The Complete Works of Malatesta Vol. III - Errico Malatesta

Скачать книгу

government denied none of it and, when the debate opened, it strictly forbade entry to the public and representatives of the press.

      But that did not succeed in averting a scandal; beneath the army uniform of some of the designated defense counsels there still beat a human heart and what was going on became known to the public.

      The public prosecutor counsel stated: “Given the enormity of the offense and the numbers of the accused, I am turning a blind eye to reason and, despite the absence of proof, am treating all of those on trial as perpetrators and accessories.”

      The detainees all professed to be innocent. The presiding judge sought to prevent them from speaking and questioning the witnesses, who were the torturers themselves, but the detainees were insistent, shouting out and displaying the scars covering their entire bodies. The defense counsels protested and challenged the witnesses to be cross-examined. Even some gendarmes fled the court, horrified. The alleged perpetrator, Ascheri, stated that he confessed because he could no longer stand the torture and that it was under torture that he named those whom the judge required him to accuse. All of the others who made confessions or named others said the same, and they proved it with the still visible marks of the tortures to which they had been subjected.

      Yet in spite of all of this, the court passed sentence—eight death ­sentences, with the others clapped in irons for life or given lesser ­sentences.

      Many of those who were acquitted, or who had been found innocent and omitted by the investigating magistrate from his indictment, are still being held in preventive custody.

      In Spain and abroad, public opinion was outraged. All those Spanish newspapers not living on secret funds called for a review of the trial and for a public hearing. In France and in England the newspapers carried many heart-rending documents; special editions were compiled; protest rallies held; embassies were taken to task by citizens of every persuasion.

      It was hoped that the Spanish government would never dare take things further and that it would order a review of the trial.

      Instead, the announcement has been made that the Supreme Court Martial is after one more life.

      Are the Spanish people going to let this sacrifice be carried out?

      Are civilized peoples not going to be able to force respect for civilization upon these western Turks who, in addition to the rash ferocity of the Turkish pasha, display the cold-blooded heartlessness and craven hypocrisy of the Catholic Inquisitor?

      Polemic

      Translated from “Polemica,” L’Agitazione (Ancona) 1,

       no. 4 (April 4, 1897).

      We have received the following letter, with a request that it be published:

      For the Record

      Regarding Merlino’s evolution, which was seen coming for many a year by those of us active within the anarchist camp, we need to explain ourselves, lest we fool ourselves again.

      There is no denying that the anarchist camp is split into two factions, one called anarchist socialist and the other anarchist or libertarian. Between one faction and the other, there is a gap that seems negligible but which, in terms of substance, is very wide.

      But they differ substantially as regards means.

      The anarchist socialists want large-scale organization of individuals into groups, groups into regions, and regions into continents; they want agreement on action; and embrace the collective deed, rejecting the individual deed.

      It is undeniable that this gap exists. It is not for us to judge who is right or wrong; that is better left to Time who is a gentleman; so I shall not waste a single word to prove that I am right and coherent with my past in belonging to the ranks of the libertarians.

      But whilst we are divided and cannot be friends, we also ought to respect one another and ensure that there are no slandered and slanderers among us.

      Slanderers deserve the punishment reserved for…

      We ought to convince ourselves that among the anarchists there are no mischief-makers, on the simple basis that the mischief-maker is not and cannot be an anarchist.

      Together with the cretins, the mischief-makers make up the ruling group, and one name for them is as good as any other, but they are certainly no comrades of ours.

      But, I will be asked, how are we to distinguish between the ­mischief-makers and the anarchists? Easy, I reply. The mischief-makers are out for themselves, like the bourgeois, and anarchists are out for themselves and for others. The former are egoists and the latter altruists.

      My conclusion: our theater of operations is huge and each of us can pursue whatever work he thinks best, without seeking to act as father…

      A handshake from yours,

      We have published this letter—editing out only a few phrases lest we become a platform for old resentments and be dragged into personal squabbles that do no service to the cause—because we know Parrini to be a prickly fellow, to be sure, but one who is, deep down, kindly and sincere, and because it provides us with an opportunity to sort out a number of matters over which anarchists argue and on which real differences of opinion are complicated and overshadowed by thousands of misunderstandings and battles over words.

      We agree with Parrini that the difference between the socialist anarchists and the other motley factions that equally claim the name of anarchists is great and serious. However, his classification strikes us as incomplete and mistaken. In particular, the name libertarians which he would employ for those on his side strikes us as likely to generate further confusions because the term is accepted and used by all anarchists and, outside of Italy, is especially favored by those desirous of steering clear of the label “anarchist,” precisely because they are afraid of being lumped with anarchists from the faction that Parrini favors.

      In our next issues, we shall be dealing with the various currents existing within the anarchist movement, and setting out our views on organization, “individualism,” etc., in part because we are keen to explain ourselves on all these matters that are debated within our camp, so that we may then be free to devote ourselves to the popular propaganda that is the specific purpose behind our publication.

      In the meantime, we shall answer those of Parrini’s claims that are most strikingly mistaken.

      Parrini says that the socialist anarchists accept the collective deed and reject the individual deed. We know of no comrade of ours who would subscribe to this claim.

      Assuming that all else is equal, the collective deed is more important than individual deeds, but none of us measures the morality of any deed by the numbers of those who carry it out. A good action is every bit as good and may be more praiseworthy when done by one individual as if it were done by a hundred thousand.

      We take exception to certain deeds that strike us as hurtful and harmful because of the deeds per se rather than their having been carried out by one man acting alone. One’s assessment of a given deed may vary, both on account of the intelligence and temperament of those assessing it, and on account of one’s more or less complete knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the deed. But no matter what the deed may be, it

Скачать книгу