Anarchists and workers' leagues (more on syndicalism)

As we have said before, and as it is always worth repeating, we are staunch supporters of the workers' movement, or syndicalism, if you will.

It puts workers in struggle against exploiters, accustoms them to collective action and the practice of solidarity, and offers fertile ground for the propagation of our ideas. Moreover, it provides the means to be able, in certain circumstances, to call the people into the streets and create one of the essential conditions for a victorious insurrection, and it can then provide for the immediate practical needs of the day after victory.

But this does not make us syndicalists, if by syndicalism we mean the doctrine that sees in the mere fact of the workers' union a special virtue that must automatically, almost without the consciousness and will of the associated workers, lead to emancipation from the capitalist yoke and the establishment of a new society.

We do not believe in this renewing virtue of trade unions – and the facts do not support such a belief.

Workers' unions have served and continue to serve conservatives, priests, and social climbers of all kinds, just as they can serve revolutionaries, and if they have a natural tendency, independent of external, extra-economic influences, it is rather to divide the masses into closed corporations, fighting for particular interests in opposition to the interests of the general public.

Trade unions arise to resist the demands of employers, to demand improvements, to assert a desire for emancipation, and that is good, but it is not enough. If a higher principle of justice for all does not inspire the members, if above questions of personal, immediate interest there are no ideal aspirations that push them to sacrifice today for tomorrow, the particular good for the general good, the struggle against the bosses always takes on, in practice, the character of competition between traders, and ends in transactions and accommodations, which perhaps create new privileges for some favored by circumstances, but confirm the masses in their servitude. And the defense of the “union tariff” becomes a struggle against other workers and against the public in general.

So when we demand that unions be neutral, that is, open to all workers without distinction of opinion or party, it is not because we believe that it is enough to join together for the economic struggle and that the rest will follow, but simply because only with political and religious neutrality can the whole mass, or a large part of the mass, be gathered for the purposes of propaganda and revolutionary action. We want trade unions to be neutral, because otherwise they would be subservient to politicians and priests; we want them to be neutral because we cannot have them be anarchist. And we cannot have them be anarchist, because for that to happen, the entire masses would have to be anarchist, or else the union would become confused with the anarchist group, and the purpose of gathering the backward masses to propagate and train them for the struggle would be lost.

In our opinion, therefore, the union must remain neutral in order to remain open to all—but within it, we must work to make it increasingly revolutionary, increasingly socialist, increasingly anarchist. Anarchists should therefore take an active part in the workers' movement, encourage and promote the establishment of unions and federations of unions, support and provoke strikes, and always show solidarity with the workers in any struggle they engage in against the bosses and the authorities; but they should do so according to their own criteria; – that is, paying attention to the long-term goals rather than the immediate small advantages, to the educational effects rather than the purely economic effects, and trying to develop and keep alive the spirit of combativeness against the bosses and the feeling of brotherhood and solidarity with all the oppressed, whether they are organized or not.

Anarchists should first and foremost fight against the establishment, within the workers' movement, of a class of officials and leaders who would end up having a spirit and interests opposed to those of the masses, and who would fear for their wages and positions in every upheaval; – and therefore they should seek to ensure that administrative work, reduced to its simplest form, is done, as far as possible, free of charge, by volunteers who replace and alternate each other in social positions: or when it is necessary to compensate those who devote their time to it, that the compensation does not exceed the average wage earned by workers in that particular trade, and that the staff employed is renewed as often as possible.

Anarchists should seek to ensure that the organization has an active life, with frequent general meetings and discussions to prevent ordinary members from becoming mere passive contributors of dues.

They should prevent resistance leagues from engaging in mutual aid, including cooperatives and other tasks that naturally shy away from the risks of struggle and in a certain way involve the worker in maintaining the existing order.

They should fight against high dues and the establishment of large funds, which paralyze the organization and prevent it from breaking away for fear of losing money. The leagues should, yes, educate their members to make sacrifices, even financial ones, but they should use the proceeds in the struggle, in propaganda, in works of solidarity, without ever accumulating them.

Anarchists should, first in risks and sacrifices, absolutely refuse to serve as intermediaries with bosses and authorities; and in case of defeat, suffer it, if there is no other way, with their minds set on revenge, and never accept it as the result of an agreement that keeps them morally bound.

They should fight against any contract that binds workers for a given period of time, and provoke in them a state of mind that makes them feel their true condition as slaves constrained by force, even when they appear to be free contractors.

This tactic, which seems to us to be indicated by the goal that anarchists set for themselves, is perhaps not the most suitable for the establishment of stable, vast, and wealthy associations. But we do not believe in the usefulness or real power of mammoth organizations, which are too cumbersome to move and, because they have too much money, develop conservative and shopkeeper instincts.

What matters is the spirit of struggle, the spirit of solidarity, the spirit of association.

If a league or federation breaks up as a result of struggle and persecution, it does not matter, as long as its members are conscious and their aspirations remain: it will soon be reconstituted once the storm has passed.

A strong, solid organization that does not move for fear of breaking up is a dead weight, an obstacle to progress.

In the event that there are several rival organizations, as is currently the case in Italy with the Trade Union and the Confederation of Labor, what attitude should anarchists adopt?

In our opinion, anarchists should favor those organizations that are closest to their methods and ideals, and in periods of active struggle, they should stand with those who are fighting. Moreover, they should join all organizations and groups where it is possible to do so without compromising their convictions and where there is a chance of spreading useful propaganda and carrying out fruitful action. They should keep themselves as far as possible from personal quarrels and encourage workers to act on their own without the need for leaders and, above all, without embracing the hatred and rivalries of those who pose as leaders. Fight against the interference in workers' organizations of politicians and social climbers who want to use workers as a stepping stone to a career in the bourgeois world.

There are anarchists who oppose any organization for economic struggle and keep strictly away from them.

We believe this to be the wrong tactic.

Certainly, as long as the economic struggle remains only an economic struggle, it cannot resolve the social question.

Any improvements possible under the capitalist system, if they become widespread, are nullified by the interplay of economic factors, and when it comes to attacking the vital interests of the privileged owners, political power will intervene to guarantee the maintenance of legal order by brute force.

Therefore, the question must ultimately be resolved on the political terrain, that is, through the struggle against the government. If the workers succeed in overthrowing the government, which in the final analysis is nothing more than the armed force that defends privilege, they will be able to take possession of social wealth and become truly free. If not, then no.

But in order to overthrow the government and overthrow it for the purpose of general emancipation, we need to have as many people as possible on our side, and a mass that is as conscious as possible of the purpose for which the revolution must be carried out. And the masses do not come to anarchist ideas so suddenly, without a more or less gradual training.

We must therefore make contact with the masses, to push them forward and have them with us in the streets on the days of the decisive struggle. Economic organizations seem to us to be one of the best means at our disposal.

Of course, in preparing the means, we must not lose sight of the end.

But we must also not neglect, in the abstract contemplation of the end, the means to achieve it.