"Anarchism: Left, Right, or Center?" This paper was written in my first year of undergraduate school, for a class on radical political philosphies, and their "place" in the right/left/center spectrum. This particular teacher was fond of dissecting political theories and locating how they could stand for radicalism, and yet espouse opinions which could easily fit into the camp of the center or the right. He was perhaps the only teacher I ever had who got excited when I said I was an anarchist, and encouraged me to dissect the theories which I subscribed to. I learned a lot. The paper primarily analyzed the works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Malatesta, Goldman, and Berkman. This is the section dealing with Malatesta. It's not a masterpiece, but it's a good introduction if you're not familiar with his writings. Errico Malatesta, an Italian anarchist who spent most of his life in exile published his work, Anarchy, in 1891. This fifty-four page work is by no means as extensive or detailed as many of anarchists' works, but has a generous amount of thought and theory to offer regardless of its length. In this work, Malatesta begins by explaining how it is that the word "anarchy" has come to represent chaos and disorder: The existence of this prejudice and its influence on the public's definition of anarchy is easily explained. Man, like all living beings, adapts and accustoms himself to the conditions under which he lives, and passes on acquired habits. Thus, having being born and bred in bondage, when the descendants of a long line of slaves started to think, they believed that slavery was an essential condition of life, and freedom seemed impossible to them. Similarly, workers who for centuries were obliged, and therefore accustomed, to depend for work, that is bread, on the goodwill of their master, and to see their lives always at the mercy of the owners of the land and of capital, ended by believing that it is the master who feeds them, and ingeniously ask one how would it be possible to live if there were no masters. ...So, since it was thought that government was necessary and that without government there could only be disorder and confusion, it was natural and logical that anarchy, which means absence of government, should sound like absence of order. Malatesta's definition of collectivist anarchy, then, is as follows: ... and therefore the terms abolition of the state, Society without the State, etc., describe exactly the concept which anarchists seek to express, of the destruction of all political order based on authority, and the creation of a society of free and equal members based on a harmony of interests and the voluntary participation of everybody in carrying out social responsibilities. Malatesta also makes critical comment of an "individualist" form of anarchy, which in his opinion, has only complicated and hindered the development of the goals of the afore mentioned theory of anarchy: The principle of each for himself, which is the war of all against all, arose in the course of history to complicate, sidetrack, and paralyze the war of all against nature for the greatest well-being of mankind which can be completed successfully only by being based on the principle of all for one and one for all. But there are also problems with this passage- specifically with Malatesta's statement regarding the "war of all against nature for the greatest well-being of mankind." Firstly, the statement is a confusing one. Is Malatesta using the term "nature" to imply the inherent nature of people, or does he refer to nature in the literal sense? In reading this passage, I made the assumption that he was, in fact, referring to nature in the literal sense. It has historically been the approach of Western/European culture or civilization to treat nature as it were something to be tamed, controlled, conquered, or even destroyed. In the late 19th century, and throughout most of this century, environmental concerns were limited and rarely, if never, applied to political or ideological movements, including the anarchist movement. Nature, and all of nature's creatures, were always thought of as lesser than the "superior" and dominating species - homo sapiens. (With the exception of thinkers like Thoreau, Gandhi, Whitman, etc.) It wasn't until much later, within the last 15-20 years, that environmental concerns became a part of the agenda of political groups and movements. Now, the ideas of Deep Ecology are beginning to be fused with political groups such as the Greens, and by some anarchists, with the movement as a whole - as it has been recognized by these groups and individuals that nature and homo sapiens are one and the same, and we must learn to coexist rather than attempt to dominate. Near the end of his work, Malatesta makes a very interesting point about the nature of the anarchist movement, or at least, the way he desires the approach of the movement to be: Anarchists offer a new method: that is free initiative of all and free compact when, private property abolished by revolutionary action, everybody has been put in a situation of equality to dispose of social wealth. This method, by not allowing access to the reconstitution of private property, must lead, via free association, to the complete victory of the principle of solidarity. Viewed in this way, one sees how all the problems that are advanced in order to counter anarchist ideas are instead an argument in their favour, because only anarchy points the way along which they can find, by trial and error, that solution which best satisfies the dictates of science as well as the needs and wishes of everybody. 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 that present themselves. Unique to Malatesta's concept of anarchy, (and by this I do not not mean that he held these concepts exclusively - many others shared/share his ideas), is the idea that a movement does not have the right to dictate, and demand something, or anything of the people. The idea is that certain common values and understandings will be held by the people - such as the equality of all people - and that everything beyond those basic values will be decided upon by the people themselves... and where there is a differing of opinion, individuals will not have to succumb to a "majority rules" form of society, but rather will have the option of pursuing their own interests either alone, or with a "minority" of individuals. (Above excerpts from Malatesta, Errico, Anarchy, Freedom Press, 1974. ) sisu@well.com (Silja)