The anarchist split over the Great War (WW1) burst into print in November 1914, with grave consequences
~ Rob Ray ~
One of the most famous articles Freedom ever carried, at least in historical terms, was a piece by Errico Malatesta, that titan of the Italian anarchist movement, entitled ‘Anarchists Have Forgotten Their Principles‘, in November 1914.
This strident rebuttal of the hawkish attitudes being displayed by some of Europe’s major anarchist theorists, most notably Peter Kropotkin, is broadly considered a turning point in the movement’s attitude towards the Great War (later “World War 1”), helping to solidify a pro-revolution, anti-militarist message that would characterise its writing and activism for the next several decades.
In it, Malatesta notes:
We have always preached that the workers of all countries are brothers, and that the enemy—the “foreigner”—is the exploiter, whether born near us or in a far-off country, whether speaking the same language or any other. We have always chosen our friends, our companions-in-arms, as well as our enemies, because of the ideas they profess and of the position they occupy in the social struggle, and never for reasons of race or nationality. We have always fought against patriotism, which is a survival of the past, and serves well the interest of the oppressors; and we were proud of being internationalists, not only in words, but by the deep feelings of our souls.
And now that the most atrocious consequences of capitalist and State domination should indicate, even to the blind, that we were in the right, most of the Socialists and many Anarchists in the belligerent countries associate themselves with the Governments and the bourgeoisie of their respective countries, forgetting Socialism, the class struggle, international fraternity, and the rest.
What a downfall!
This essay has, however, already been pored over extensively , to the point where it overshadows just how even-handed editor Tom Keell was trying to be on the topic. The same issue, for example, contains sentiment in favour of resistance by both the Belgian and French peoples from the likes of Tscherkesoff, Verbelen, and Kropotkin himself.
Malatesta’s piece being well known already, with lots of links to it, I will instead pick out a piece from Jean Grave, a long-time and very well-respected figure who had worked with Kropotkin on several French-language newspapers. Grave, who like Kropotkin came out as pro-war, eventually co-signed the Manifesto of the Sixteen calling for anarchists to join the fight against Germany, a document which primarily served to alienate the signatories from the movement at large.
Grave’s write-up is impassioned, and highlights both correct and incorrect ideas in the dissenters’ overall viewpoint. It is now known to be correct, for example, that the groundswell of social revolution was not potent enough, outside of Russia, to end the war. And it was dead wrong to think that this would be the last war, that the horror would persuade all peoples to finally end the dominion of those who sent them to die in muddy trenches and starve for lack of food.
As a historic artefact, the whole paper is one to be read and thought about.
Ought Anarchists to Take Part in the War?
Ought we who are Anarchists to take part in the war which is now devastating Europe? Or ought we to abstain from doing so?
The question presents itself to our English comrades in a way that it has never done in France, where the German invasion left no doubt of the attitude to take: that of self- defence.
Surely there should have been a better solution, one more logical, more dignified: an appeal to the proletariat to free themselves from oppression, to take possession of the national wealth, to invite the peoples to the Communistic life, to arm all those capable of wielding a weapon, transform each house into a fortress, break up the roads, destroy all on the enemy’s road, organise flying columns to harass him day and night, cutting off his communications, making a desert round about him.
But for such a course public opinion should have been previously prepared, and we Anarchists more numerous, more resolute. The atmosphere of 1792 was needed, when revolution was in the air.
Under the actual circumstances, to attempt such an insurrection would be worse than madness. Not only could there be no chance of success, but no chance of being understood; on the contrary, it would have been playing into the hands of the invaders.
Now, if we are against the oppression of our masters at home, this is no reason why we should desire to help those who present themselves from without, especially when we know their rule would be a hundred times more irritating, more arbitrary and crushing.
A question of degree ?
No! The triumph of German militarism would mean the stifling of free thought for centuries the impossibility of continuing to wage our war against social iniquities. Human thought is crushed beneath the heel of the Prussian trooper.
As to remaining neutral, mere onlookers, an Englishman hag only to put himself in imagination in the place of a French comrade, whose country is invaded. Could ho submit to the exactions of a conqueror in cold blood? Could he calmly look on the excesses of triumphant soldiers, who, difficult to support in ordinary times, have become worse than infuriated brutes in a conquered country ? To refuse to take part in the defence is to play into the hands of the invader. Respect for our own dignity forbids us to remain neutral.
No doubt the war was willed and prepared for by Germany, but she was not alone responsible. It would be wilfully shutting our eyes to evidence if we refused to believe that German diplomacy has been driven to develop her dream of Pan-German nation by the intrigues of the foxy diplomats who have striven to isolate her.
But to establish all the responsibilities would lead us too far, and may form the subject of another article should it interest the readers of Freedom. What, is certain is that the war let loose, France would speedily have been crushed, and the turn of England would have followed; therefore the British Government may be excused their decision to participate in the war, It was their one means of self-defence and self-preservation. No doubt we seem to have gone back on our theories. We have nothing of our own to defend in this land which is called “ours,” and which ought in reality to be ours. But if in defending it we defend the property of our masters, we also defend the little liberty we have gained, which we should certainly lose under the conqueror’s rule. We defend, above all, the right to continue our struggle towards a more complete freedom in the future.
Unless we push things to a logical absurdity, we must, in trying to decide any question, consider every new factor in the case. Theoretically, in our native land, as things are at present constituted, we have nothing to defend but our skins. But is this really so? We live in society, and we suffer in our liberty and our well-being the repercussion of social changes. Now, if the oppression of our masters at home is insupportable, that of foreign conquerors were a hundredfold worse. And the new factor which has come to complicate our problem is the invasion of France by Germany, which has thrust us into a war that we have been unable to prevent.
In submitting to the senseless growth of armaments for forty years, in permitting our diplomats to carry on their secret intrigues, the English and French peoples have their part in the responsibility for the war, just as the German people have their part of the responsibility, in that they submitted to the oppression of their junkers; and we and they pay for it by being dragged into a war which we condemn, but are forced, to suffer, and even to participate in if we do not care to Buffer worse things.
This war must be the last, the end of wars. This fever of militarism must be the fall of militarism everywhere. Bat in order to arrive at tins, Prussian, militarism must first be destroyed. It must be disarmed, the German hordes must be driven back., the clique of agrarians, vestiges of the Middle Ages, must be humbled to the dust and when we come to talk of peace, it must be not with them, but with delegates drawn from the German people and chosen by them for the purpose.
It has been too often forgotten, even by revolutionists and internationalists, that the German people consist of oppressed and oppressors. There are not only the masters who are the instigators of this storm which threatens to submerge Europe; there are also the serfs, who are no more guilty than we ourselves, save for acquiescence in serfdom and ignorance.
We must destroy the caste of their masters, and force our own to treat with humanity those whom we have been obliged to combat in order to get at their oppressors. Peace, when it comes, must be a true and lasting peace — not an armistice, not a new beginning of a piling up of armaments leading up to another war no less frightful than this one, It is possible that the horrors of this war may render impossible another; that the misery in which the nations are plunged may teach them wisdom; but it would be foolish to rely upon the fatality of things. If we will not be taken in by the snares of diplomacy, we must declare dearly our determination that when once we have crushed German militarism, the autonomy of the German people bhal1 be respected, and that no servitude shall be imposed on them, no war tax or indemnity,
Of course, the restitution of those indemnities which they themselves may have levied during the course of the war may be rightly exacted, but these should be paid from the private fortunes of those primarily responsible for the war, the Hohenzollerns, the Krupps, etc., etc.
There should be no annexation of territory, The small nations should he set free to choose what form of government they prefer, and their independence should, be assured by their neutralisation.
If we did not know the fear which our governments entertain for anything approaching the revolutionary idea, we should be surprised that some such campaign, urging conquered nations to free themselves, has not been already undertaken, together with one to enlighten the German people m to the true state of affairs.
In order to claim the right of intervention in settling the conditions of peace when the moment arrives, we must take our part in helping to crush the nearest danger, Prussian militarism, not losing sight meanwhile of anything likely to secure our hopes for the future.
It may appear strange that we, who did not know how to prevent the war, should occupy ourselves with the discussion of peace. But we must always act as we think right, without speculating as to whether we shall be strong enough to realise our aspirations, For my part, I think that our antlmilitarist propaganda has not been useless and that the air is permeated with our ideas even to-day; and that in this war, despite all the spirit of the public is other than it has been hitherto in any preceding war.
It has been accepted as something inevitable, the work of a handful of bandits, who must be destroyed without exciting our hatred against the obscure soldiers, in whom we recognise their victims. And this makes us hope that we shall find aid in our new campaign in and from beyond our own ranks.
J. Grave.
