the need for revolutionary action that Kropotkin in many ways was able to work with in a more convincing manner (as a form of social ontology though not necessarily inscribing this into some fundamental function of mankind).

[Lisa Pontén · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not only does this short and concise book provide an inspiring view of mankind, society and politics, but it also makes the anarchist school of thought easily readable and comprehensible. For anyone who, like me, is educated in political thought and practice but has until now been depressed by most suggested (mainstreamed) modes of governing, this could provide you with a new ray of hope. This is my attempt to summarise it for myself, better yet if it inspires or helps someone else organise their thoughts as well.

Malatesta starts by defining the necessary vocabulary and discussing the inherent prejudices that have been imposed on the language of anarchy, and specifically the word anarchy itself, by worldwide authorities. In chapter 2, he speaks of the abolition of government, and concludes that the absence of government is in fact a way of avoiding all the scenarios that pro-government arguers use to their advance: minority rights wouldn't be diminished, corruption and violence would be avoided, as the government as protector of equal rights and "pure kindness of people" is merely an illusion. The government is, has always been, and will always remain a tool for certain classes (currently the capitalist class) to ensure continued exploitation of the rest of the society.

In chapter 3, he outlines the structures leading to the phenomenon of government and through his explanation he successfully burst the bubble that is the legitimacy of our current parliamentary 'democracy'. He continues to explain the social and interdependent nature of mankind, which is in fact not antagonistic, thus an absence of authority would not and does not lead to a kind of brutal struggle in 'all against all' as most other theories suggest.

"Solidarity, that is the harmony of interests and of feelings, the coming together of individuals for the well-being of all, and of all for the well-being of each, is the only environment in which man can express his personality and achieve his optimum development and enjoy the greatest possible well-being. This is the goal towards which human evolution advances; it is the higher principle which resolves all existing antagonisms, that would otherwise be insoluble, and results in the freedom of each not being limited by, but completemented - indeed finding the necessary raison d'etre in - the freedom of others." Pg. 28

In chapter 4, the need for the abolition of private property is outlined, and ultimately the argument is made that once private property no longer exists and mankind exists on equal terms, there will be no more association between individuals by domination, oppression and exploitation, and thus the need for a government disappears - as all government is created, and their only function is, to defend the ruling class aka the oppressors.

"From the free participation of all, by means of the spontaneous grouping of men according to their requirements and their sympathies, from the bottom to the top, from the simple to the complex, starting with the most urgent interests and arriving in the end at the most remote and most general, a social organisation would emerge the function of which would be the greatest well-being and the greatest freedom for everybody, and would draw together the whole of mankind into a community of comradeship, and would be modified and improved according to changing circumstances and the lessons learned from experience. This society of free people, this society of friends is anarchy." Pg. 33

In chapter 5, the argument is made that is private property and thus class society were abolished, we could still not have an all-encompassing purely organisational and solidarity-based government: when the function that the government is made up of, that is, protecting the interests of the few while exploiting the rest, disappears, the government will either fall completely or, if it continues to exist, it will continuously try to re-establish itself and thus class society succeeds or the government falls during the struggle.

In chapter 6, Malatesta speaks of the nature of social reality. Just like in the material world, social reality is not creating new things but it is the individuals within any common entity that creates the social forces within it. Government thus really is nothing more than the individuals employed within it - there is no 'greater force' of it, nor is it made up of some all-knowing individuals. In the end of the day the government works constantly to try to convince us it is indispensable, when in fact, they are just holding back our possibilities for social realities and true democracy. In this social reality which consist of individuals' capabilities, if the need is universal and urgent, people will come together to provide any services necessary: government regulations and sanctions never creating or supporting their creation but merely limiting the creation to fit the interests of the ruling class. Here, he also stresses that administration and organisation is not the same as government: naturally, there would need to be organisation and administration of certain things in an anarchist society as well, but there would be no authority figures imposing regulations and sanctions which shape them in a way that is not suitable for the common good.

In this chapter the topic of crime, punishment and breaking of social contracts is dealt with. Instead of punishments for the sake of hatred in repression, we should struggle when faced with these conflicts to seek out a cure for this individual's action: also, the government and its institutions (like police) both create lawbreakers and seek to punish them: the social contracts and the will of people around to keep them are more successful in preventing violence and conflicts. It should also be mentioned that as Malatesta correctly states, repressive and punitive methods hardly affects the crime statistics at all: anarchy thus as a way of promoting less violence and crimes and also a way of avoiding any authoritarian-style interventions in all areas of life in the name of safety.

Chapter 7 goes on to describe how anarchy is a method, not an asset or definite solution with pre-given answers to all of society's organisational questions: through equality of condition as its point of departure, and with freedom and solidarity being the anarchist methods:

"What is important is that a society should be brought into being in which the exploitation and domination of man by man is not possible; in which everybody has free access to the means of life, of development and of work, and that all can participate, as they wish and know how, in the organisation of social life. In such a society obviously all will be done to best satisfy the needs of everybody within the framework of existing knowledge and conditions; and all will change for the better with the growth of knowledge and the means." Pg. 50

"How will children be educated? We don't know. So what will happen? Parents, pedagogues and all who are concerned with the future of the young generation will all come together, will discuss, will agree or divide according to the views they hold, and will put into practice the methods which they think are the best. And with practice that method which in fact is the best, will in the end be adopted. And similarly with all problems which present themselves." Pg. 52

Chapter 8 confronts the question of the ability of people who have grown up not trusting their own capacities and blinded by government propaganda would actually be able to create this utopia. To this, he states that since there is no 'greater force' in the government, there would also not be less capable individuals in society which would be part of this new social reality.

"And when we vindicate the freedom of the masses, we are by no means suggesting the abolition of any of the natural influences that individuals or groups of individuals exert on them; what we want is the abolition of influences which are artificial, privileged, legal, official." Pg. 55

Chapter 9 reflects upon what society could be if we moved into anarchy, makes the final arguments for revolution into anarchy, and concludes with this quote:

"In any case we will have on events the kind of influence which will reflect our numerical strength, our energy, our intelligence and our intransigence. Even if we are defeated, our work will not have been useless, for the greater our resolve to achieve the implementation of our programme in full, the less property, and less government will there be in the enw society. And we will have persormed a worthy task for, after all, human progress is measured by the extent government power and private property are reduced." Pg. 60

My main take-aways goes as follows:

Do as you wish + abolition of private property aka abolition of class society and inequalities = voluntary solidarity amongst individuals prevails. Without government or private property, then, each individual will want what s/he must do and do what s/he wants. The point of departure of anarchism is thus the equality of conditions through the abolition of private property and solidarity and freedom are the two methods applied.

"But if you consider these worthy electors [the voters in a parliamentary democracy] as unable to look after their own interests themselves, how is it that they will know how to choose for themselves the shephers who must guide them?" Pg. 59

Naturally, some questions also popped up in my head:

But if it is indeed the mode of solidarity that is at the basis of mankind, and what all human beings aim at achieving, how is another mode aka the current state of things something desirable for the capitalist class in the first place?

When speaking of the nature of mankind, Malatesta outlines that it is not a war where mankind's individuals all fight each other but in fact a common war of all of mankind against nature: how is this manageable in relation to environmental degradation and catastrophe? Obviously the current system also offers no solution to this, so I would guess Malatesta's answer would be that since it is in the common interest of mankind to keep the species alive, we would need to act according to scientific insights and work collectively to save the species.

If you actually read through all this text, I think you might just as well read the book - I have the feeling it's not much longer than my review :D

[Christina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Malatesta argues brilliantly in favor of anarchism, but what he completely misses is the need for arguments of practical implementation. To his credit, his answer to questions regarding the minutiae of everyday implementation is "we don't know." In our current configuration, we also don't know the answer to every single one of these questions, and providing an answer to every single one is not necessary in order to argue that the current configuration is not ideal and doesn't work, and that anarchism is preferable. However, he doesn't provide a way of dealing with these kinds of questions, other than that "love and solidarity" will inspire people to, say, build railways. What is missed, in that particular question, is how anyone, who is not an expert on railways and was not involved in the production of that specific railway and all its maintenance, can possibly trust their personal safety to the railway without some sort of organization that can reasonably assure that? Surely this can exist without government, but the threat of governments arising from these types of organization is high, and so how would it be avoided? I understand this is just a brief pamphlet arguing the superiority of anarchism and the necessity of the abolition of government as such, but I don't think those arguments can be effectively made so broadly, without a bit more granularity regarding practicability.

One of the most compelling passages to me was Malatesta's argument that effective anarchism is intrinsically also socialist, and that anarchism without socialism is a lie: "The methods from which the different non-anarchist parties expect, or say they do, the greatest good of one and all can be reduced to two, the authoritarian and the so-called liberal. The former entrusts to a few the management of social life and leads to the exploitation and oppression of the masses by the few. The latter relies on free individual enterprise and proclaims, if not the abolition, at least the reduction of governmental functions to an absolute minimum; but because it respects private property and is entirely based on the principle of each for himself and therefore of competition between men, the liberty it espouses is for the strong and for the property owners to oppress and exploit the weak, those who have nothing; and far from producing harmony, tends to increase even more the gap between rich and poor and it too leads to exploitation and domination, in other words, to authority. This second method, that is liberalism, is in theory a kind of anarchy without socialism, and therefore is simply a lie, for freedom is not possible without equality, and real anarchy cannot exist without solidarity, without socialism. The criticism liberals direct at government consists only of wanting to deprive it of some of its functions and to call on the capitalists to fight it out among themselves, but it cannot attack the repressive functions which are of its essence: for without the gendarme the property owner could not exist, indeed the government’s powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality."

As always, misogyny puts the lie to everything. While Malatesta, and other of his contemporaries, clearly reflect their class privileges in their arguments--the fact that they seem to have never been oppressed by any social forces other than government as a formal institution--misogyny dismantles every argument. Certainly this reflects the time in which this tract was written, that women and their struggles were not even considered. But the social forces shaped by misogyny, the gendered norms, and the violence that maintains a gendered hierarchy (which includes racist, able-ist, and other forms of prejudicial privileging) transcend formal government, and without some way of addressing those non-governmental power structures, any attempts to establish anarchist societies can only ever function on a might-makes-right principle. To be sure, governments simply institutionalize this principle, institutionalizing and entrenching misogyny, racism, able-ism, punishment of the impoverished, etc. Arguments for anarchism need to address how anarchism is better for EVERYONE, PARTICULARLY the oppressed.

Yes, anarchism. But what about the rapists?

[Joy · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an easily read introduction to anarchist principles. I appreciated how succinct and accessible 'Anarchy' is and it's a shame that this is such a rare experience in books about politics. The parts about mutual aid were the most enjoyable and touching. The only negative I can find is that it is more concerned with defining and disputing 'the state' rather than promoting anarchist ideas.

[Philip · Rating 5 out of 5]

5/5

Anarchy AND Socialism. One without the other is oppression and privilege.

[Boritabletennis · Rating 4 out of 5]

"If today we fall without lowering our colors, our cause is certain of victory tomorrow"

Guy sure knows how to close a book. This is a short and, despite its age, rather good exposition of anarchist thought. Excellent for the curious.

[Luca Lollobrigida · Rating 3 out of 5]

Audiolibro.
Interessante libretto che spiega chiaramente l'idea di anarchia di Malatesta. Un'introduzione per chi si affaccia alla tematica e vuole partire da qualche libro per andare ad approfondire.

[Christopher Trader · Rating 4 out of 5]

Brief, and wonderfully lucid.

[glamarieous · Rating 4 out of 5]

se penso a questi scritti e poi al modo in cui viviamo ancora oggi impazzisco

[J · Rating 3 out of 5]

For Anarchy and Socialism

"We fight for Anarchy and for Socialism; because we believe that Anarchy and Socialism ought to be brought into operation as soon as possible. Which means that the revolution must drive away the government, abolish private property, and entrust all public service, which will then embrace all social life, to the spontaneous, free, unofficial and unauthorized operation of all those interested and all those willing volunteers."

Malatesta draws a very clear picture of Anarchism and the important distinction of government vs administration - dictation vs cooperation.

Some of the reviews on books like these are so pedantic they give me headaches, and I'm an academic by trade. I'm too tired and too angry most days to go at a text like this with a thesaurus and my smoking jacket but if you need a good primer on Anarchism, here's a good one.

[საშუალო გიურზა · Rating 5 out of 5]

ყველას ვურჩევ იმათ ვისაც ანარქიზმი აინტერესებს ან თავად დამწყები ანარქისტია ამ პატარა წიგნს, სადაც იტალიელი ანარქისტი ერიკო მალატესტა ხსნის ანარქიზმის სწორ დეფინიციას (რომლებიც ბევრი სპეციალურად ცდილობენ დაამახინჯონ ეს სიტყვა და გააგივონ "ქაოსთან" ან "უწესრიგობასთან"), განმარტავს მთავრობას როგორც ძალას რომელიც მხოლოდ და მხოლოდ მდიდრების და პრივილეგიური ადამიანების დასაცავად არსებობს და აქა იქ ნათქვამია თუ როგორ უნდა მოგვარდეს ზოგიერთი პრობლემები (მაგ. მედიცინა, განათლება) ანარქისტული გზით.

მე თავად ანარქისტი არ ვარ, მაგრამ ძალიან დამაფიქრა მთავრობის ფუნქციაზე და თუ ის როგორი კორუპტირებული შეიძლება იყოს.

[Fridrih Klietzsche · Rating 5 out of 5]

"But if today the thinking and directing forces in society are few, it is not a reason for paralysing yet more of them and of subjecting many others to a few of them. It is not a reason for organising society in such a way that (thanks to the apathy that is the result of secured positions, thanks to birth, patronage, esprit de corps, and all the government machinery) the most lively forces and real ability end up by finding themselves outside the government and almost without influence on social life; and those that attain to government, finding themselves out of their environment, and being above all interested in remaining in power, lose all possibilities of acting and only serve as an obstacle to others."

[Primo S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Other than some parts of the Manifesto, Capital and Grundrisse that I had to read for my undergrad thesis, this was my first time actually reading leftist theory, and I think this is a decent introductory text due to its brevity. While it didn't convince me to become an anarchist or anything (it's 50 pages long, I don't think it's meant to do that), it gave me a clearer understanding of what Anarchism is (the socialist/communist kind, not AnCap) and it cleared up some misconceptions I had of the ideology.

[Namit Deb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Malatesta’s writing is very logical, and his arguments are really well structured, to the point that a lot of my doubts on Anarchism were cleared by reading these essays. It happened in just about every chapter that I formulated a counter argument only to have Malatesta immediately address and logically rebuke it. I do think as someone getting slowly into leftist theory this was a great read, but I do need to complement it with more real-life case studies too.