“The Armed Nation” – Errico Malatesta (1902)

Translated by Andrea Asali, from “‘La nazione armata,’” La Rivoluzione Sociale (London), no. 4 (November 15, 1902), published in ‘The Complete Works of Malatesta, Vol. V, The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900–13′, edited by Davide Turcato

Here is the ideal that authoritarian socialists and republicans boast of… when they go so far as to yearn for the abolition of permanent armies. And initially it would seem to be acceptable even to lovers of freedom, given the elastic meaning of the word and the various ways in which it can be interpreted.^(note)

But they ordinarily make haste to cite the example of Switzerland, and this reveals and defines their thought: and induces us to reject the system of the armed nation as even more reactionary, if that is possible, than the military organizations prevalent today.

In practice, armed nation means that everyone is a soldier, everyone is at the disposal of the government, bound to the obligation of military service for most of his life.

It is the dream of the reactionaries — the militarization of certain categories of workers — extended to the entire population. A call to duty is issued and, lo and behold, the nerves are cut on a dangerous strike or a menacing popular riot: — what better weapon of repression could a government desire?

Under the regular conscription system, a soldier feels the violence he endures and serves reluctantly and therefore has the tendency to rebel, and on the other hand the civil population realizes that the army is organized to control them and could oppress them with impunity; whereas with the armed nation everyone believes he is free and only serves the common interests of the people — and the citizen-soldier is two of a kind with the voter, who believes he is being governed by the laws he himself made.

Switzerland is proof of what we say. In no other country is the government so safe from insurrections, and can with so much tranquility shoot strikers; in no other country are the subjects so sincerely convinced of being sovereign and are so ready to side with the police.

But, they will say to us, do you therefore want to remain defenseless, exposed to all prevarications? Certainly not. As it is necessary today for revolutionaries to procure the material means to resist the government’s armed force, so it will be necessary for the people to be equipped with weapons of defense as long as there is the danger that others will want to use violence with weapons against them; but this has nothing in common with the system of military organization that is commonly called an armed nation. With the latter system the government can leave rifles at the homes of soldiers, or keep them in the barracks and only entrust them to the soldiers during periods of actual service, according to the public’s state of mind; but with or without a rifle at home, the soldier is always a soldier, obliged to show up when called and fight for the purpose which the government wants to make him fight for.

We instead want everyone to be free to bear arms or not. We want neither a government that commands, nor a military hierarchy that enforces the government’s orders, nor anyone, in short, who has the right to obligate a citizen to take up arms and use them for a reason for which he is not willing to fight.

* * *

[Note by editor Davide Turcato: In the debate on how the army should be structured, a debate that has accompanied the history of unified Italy, the “armed nation” was the model that federalist and democratic forces opposed to that of the permanent army at the sovereign’s service. Under this model, military education was to be extended to all citizens and, instead of spending a long period of time in the barracks, training was given starting from school and then through short-term exercises at regular intervals.]

Military Service

Excerpt translated by Andrea Asali from “Fatti ed Opinioni,” La Rivoluzione Sociale (London), no. 3 (November 1, 1902), published in ‘The Complete Works of Malatesta, Vol. V, The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900–13′, edited by Davide Turcato

There is currently much discussion among French comrades about whether an anarchist should meet the draft obligation, evade the draft, or desert.

Some say that the anarchist, who naturally abhors militarism and continuously makes propaganda against it, must at any cost refuse to wear the abhorrent uniform and take up fratricidal arms, in homage to our principles and to set a good example.

Others say that refusing service forces one to go abroad, where, for economic reasons and because of differences in language and customs, he is incapable of making propaganda, whereas it is useful and necessary to bring the spirit of rebellion and the yeast of anarchist ideas within the very ranks of the army.

We believe that the matter does not have a single solution, applicable to all individuals, under all circumstances.

Aside from considerations of personal advantage, which we shall not get into, it is certain that, depending on each person’s particular talents and the dose and type of courage he possesses, some can be more useful by entering the army, making propaganda among soldiers and setting an example, when the case arises, of refusing obedience and open rebellion, while others better succeed by deserting and facing the vagabond life of a man in an illegal position.

The essential thing is that, within or outside of the army, one always keeps aflame his hatred against the institution, always keeps alive the spirit of propaganda and sacrifice.

Quotes

“For us, it is truly the very existence of the army that we want to destroy, however it is organized. It is loathing for the role of soldier — the role of slave and cop combined — that we must inspire in the spirit of the people and especially of the youth.”

Errico Malatesta, “Fatti ed Opinioni,” La Rivoluzione Sociale (London), no. 4 (November 15, 1902), translated by Andrea Asali

“We are not enemies of this or that form of military organization; we are sworn enemies of any armed force whatsoever in the service of any authority. We are enemies of the army, enemies of the police, enemies of the system known as the armed nation.”

Errico Malatesta, “Il proposto Congresso antimilitarista,” La Rivoluzione Sociale (London), no. 7, (January 27, 1903), translated by Andrea Asali

“Anarchists, wanting the full liberation of humanity and complete freedom of the individual are, naturally, essentially, declared enemies of any kind of armed force in the hands of the State: army, gendarmery, police, magistrature.

They compel their comrades — and in general all men who aspire to freedom, to fight according to the circumstances and their own temperament, and with all means, from individual revolt, to isolated or collective refusal of military service, to passive and active disobedience and the military strike — for the radical destruction of the instruments of domination.

They express the hope that all people involved will respond to any declaration of war with insurrection.

They declare that they think anarchists will provide the example.”

(This motion that bears the signatures of Malatesta, Marmande, Thonar, Cornélissen, Ramus and Domela Nieuwenhuis, is approved without discussion.)

From “Congrès Anarchiste tenu à Amsterdam, Août 1907,” p. 205–12, translated by Andrea Asali