Translation:Regarding the recent article by Enrico Malatesta

I read in your latest issue an article by companion Malatesta, entitled a bit of theory.

I kindly ask you to insert these few lines of personal reflections on the subject.

Comp. Malatesta, after having developed the imminence and necessity of a violent revolution, and having considered the role of anarchists as contributing to its imminent arrival, says that "every act of propaganda or realization, whether by word or by deed, individual or collective, is good when it serves to bring about and facilitate the Revolution..."

Speaking then of acts of revolt inspired by the hatred born of the long sufferings endured by the proletarian, Malatesta adds that he understands and forgives such acts, but that "It is one thing to understand and forgive, another to claim them. These are not the acts we can accept, encourage, or imitate. We must be resolute and energetic, but we must strive never to exceed the bounds dictated by necessity. We must act like the surgeon who cuts when necessary but avoids inflicting needless suffering..."

I would like to point out to companion Malatesta that this part of his article is, to say the least, strange coming from the pen of an anarchist.

Indeed, what do anarchists want? The autonomy of the individual, the development of his free initiative, which alone can ensure his happiness; and if he becomes a communist, it is through simple deduction, for he understands that it is only in the happiness of all — free and autonomous like himself — that he will find his own happiness. ​
And yet, what does Malatesta want?

To restrict this initiative, by declaring that the acts of a man — however sincere and convinced he may be — are not to be accepted or claimed when they exceed the bounds set by necessity.

But who, then, can judge whether the limit has been exceeded? Who can certify that a given act is useful to the Revolution, while another is harmful to it?

Will it be necessary for the Ravachols of the future, before risking their lives in the struggle, to submit their plans for approval of the Malatests, elevated to the rank of Grand Tribunal, who would judge the timeliness or untimeliness of each act?

We, on the contrary, say this:

When a man, within the present Society, becomes a conscious rebel — as Ravachol was — it is because he has carried out in his brain a process of deduction encompassing his entire life, analyzing the causes of his sufferings, and he alone is judge of whether he is right or wrong to feel hatred, and to be wild, "or even fierce".

We believe, us, that brutal acts of revolt, like those which have taken place — and which are at the origin of the polemic now engaged between "anarchists" and "terrorists" — Merlino’s style — we believe that these acts strike true, for they awaken the masses, shake them with a violent lash, and show them the vulnerable side of the Bourgeoisie, still trembling when the Rebel walks to the scaffold...

We fully understand that not all anarchists possess the temperament of a Ravachol.

Each of us has a unique physionomy and special aptitudes that differentiate him from his companions of struggle.

Thus, we are not surprised to see revolutionaries concentrate all their efforts on a given point — for example, as companions Merlino and Malatesta do — on organizing the proletarians into well-structured associations. But ​we do not recognize their right to say: "Only our propaganda is good; outside of ours, there is no salvation." This is an old remnant of authoritarianism that we refuse to endure, and we would rather quickly separate our cause from that of the pontiffs or would-be pontiffs.

Moreover, companion Malatesta tells us that hatred does not engender love.

We would reply to him that it is love which engenders hatred:

The more we love liberty and equality, the more we must hate everything that opposes men being free and equal.

Thus, without straying into mysticism, we pose the problem on the ground of reality, and we say:

It is true that men are not merely the product of institutions; but these institutions are nothing but abstract entities which exist only because there are men made of flesh-and-blood to represent them. There is no other way to reach the institutions than by striking the men; and we gladly welcome all energetic acts of revolt against bourgeois society, for we do not lose sight of the fact that the Revolution will be the outcome of all these particular revolts.

Comrades, the subject would require long developments, but I hope that these few lines will be enough to make those comrades reflect who might otherwise be misled by a name as well known as that of Malatesta.

To you, and to Anarchy!

Émile Henry