Errico Malatesta Quotes

We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; we want the people to emancipate themselves.

Hate does not produce love, and by hate one cannot remake the world.

Impossibility never prevented anything from happening.

The freedom we want, for ourselves and for others, is not an absolute metaphysical, abstract freedom which in practice is inevitably translated into the oppression of the weak; but it is real freedom, possible freedom, which is the conscious community of interests, voluntary solidarity.

By anarchist spirit I mean that deeply human sentiment, which aims at the good of all, freedom and justice for all, solidarity and love among the people; which is not an exclusive characteristic only of self-declared anarchists, but inspires all people who have a generous heart and an open mind.

In all times and in all places, whatever may be the name that the government takes, whatever has been its origin, or its organization, its essential function is always that of oppressing and exploiting the masses, and of defending the oppressors and exploiters. Its principal characteristic and indispensable instruments are the bailiff and the tax collector, the soldier and the prison. And to these are necessarily added the time-serving priest or teacher, as the case may be, supported and protected by the government, to render the spirit of the people servile and make them docile under the yoke.

Capitalism is the same everywhere. In order to survive and prosper it needs a permanent situation of partial scarcity: it needs it to maintain its prices and to create hungry masses to work under any conditions.

Governments oppress mankind in two ways, either directly, by brute force, that is physical violence, or indirectly, by depriving them of the means of subsistence and thus reducing them to helplessness at discretion.

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

Anarchism is organization, organization and more organization.

we are, in any case, only one of the forces acting in society

To condone ferocious anti-human feelings and raise them to the level of principle as a tactic for a movement... is both evil and counter-revolutionary.

By definition an anarchist is he who does not wish to be oppressed nor wishes to be him self an oppressor; who wants the greatest well-being, freedom and development for all human beings. His ideas, his wishes have their origin in a feeling of sympathy, love and respect for humanity: a feeling which must be sufficiently strong to induce him to want the well-being of others as much as his own, and to renounce those personal advantages, the achievement of which, would involve the sacrifice of others.

We too aspire to communism as the most perfect achievement of human solidarity, but it must be anarchist communism, that is, freely desired and accepted, and the means by which the freedom of everyone is guaranteed and can expand; for these reasons we maintain that State communism, which is authoritarian and imposed, is the most hateful tyranny that has ever afflicted, tormented and handicapped mankind.

The needs, tastes, aspirations and interests of mankind are neither similar nor naturally harmonious; often they are diametrically opposed and antagonistic. On the other hand, the life of each individual is so conditioned by the life of others that it would be impossible, even assuming it were convenient to do so, to isolate oneself and live one’s own life. Social solidarity is a fact from which no one can escape.

There can be no doubt that the Anarchist Idea, denying government, is by its very nature opposed to violence, which is the essence of every authoritarian system - the mode of action of every government

Anarchy is synonymous with Socialism. Because both signify the abolition of exploitation and of the domination of man over man, whether maintained by the force of arms or by the monopolization of the means of life.

La libertà è il solo mezzo per arrivare, mediante l'esperienza, al vero e al meglio: e non vi è libertà se non vi è la libertà dell'errore.

There is among us a tendency to consider true, good and fine everything that appears under the agreeable cloak of revolt against the accepted “truths”, especially if supported by people who are, or call themselves, anarchists. This shows a deficiency of that spirit of investigation and criticism that should be maximally developed in anarchists.

For those who govern find it necessary to occupy themselves with things which they do not understand, and, above all, to waste the greater part of their energy in keeping themselves in power, striving to satisfy their friends, holding the discontented in check, and mastering the rebellious.

Now numbers are the sole criterion; and numbers are certainly no proof of reason, justice or capacity.

Bisogna dunque tendere a ciò che si vuole, facendo quel che si può.

Con l'odio, se si vince, si possono fondare nuovi governi, ma non si può fondare l'anarchia.

I only believe those things which can be proved; but I know full well that proofs are relative and can, and are in fact, continually superseded and cancelled out by other proved facts; and therefore I believe that doubt should be the mental approach of all who aspire to get ever closer to the truth, or at least to that much of truth that it is possible to establish. . .

Unico modo per arrivare alla scoperta del meglio è la libertà, libertà di aggruppamento, libertà di esperimento, libertà completa senz'altro limite sociale che quello dell'uguale libertà degli altri.

Anarchists present a new method; the free initiative of all and free agreement; then, after the revolutionary abolition of private property, every one will have equal power to dispose of social wealth.

we are revolutionaries and insurrectionists because we do not just want to improve existing institutions but to destroy them completely, abolishing every form of domination by man over man, and every kind of parasitism on human labour

Man has two necessary fundamental characteristics, the instinct of his own preservation, without which no being could exist, and the instinct of the preservation of his species, without which no species could have been formed or have continued to exist.

Communism made through the will of a government instead of through the direct and voluntary work of groups of workers does not really appeal to me. If it was possible, it would be the most suffocating tyranny to which human society has ever been subjected.

A society without a government, which would act by free, voluntary co-operation, trusting entirely to the spontaneous action of those interested, and founded altogether on solidarity and sympathy, is certainly, they say, a very beautiful ideal, but, like all ideals, it is a castle in the air.

Anarchists are justifiably opposed to authoritarian communism, which presupposes a government wanting to direct every aspect of social life, and placing the organization of production and the distribution of wealth under the orders of its nominees, which cannot but create the most hateful tyranny and the crippling of all the living forces in society.

Man, like all living beings, adapts and habituates himself to the conditions in which he lives, and transmits by inheritance his acquired habits. Thus being born and having lived in bondage, being the descendant of a long line of slaves, man, when he began to think, believed that slavery was an essential condition of life; and liberty seemed to him an impossible thing.

Per noi non ha grande importanza che i lavoratori vogliano di più o di meno; l'importante è che quel che vogliono, cerchino di conquistarlo da loro, con le loro forze, con la loro azione diretta contro i capitalisti ed il governo. Un piccolo miglioramento strappato con la forza propria, vale più per i suoi effetti morali e, alla lunga, anche per i suoi effetti materiali, che una grande riforma concessa dal governo o dai capitalisti per fini subdoli quali o sia anche per pura e semplice benevolenza.

The one essential is that a society be constituted in which the exploitation and domination of man by man are impossible. That the society, in other words, be such that the means of existence and development of labor be free and open to every one, and all be able to co-operate, according to their wishes and their knowledge, in the organization of social life. Under such conditions, everything will necessarily be performed in compliance with the needs of all, according to the knowledge and possibilities of the moment. And everything will improve with the increase of knowledge and power.

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.

If, to win, we have to set up the gallows in the public square, I would prefer to lose.

When the bosses exploit them [the workers] they pay no heed to party distinctions and starve them all the same; when the carabinieri pepper their chests with the kings lead, they do not bother to ask what sort of membership card they carry in their pockets.

Ceux qui croient à l'efficacité révolutionnaire, libératrice, de la répression et de la férocité ont la même mentalité arrierée que les juristes qui croient qu'on peut éviter le délit et moraliser le monde par le moyen des peines sévères.

Le grand moyen de défense de la révolution reste toujours d'enlever aux bourgeois les moyens économiques de la domination, d'armer tout le monde (jusqu'à ce qu'on puisse amener tout le monde à jeter les armes comme des objets inutiles et dangereux) et d'intéresser à la victoire toute la grande masse de la population.

Certainement, la révolution a à se défendre et à se développer avec une logique inexorable, mais on ne doit, et on ne peut la défendre avec des moyens qui sont en contradiction avec ses fins.

Philosophy can be a hypothetical explanation of what is known, or an attempt to guess what is not known. It poses questions which, so far at least, go beyond the competence of science, and suggests answers which, in the present state of our knowledge, cannot be subjected to proof. Thus different philosophers offer divergent, and contradictory solutions. When philosophy is not simply a play on words and an illusionist’s trick, it can be a spur and a guide to science, but it is not science.

Money is a powerful means of exploitation and oppression; but it is also the only means (apart from the most tyrannical dictatorship or the most idyllic accord) so far devised by human intelligence to regulate production and distribution automatically. For the moment, rather than concerning oneself with the abolition of money one should seek a way to ensure that money truly represents the useful work performed by its possessors. . . .

Logically, federalism, brought to its ultimate consequences, applied not only to the different places people inhabit but also to the various functions they perform in society, right to the commune, to whatever association, up to the individual, means the same thing as anarchy - free and sovereign units that associate for the common benefit.

The one essential is that a society be constituted in which the exploitation and domination of man by man are impossible. That the society, in other words, be such that the means of existence and development of labor be free and open to every one, and all be able to co-operate, according to their wishes and their knowledge, in the organization of social life.

But communism must be voluntary, freely desired, and accepted; for were it instead to be imposed, it would produce the most monstrous tyranny which would result in a return to bourgeois individualism.

The government, or as some call it, the justiciary State, as moderator in the social struggle and the impartial administrator of the public interest, is a lie — an illusion, an utopia never achieved and never to be realised.

Ao invés de opor aos milhões dos capitalistas os poucos centavos reunidos penosamente pelos operários, é preciso opor aos fuzis e aos canhões que defendem a propriedade os melhores meios que o povo encontrar para vencer pela força.

Fare il comunismo prima dell'anarchia, cioè prima di avere conquistata la completa libertà politica ed economica, significherebbe (come è significato in Russia) stabilire la più esosa tirannia, tale da far rimpiangere il regime borghese, e ritornare poi (come purtroppo si ritornerà in Russia) al regime capitalistico

We do not carry on our struggle in order to put ourselves in the place of the exploiters and oppressors of today, nor do we even struggle for the triumph of an empty abstraction.

La libertà che vogliamo noi non è il diritto astratto di fare il proprio volere, ma il potere di farlo; quindi suppone in ciascuno i mezzi di poter vivere ed agire senza sottoporsi alla volontà altrui.

L'uomo non è perfetto, d'accordo. Ma questo non è che una ragione di più, forse la ragione migliore, per non dare a nessuno i mezzi per «mettere i freni alla libertà individuale».

Nostro compito dopo aver concorso ad abbattere il regime attuale è quello di impedire, o cercare d'impedire, che si costituisca un nuovo governo; o non riuscendovi, lottare almeno perché il nuovo governo non sia unico, non accentri nelle sue mani tutto il potere sociale, resti debole e vacillante, non riesca a disporre di sufficiente forza militare e finanziaria, e sia riconosciuto ed ubbidito il meno possibile. In tutti i casi, noi anarchici non dobbiamo mai parteciparvi, mai riconoscerlo e restare in lotta contro di esso come siamo in lotta contro il governo attuale.

Lottare per l'emancipazione integrale, aspettando e preparando il giorno in cui essa sarà possibile, strappare al governo ed ai capitalisti tutti quei miglioramenti politici ed economici che possono migliorare per noi le condizioni della lotta ed aumentare il numero di coloro che lottano coscientemente. E perciò strapparli con mezzi che non implichino il riconoscimento degli ordini attuali e preparino le vie dell'avvenire.

Vengano pure le riforme se possono venire. Esse possono essere di beneficio momentaneo e servire a stimolare nelle masse sempre maggiori desideri e maggiori pretese, se i proletari serbano vivo il sentimento che i padroni ed i governanti sono i nemici, che tutto ciò che cedono è strappato loro dalla forza o dalla paura della forza e sarebbe presto ritirato se la paura cessasse. Ché se invece le riforme fossero raggiunte per accordi e collaborazione tra dominati e dominatori, non servirebbero che a ribadire le catene che legano i lavoratori al carro dei parassiti.

Certamente la rivoluzione va difesa e sviluppata con logica inesorabile; ma non si deve e non si può difenderla con mezzi che contraddicono ai suoi fini. [...] Se per vincere si dovesse elevare la forca nelle piazze, io preferirei perdere.

In realtà nessuno potrebbe istituire la dittatura rivoluzionaria se prima il popolo non avesse fatta la rivoluzione, mostrando così a fatti la sua capacità di farla; ed allora la dittatura non farebbe che sovrapporsi alla rivoluzione, sviarla, soffocarla ed ucciderla.

Il dilemma innanzi a cui si troverà la rivoluzione resta sempre: o organizzarsi volontariamente a vantaggio di tutti o essere organizzati per forza da un governo a vantaggio di una classe dominante.

Anche il generale Bonaparte servì a difendere la rivoluzione francese contro la reazione europea, ma nel difenderla la strozzò. Lenin, Trotsky e compagni sono di sicuro dei rivoluzionari sinceri, così come essi intendono la rivoluzione, e non tradiranno; ma essi preparano i quadri governativi che serviranno a quelli che verranno dopo per profittare della rivoluzione ed ucciderla. Essi saranno le prime vittime del loro metodo, e con loro, io temo, cadrà la rivoluzione.

Non v'è dubbio che bisogna difendersi; ma dal sistema che si adopera nella difesa dipende in gran parte la sorte della rivoluzione. Che se per vivere si dovesse rinunziare alle ragioni ed agli scopi della vita, se per difendere la rivoluzione si dovesse rinunziare alle conquiste che sono lo scopo primo della rivoluzione, allora varrebbe meglio essere vinti onoratamente e salvare le ragioni dell'avvenire, anziché vincere tradendo la propria causa.

Il farsi mettere il freno nella speranza di essere meglio guidati non può condurre che alla schiavitù.

Non v'è dubbio, secondo me, che la peggiore delle democrazie è sempre preferibile, non fosse che dal punto di vista educativo, alla migliore delle dittature. Certo la democrazia, il cosiddetto governo di popolo, è una menzogna, ma la menzogna lega sempre un po' il mentitore e ne limita l'arbitrio; certo il «popolo sovrano» è un sovrano da commedia, uno schiavo con corona e scettro di cartapesta, ma il credersi libero anche senza esserlo val sempre meglio che il sapersi schiavo ed accettare la schiavitù come cosa giusta ed inevitabile.

Jeżeli do naturalnych skutków przyzwyczajenia dodamy wychowanie otrzymywane od panów, księży, nauczycieli itd., którzy mają swój interes w tym, żeby nauczać, iż istnienie rządu i panów jest konieczne, jeśli dodamy jeszcze wpływ sędziego i policjanta, którzy usiłują zmusić do milczenia każdego, kto inaczej myśli i kto by chciał myśl swoją upowszechnić, łatwo zrozumiemy wtedy, jakim sposobem w mało rozwiniętym umyśle mas zakorzeniło się przekonanie o konieczności istnienia pana i rządu.

Urodzony i żyjący w poddaństwie, potomek całych pokoleń niewolników - człowiek, gdy zaczął myśleć, wierzył że poddaństwo jest niezbędnym warunkiem życia: swoboda wydawała mu się niemożliwą. Takim sposobem robotnik, którego płaca czyli zarobek w ciągu bardzo długiego czasu była zależna od dobrej lub złej woli swego ,,pana" - pracodawcy, którzy przyzwyczaja go uważać siebie za zależnego od ,,łaski" tych, którzy posiadają ziemię i kapitał - zaczynał wierzyć w końcu, że pracodawca daje mu jeść; taki robotnik nieświadomy mówił naiwnie: jakbym ja mógł żyć, gdyby panowie i bogacze wcale nie istnieli?

Pod wyrazem „państwo” rozumie się też wyższą administrację kraju, zarząd centralny różniący się od zarządów prowincji i gmin, z tego też powodu niektórzy myślą, że anarchiści chcą tylko decentralizacji terytorialnej, zostawiając nienaruszonym pierwiastek rządowy i tym sposobem mieszają anarchizm z kantonalizmem i komunizmem.

A jeśli rząd jest wybrany powszechnym głosowaniem? W takim razie jedynym jego uzasadnieniem jest liczba, która przecież nie może być dowodem ani słuszności ani sprawiedliwości ani uzdolnienia. Wybranymi będą ci, którzy lepiej potrafią oszukać masy, a mniejszość głosujących, która o jeden tylko głos może być mniejszą od większości, będzie musiała ustąpić.