A - I n f o s
a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **

News in all languages
Last 40 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours || of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF | How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups
{Info on A-Infos}

(en) Class War, Reaction & the Italian Anarchists - Part I

Date Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:14:48 +0200


A STUDY OF THE ITALIAN ANARCHIST MOVEMENT IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE 20TH CENTURY - by Adriana Dadà
At the start of the twentieth century, the Italian anarchist movement was
rediscovering its ability to appear as an organized presence thanks in part to
its work among the masses and the organic links which many militants had
established since the 1890s with the new workers' and peasants' organizations
(1). In the 1880s, as a result of the move to the tactic of "propaganda by the
deed" by the international anarchist movement in reply to government
repression, the path had been cleared for a tendency which was far from the
established Bakuninist line. This was the anti-organizationalist tendency,
which brought to an extreme the concept of the autonomy of the group and of the
individual, with the result that any remaining organizational structures were
destroyed.

This revision (which took place at the same time as the social-democratic
revisionism within the Marxist camp) was greatly influenced in many ways by an
extremist reading of the revolutionary optimism and scientific determinism of
Kropotkin who, in turn, had been profoundly influenced by positivism. While
this revision did not reject Bakuninist ideas, it did in effect stop them from
being put into practice by denying the importance of organization as an
indispensable element of revolutionary action and the building of a future
society. The anarchist communist project was replaced by a harmonistic vision
of society. This vision relied on a hypothetical casual, fatalistic coincidence
of common interests in order for there to arise the possibility of a collective
agreement on the need for revolution and the running of the post-revolutionary
society which would follow it. The rejection of any form of organization,
brought to an extreme by those who fell under the influence of Kropotkin, had
as its result the exaltation of individual action, the most exasperated
spontaneism and the use of terrorism and led to isolation from the masses,
something which was enormously deleterious. On a theoretical level, it led to a
split between the pro-organizational anarchist communist tendency and the
various other harmonistic and deterministic tendencies, the
anti-organizationalists or individualists.

Just as the bombs of the 1880s and '90s had been the desperate reaction to the
frustration produced by the bloody crushing of the Commune and the repression
of the First International, anarcho-syndicalism became the response to the
blind alley into which anarchism had been forced by terrorist action (which
"propaganda by the deed" had degenerated into). In the last decade of the
nineteenth century, the workers' movement was developing in leaps and bounds
both in Europe and in the United States, moving from mutualism to resistance.
Given the "degeneration" of the anarchist party, a large number of its members
(above all the more obscure ones and particularly those who were workers, or
close to them) favoured this path. By doing so, they were in effect maintaining
an ideological and strategic continuity that was characteristic of this
tendency (also at an international level) at the start of the new century.
Nonetheless, in the 1890s, alongside this rebirth in favour of organization
which was to manifest itself in every country after the Capolago congress
(1891), there were now various other tendencies: insurrectionalists,
anti-organizationalists and individualists. At the start of the twentieth
century in Italy, the modest presence of the anti-organizationalists and the
weak "individualist provocation" current were unable to stop the anarchist
communists (active for the most part in the class organizations) from pushing
ahead with their process of organization with the founding in 1907 of the
Italian Anarchist Party. This experience, though filled with difficulty,
succeeded in establishing structures at local and regional level which were to
get stronger and stronger during the struggles of the crisis years of the
Giolitti system.


WAR ON WAR

Thanks to this effort, in the period between the last decade of the 19th
century and the First World War, the Italian anarchist movement had grown both
in numbers and in political influence, above all through its massive presence
in the camere del lavoro (Labour Clubs) and in the professional structures of
the Confederazione Generale del Lavoro (CGdL - General Confederation of Labour)
and the Unione Sindacale Italiana (USI - Italian Syndical Union) (2).
Furthermore, in 1914 it had to dedicate itself to intense organizational
activity in order to make the most of the large influx of new members as a
result of the struggles against the Libyan campaign and in defence of the
working classes (3). This need was matched also in other countries, to such an
extent that the idea of an international congress was raised. By way of
preparation, in March 1914 the editorial group of the journal Volontà and the
Fascio Comunista Anarchico di Roma (Rome Anarchist Communist Group) promoted a
congress, to be held in Florence which, because of its markedly
pro-organization line, was met with some suspicion by the promoters of the
unity of the various currents such as the editors of Il Libertario and the
individualists of L'Avvenire Anarchico (4) However, neither the Italian nor the
international congresses came about due to the worsening international
situation and the preparations for war, though there were eight regional
meetings between April and June dealing mainly with "questions relating to the
specific organization of the movement and its relations with the workers'
organizations" (5).

Despite the war, debate between the various positions and the construction of a
national organizational structure continued to develop with the conventions in
Pisa in 1915 and Ravenna in 1916 (6). It must be said that in Italy, both on an
ideological level and on other levels, the effects of the conflict were less
damaging to the anarchist movement (and to the left in general) that in other
countries. This is partly because of the choice of the Partito Socialista
Italiana (PSI - Italian Socialist Party) - a choice in itself influenced by the
strong anti-militarist and libertarian element of the proletariat - which was
summed up in the fairly ambiguous motto "neither support nor sabotage" but
which was frequently contradicted in daily practice by the collaboration with
the industrial mobilization by the CGdL which was controlled by reformists. In
fact, "interventionism in the Italian anarchist movement was not a phenomenon,
or a current, or even a question of debate or the basis of a split. It was only
a series of sporadic, unconnected personal cases" (7), which in general were to
be found in the Nietzschian-Stirnerite individualist fringe which had already
been in difficulty at the time of the Libyan campaign (8). The anarchist
presence was crucial to the clarification of the USI's position on
intervention. The clash with the revolutionary syndicalist group, a part of
which favoured Italian participation in the conflict, delivered the
organization into the hands of the anti-militarist majority in September 1914,
with the passing of a motion by Alberto Meschi, secretary of the Carrara Labour
Club, which expressed "their trust in the proletariat of all countries to
rediscover in themselves the spirit of class solidarity and the revolutionary
energy required to take advantage of the inevitable weakening of State forces
and of the general crisis caused by the war in order to act to sweep away the
bourgeois and monarchist states which have been cynically preparing for this
war for fifty years" (9).

In reconstructing the positions of anarchism regarding the problem raised by
the conflict, alongside the condemnation approved by the Pisa convention in
January 1915 (10), one must also consider those of the various local groups
which had newspapers and could therefore influence militants and a wider range
of readers. Of the most important magazines, Volontà had the strongest
anti-patriotic and anti-war line and in no way questioned the internationalist
and anti-capitalist role of anarchism (11). It was in its pages, in fact, that
the international anarchist manifesto against the war was published in March
1915 (12) as a response on the part of the majority of the movement to the
"Manifesto of the Sixteen", the pro-French interventionist declaration of
certain individuals such as Kropotkin, Grave, Malato, etc. (13). For some time,
instead, Il Libertario allowed room for debate, for example publishing articles
by Jean Grave and Maria Rygier, although the line of its editor, Binazzi, and
its contributors had been made clear as far back as July 1914 with the article
"Né un uomo né un soldo per l'iniqua guerra" (Not one man, not one penny for
this unjust war)(14). But there really was not much debate. While anarchism's
greatest exponents published widely-distributed pamphlets against the conflict
(15), the "interventionist anarchists were unable even to raise the question
'intervention: yes or no' within the anarchist movement and were even unable to
constitute a minority. They did eventually form as a group, but only after
their position had been demolished by the immediate and spontaneous reaction of
a healthy organism" (16).

But, whereas the vast majority was united by the anti-militarist struggle, on a
whole range of other questions there continued to be theoretical differences
which came to the surface even on the occasion of the Pisa meeting promoted by
the individualist newspaper L'Avvenire Anarchico and the editorial group of Il
Libertario, who had in other times been against permanent organizational forms
and, consequently, sceptic on the usefulness of congressional decisions. In
fact, Volontà, the mouthpiece of the anarchist communist current declined to
participate, holding such conventions to be academic (17) and drawing a
response from Fabbri, who instead considered it "indispensable to meet in order
to discuss, to decide [...] Past experience has shown that a large part of our
movements failed because we did not know what to do" (18). The Zimmerwald
Conference provoked great enthusiasm as a sign of the internationalist
renaissance in the workers' movement, but with strategic evaluations which
differed on the question of relationships with revolutionary socialism. While
recognizing the importance of the event, Fabbri and Borghi were inclined to
assign anarchist organization a fundamental role in the reconstruction of
internationalism. The more eclectic Binazzi was somewhat more positive
regarding the renaissance of the Socialist International, while the
individualist Renato Siglich accused everyone of deviationism in the pages of
L'Avvenire Anarchico (19). Dissent re-emerged during the clandestine meeting in
Ravenna in August 1916 - "the first [...] since the one in Rome in 1907 which
represented such a wide range of views within the Italian anarchist movement"
(20) - where, while welcoming the re-birth of the socialist international and
the establishing of good relations between socialists and anarchists, the
latter were considered to have the task of creating an International "which
would be open to all the workers and every current of socialist and
internationalist thought" (21), forming an Anarchist Internationalist Committee
which was to carry out badly-needed work on the internal coordination of the
movement, above all in organizing support for the victims of repression, for
internees and for exiles. However, it met with some difficulty in carrying out
its primary and institutional tasks. The clash between the various tendencies
on the role, scope and limits of any agreement with the socialists and the
constant efforts of Binazzi to bring together the various factions, ended up
paralyzing it to the point that it became impossible to participate in the 3rd
Zimmerwald Conference.

The movement developed during the difficult war years, even at the level of
nuclei of varying strengths (depending on location), and there was intense
activity of class opposition. The anti-militarism of the movements was
translated into desertions, single and collective mutinies (22), the promotion
of and participation in popular demonstrations, all of which was tangible
evidence of the proletariat's resistance to the war. In particular we should
mention the protests and public meetings in support of Carlo Tresca (the
Italo-American anarchist who was under threat of execution along with other
members of the Industrial Workers of the World for having organized strikes in
the mining sector) (23) which culminated on 8th September 1916 in a national
demonstration in Milan that was massively attended, given the limits imposed by
the state of war (24).

The USI, the greater part of which was anarchist, began a series of important
struggles such as the action by Valdarno miners directed by the local secretary
Riccardo Sacconi. This action began in September 1916 and demanded an 8-hour
day which was granted the following May (25). In Sestri Ponente, too, where
there was a strong anarchist presence, action by metalworkers seeking the same
goal and beginning in January 1917, led to violent clashes and to
demonstrations against the war and was followed by repression and the arrest of
many militants including Alebrando Giovanetti, one of the leaders of the
organization who would later be interned (26). The enthusiasm sparked off by
the "February Revolution" in Russia gave further impetus to mass action (27).
In the Turin revolt in August 1917 - which brought together all the discontent,
the open hostility of the Italian proletariat to the war and the desire for
social change, but which also made it clear that any spontaneous insurrection
was bound to fail - "some anarchists here and there tried to give the uprising
a more decidedly insurrectional direction" (28), as demonstrated by one leaflet
which was later used during a trial and contained in the court's final
judgement:

"Bring the rifles you make onto the streets and the barricades. Let all the
forces of the proletariat rise up and arm themselves. Let us put an end, by
force of arms, to the systematic destruction of the human race. Proletarians!
Raise now your axes, your picks, your barricades, the social revolution!
Proletarian soldiers, desert! If you must fight, let it be against those who
oppress you! Your enemy is not at the so-called border, but here. Proletarian
women, rise up! Impede the departure of your loved ones! Let it be you, O
worker of the factory and of the field, conscious and strong, let it be you who
throws down your tools and cries: Enough! No more! We workers no longer wish to
make rifles which bring death to our brothers in struggle and in suffering"
(29).

The final year of the war saw a noticeable weakening in anarchism, as in the
rest of the left, due to repression. Arrest, trial and confinement was the fate
for a great many anarchists, who had been at the forefront of the popular
revolts. All the movement's newspapers were closed down, with the sole
exception of the individualist paper L'Avvenire Anarchico which was published
in Pisa and edited by the ambiguous figure of Renato Siglich. The
internationalist action committee was broken up with the arrest of Binazzi,
Gobbi and Monticelli (who were all sent into confinement) and the death of its
fourth member, Gregorio Benvenuti. Even in Switzerland, the numerous colony of
exiles, draft-dodgers and deserters was decimated by arrests and deportation to
concentration camps. "Over a hundred refugees, many of whom were closely
involved in the local workers' movement, [found it] impossible to act for many
months, though they were later cleared of all charges" (30).


THE POST-WAR ORGANIZATIONAL BOOM

Despite all this, the end of the war marked a return to mass activity and
organization within the movement. The October Revolution had awoken in
anarchists (and not only them) hopes that Italy could replicate events in
Russia. Historians are still unclear on the extent of such expectation and on
the role that parties and labour unions played in feeding, directing or
moderating these hopes, but some studies have been made on the causes and the
international dimensions of the phenomenon (31). However, from 1917 until the
end of 1920, the libertarians' internationalism led them to be convinced of the
possibility of revolution in Italy (32), bearing in mind the differing
positions of the various currents and individuals - from that of Malatesta
(still insurrectionalist but conscious of the roles assigned to the anarchist
organization and the mass organization) to the more articulate views of Fabbri,
passing through the myriad nuances of all the various individuals and groups
reflecting their geographical differences, social composition and involvement
of militants with the class.

In February-March 1919, two important periodicals resumed publication - Il
Libertario in La Spezia and Volontà in Ancona which, edited by Luigi Fabbri,
made a notable contribution to the analysis of the problems of the post-war
period together with a lucid and critical defence of the Russian Revolution
(34). In April, the process of re-organization was already well under way with
the convention held in Florence in the rooms of the local Labour Club (35). A
significant point regarding was the fact that it was preceded by a series of
preparatory regional meetings (amongst which one in Umbria-Marches and one in
Emilia-Romagna which were notable for the efforts made to emphasize the
question of political and economic organization before and after the revolution
and relations with other parties on the left) (36) and also the lively debate
in the press which sought to ensure that delegates were really representative
and came from groups which were active among the masses. The Unione Anarchica
Anconetana (Ancona Anarchist Union), a strong organization, was in the
frontline of this battle, demanding that those who were to participate in the
convention be really representative of organized anarchist forces" (37).

The organization which grew out of the convention took the significant name
Unione Comunista Anarchica d'Italia (UCAdI - Anarchist Communist Union of
Italy) and marked a separation from the humanistic and individualist currents
which in general were composed of a series of groups and often individuals but
which possessed journals such as L'Avvenire Anarchico, La Frusta and Cronaca
Sovversiva that had a certain influence over some sectors of the movement which
had not yet been integrated into the various territorial organizations. The
convention also re-affirmed the urgency of re-establishing international
contacts (the UCAdI considered itself to be the Italian section of an
International Anarchist Union) and it therefore began the necessary
preparations for participating in the founding congress of the Third
International "which [censored] would support anarchism's heavy demands" (38).
Together with the directing committee, a correspondence commission was created,
which functioned as a secretariat (39). But attention was focused mainly on the
situation in Italy in an attempt to establish what propaganda instruments and
political action were most needed.

"With regard to workers' organization the convention holds that workers'
organization and struggle against the bosses is essential for the revolutionary
movement and that therefore it is in the interests of anarchists to participate
in this in order to promote revolution and anarchism. We must remember that the
destruction of the capitalist and authoritarian society is only possible
through revolutionary means and that the use of the general strike and the
labour movement must not make us forget the more direct methods of struggle
against state and bourgeois violence and extreme power. We note that the Unione
Sindacale Italiana is currently (and was during the war) the closest [labour
organization] to the cause of internationalism, without compromise or wavering.
Without wishing to create binding duties which are incompatible with the
conviction that political groups and class organizations must be autonomous and
independent, this convention recommends that its worker comrades assist the
Unione Sindacale Italiana to the best of their abilities and each within his or
her own trade category, so that it may continue to hold to its revolutionary,
anti-State and anti-centralization positions" (40).

In other words, the motion expressed a precise position in favour of labour
intervention, while confirming the need to preserve a precise, autonomous role
for the anarchist political organization. As for how Italian anarchists were
involved in the labour struggle, there was great variety in the unions to which
they belonged. A large number were members of the USI, which in the following
two years would reach a membership of 800,000 workers and 27 Labour Clubs.
Others were active in unions belonging to the Confederation, with a significant
number in the FIOM (the metalworkers union which was federated to the CGdL),
even appearing at the confederal conference of 1921 as a single group (41).
Others still were members of independent unions such as the Sindacato
Ferrovieri (Railworkers' Union) and the Federazione dei Marittimi (Maritime
Workers' Federation). But it was above all in the struggles that the anarchist
presence grew and strengthened.

The attack on L'Avanti! in April 1919 gave impetus to the anarchist proposal
for the creation of a revolutionary single front, in other words the union of
all workers and organizations of the left (which was to become a fundamental
element of the tactical-strategic line in the mid-term), approved during the
Bologna congress in 1920 (42). The first real test of the practicality of this
came about during the protests against the rising cost of living, adjudged by
some commentators to be the peak of the revolutionary tensions of the Biennio
Rosso, the Two Red Years. Borghi would later say: "It was the moment when we
were best placed for a revolution" (43). For Fabbri too they represented,
together with the Ancona revolt of June 1920 and the factory occupations,
moments when the "monarchical institutions were on the point of being
overthrown. It was only because their adversaries were lacking order that they
were not overthrown" (44). Furthermore, Fabbri attributed the principal
responsibility for the failure of the revolution to the socialists without,
however, hiding the shortcomings of the anarchist movement:

"This did not exclude the fact that in many places and in various spontaneous
ways, revolutionaries of the different schools of thought acted, prepared and
agitated. But what was missing was coordination of their efforts, concrete
facts and wide-ranging preparation which could have initiated the revolution
even in spite of the reluctance and passive resistance of the more moderate
socialist elements" (45).

Anarchists were without doubt closely involved in the workers' and peasants'
demonstrations which marked 1919 "as a period of preparation, clashes and an
indication of a much deeper and radical crisis which was affecting the
country's institutions and structures" (46). But the movement (which was still
regrouping after the constitution of the UCAdI) did not yet have a solid,
definite strategy to offer its member groups in an advanced stage of
organization, at least in regions such as Liguria, Lazio and especially
Emilia-Romagna, where delegates from 80 different groups met at a congress in
Bologna in September 1919 (47). On its part, the USI was enjoying a boom in its
membership following the war years and was acting more as a collateral
organization that as an autonomous force (48), in effect mimicking the role of
the CGdL with respect to the PSI.


THE ROLE OF MALATESTA

The return of Malatesta at the end of 1919 was a turning point in the
development of the Italian anarchist movement. Exiled for the umpteenth time
after the "red week", he had been vainly attempting to return to Italy since
1917, even declaring himself willing to stand trial for charges outstanding
against him just so he could be present in the place where he believed a
favourable situation for revolutionary action was developing. However in
November 1919, after the government had been forced into giving him a passport
due to a series of protests (especially by the USI), the authorities continued
to place innumerable obstacles in his path (49). He was only able to return
thanks to the help of Giuseppe Giulietti and the Federazione dei Lavoratori del
Mare (50). He thus arrived clandestinely in Taranto aboard a Greek cargo ship
and headed by train to Genoa where he pretended to have disembarked.

"Our dear comrade Errico Malatesta has finally joined us. The Genoese
proletariat gave him a warm and enthusiastic welcome. On Saturday at 1.00pm the
sirens sounded giving the signal for work to stop. The workers thronged to Via
Milano whence they marched towards Piazza Carignano, where a public meeting was
due to take place. The impressive rows of marchers with hundreds of flags
flying crossed the city singing our anthems. In the huge square and the
adjoining streets over 60,000 people were crammed in. The enthusiasm was
indescribable. The untiring president of the Co-operativa Facchini (Porters'
Cooperative), Ravaschio, spoke to the crowd and introduced our dear Errico
Malatesta who in turn spoke a few, short words and was loudly acclaimed" (51).

His prestige among the masses raised hopes and enthusiasm. He was testimony to
the continuity of the Italian proletariat's struggle for emancipation. The
steadfastness and consistency of his work made him the natural leader of a huge
section of the workers. Furthermore, this old internationalist's ability to
unify the whole anarchist movement and his unchallenged fame facilitated (as in
1897 and 1913) this unity which, as would be seen in the following months, was
based on the enthusiasm of the movement's various components and agreement
between them. His ideas for maintaining unity (52) was mostly based on his
optimistic reading of the situation in Italy - a view which, though shared by a
good portion of the masses at the time, was perhaps overly influenced by
personal factors which are useful to examine.

Malatesta, the revolutionary par excellence, lived a large part of his life and
most of the recent years in exile, with links to the international
revolutionary socialist and anarchist movement (53). His returns to Italy
coincided with upturns in the class movement which could be described as
insurrectional uprisings. As a result of these, he understood that "despite
their differences in tendencies and parties, the masses were willing to act for
a common goal" (54). These hopes, however, were followed by periods of
repression, forcing him back into exile. The insurrectionalist experience of
the First International, of the Matese band, were critically re-examined after
1894 (55) with the development of the strategy for anarchist action within the
organizations that the masses were building. It was something that Gori, Fabbri
and many others would develop and put into practice with their activity not
only in the Labour Clubs and trade federations but also through the
re-organization of the anarchist party (56). But Malatesta was not in Italy
between the end of the century and 1914 and it was only from abroad that he
could keep track of the process and experiences that were causing the Italian
anarchist movement and its ideology to develop. And a significant indicator of
his "detachment" from the latter was the position he took at the international
congress in Amsterdam in 1907, where his opposition to Monatte differed (marked
as it was by humanistic anarchism) from that of Fabbri, who better than any
other expressed the growth in the Italian anarchist movement in the awareness
of the need for the party and a presence within the mass organizations, thereby
returning to the genuine Bakuninist tradition (57).

In 1914, Malatesta was still bound to this optimistic, humanistic and
insurrectionalist conception. His vision of anarchist action principally as
propaganda and vigilance while waiting for those occasions "which can occur
when least expected" (58) and his trust in the "spontaneous drive" of the
masses for revolution (59) certainly gave impetus to anarchist agitation in
that year, though he himself would come to understand that the main limit on
revolutionary action was the lack of coordination before, during and after the
insurrectionalist outbursts. In fact, while still in exile in London in 1919,
he warmly welcomed the proposal for a daily newspaper (which had only minority
support at the April convention in Florence), which he considered as an
essential instrument for propaganda, agitation and pre-insurrectional
preparation. Like other militants, mostly involved with mass activity, Fabbri
displayed "an opinion which was at the time rather contrary" to the newspaper
(60), in the belief that the growth of the movement had to be more gradual and
complex, bound to precise organizational structures and with a solid rooting in
the proletariat's grassroots organizations. Putting all one's energies into the
creation of a single unifying grouping of all the various tendencies seemed to
him to be a waste. He therefore remained "from the start one of the few who
looked at the initiative with few illusions" (61). Malatesta, instead, "found
[his] practical and principled objections well-enough founded for normal times,
but [...] completely surpassed by the current conditions and by the greater
need for an imminent revolution" (62).

The debate between the two confirmed their different viewpoints. While Fabbri
(who not even in January 1920 let himself fall victim to the "general
giddiness" of the left) (63) sought to convince his opposite of the need for a
detailed, long-term strategy, Malatesta maintained the impossibility of
"following that path. He had not thought he would find such effervescence. It
was no longer a case of preparing the terrain, which was ready. Instead, it was
essential to do what could be done as soon as possible, because the revolution
was on the way, nearer than he had thought [...] I agreed with him and it was
only later that doubts struck me about the revolutionary character of that
impressive popular enthusiasm and that this might have made him blind to the
real state of affairs" (64).

Fabbri's perplexities between late 1919 and early 1920 seem to have been
overcome by events, by the expectations Malatesta inspired among anarchist
ranks and further afield, so much so that in order to avoid the
overly-personalized manifestations of esteem and trust endowed on him, he felt
the need to publish a letter which said, amongst other things: "Thank you, but
that's enough" (65).

With the birth of the daily newspaper, Umanità Nova, in February 1920, the role
of Malatesta of "understanding and reconciling all the anarchist tendencies"
(66) became all encompassing. Fabbri closed down Volontà that summer as "all
its contributors, from then on, had to dedicate their attention to the
newspaper" (67). Umanità Nova did, however, meet with great success. It had a
network of correspondents and contributors covering the whole peninsula and a
distribution which reached 50,000 copies a day with a turnover of over a
million lire" (68). One unbiased witness of its importance among the masses was
Anna Kuliscioff, who in August 1920 wrote to Turati:

"The working class is going through a bad period of anarchist contagion. By now
Avanti! is almost being boycotted and the workers are reading only Umanità Nova
[...] This is confirmed by members of the Labour Clubs and the passengers on
the morning trams where one can no longer see workers without a copy of Umanità
Nova in their hands" (69).

[Part II to follow]
_____________________________________

The full version of the text, complete with footnotes is available on the FdCA
website.

Italian original in "Storia della società italiana", Volume XXI - La
disgregazione dello stato liberale, published by Teti Editore, Milan, 1982.
Translation by Nestor McNab.

The documents referred to in Notes 124, 125 and 126 are available in English
translation on internet, at the Nestor Makhno Archive
(http://www.nestormakhno.info).

Available as a pamphlet from the Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici. For the
downloadable PDF version, please visit our website at http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen

From: Federazione dei Comunisti Anarchici <internazionale@fdca.it>
_______________________________________________
A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en


A-Infos Information Center