0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
227 vizualizări1 pagină
Malatesta's relation with the Italian writer D'Annunzio is historically unclear. It is quite possible that they never met, and even if they did there would have been no problem. The whole story is fascinating because it raises historical questions, but also important anarchist and ethical issues.
Malatesta's relation with the Italian writer D'Annunzio is historically unclear. It is quite possible that they never met, and even if they did there would have been no problem. The whole story is fascinating because it raises historical questions, but also important anarchist and ethical issues.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
Malatesta's relation with the Italian writer D'Annunzio is historically unclear. It is quite possible that they never met, and even if they did there would have been no problem. The whole story is fascinating because it raises historical questions, but also important anarchist and ethical issues.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
From: Research on Anarchism List <ra-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr>
Date: 18 May 1997 08:50:34 UTC (04:50:34 AM in author's locale) To: ra-l-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr Malatesta's relation with the Italian writer D'Annunzio is historically unclear. It is quite possible that they never met, and even if that were the case there would have been no problem, since at the time the issue of who was and who was not a fascist was far from being clear. D'Annunzio was a frustrated nationalist, who expressed the Italians' postwar disappointment by occupying, with his 'legionnaires', the city of Fiume which Italy had claimed without any success. He was disavowed by the nationalists and turned to the left. That was only a temporary action, because nothing came out of it, and after Mussolini's march on Rome he joined the fascist movement. Yet the whole story is fascinating because it raises historical questions, but also important anarchist and ethical issues : - should anarchists remain between themselves or can they work with other groups, such as the socialists, and if so on what grounds ? - when a country is in a state of turmoil, can one resort to illegality (violence here is not at stake) - can anything be done when the anarchist movement is slandered ? To continue our discussion, here are some additional comments, for which I thank Gaetano Manfredonia, a historian already mentioned in a previous mail. The translation of the texts are by him, the eventual mistakes are mine. There are two articles by Malatesta that are related to this issue. II. 'Se la facessero finita' ['If they could keep their mouths shut'], Umanita nova No. 42 du 16 avril 1920, repr. in p. 53 of Malatesta's _Scritti_, Geneva (Switzerland) : Editions du Reveil : 'the gossip and insinuations about my political activity, by some Socialists, are going on and increasing. I don't understand why, or rather I understand it only too well. Some comrades, that are irritated by this jesuitical behavior, have asked me to react. I consider this as a laughing matter, or rather I would like to have a good laugh at it, if I were not left speechless with disgust. My behavior is obvious and without any shadiness. I labor uniquely and exclusively for the triumph of anarchist ideas and whatever might be useful for the progress of those ideas is discussed with my comrades and not with the others. Without having any preconceived ideas against plotting or lending a hand to someone, I think that in the present situation things are working out by themselves and that, in the present times, the anarchists' mission is to try to steer the course in our direction. That's why I don't only talk. This having been said, if the situation were to change, and if with my comrades I would judge that the time has come when it would be useful to conspire, then I would pray our good cousins [the socialists] not to fink on us and I hope that they would do their best to avoid what might be or what might look like a denunciation to the government of any subversive activity whatever". >From this first article, it appears that Malatesta a) accuses the socialists of jesuitism, that is to say of acting hypocritically. This indicates that their indignation is in bad faith. What may be such a bad faith we'll see in a moment. b) that he is absolutely not hostile to the idea of a conspiration if "the moment has come". ------------ II. And here is the second article, even more explicit :