Malatesta’s Anarchist Views of Elections and Democracy
by Wayne Price
Review of A Long and Patient Work: The Anarchist-Socialism of L’Agitazione 1897—1898; Vol. III of the Complete Works of Errico Malatesta
Errico Malatesta (1853—1932) was a revolutionary anarchist-socialist, well known in his time, widely respected and loved by his comrades, and carefully watched by the police forces of several nations. He was of a generation which included significant anarchist figures, including Emma Goldman, Luigi Fabbri, Pierre Monatte, and Nester Makhno, among others. “Malatesta, whose sixty-year career is little known outside of Italy, stands with Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin as one of the great revolutionaries of international anarchism.” (Pernicone 1993; p.3) He was a comrade of Bakunin and Kropotkin. Unlike either, he lived to see the rise of fascism.
Neither a profound theorist of political economy or philosophy, he was a brilliant theorist of anarchist tactics and strategy. He was also an exceptional propagandist, writing articles and pamphlets in a clear and comprehensible style, understandable to workers and peasants. He participated in union organizing and strikes, also organizing among anarchists, and publishing anarchist newspapers, in Italy and various other countries.
Born to a middle class Italian family, he made his living as an electrician and mechanic. He was imprisoned many times and sentenced to death three times. “Errico Malatesta…ranked as Italian anarchism’s foremost revolutionary.” (Pernicone 1993; p. 202) Due to political persecution in Italy, he spent over half his adult life in exile. He lived in the Middle East, in South America, in the United States, and, for about 19 years, in Britain. Dying at 79, he had spent his last years under house arrest in fascist Italy.
As a young man, he participated in a couple of fruitless little guerrilla attempts to spark peasant rebellions, without first being assured of popular support. He abandoned that for a more thought-out approach, but he never ceased being a revolutionary. Instead he focused on participation in popular struggles, such as union organizing, national rebellions, and other mass movements. He criticized those anarchist-syndicalists who believed that a revolution could be won nonviolently, by “folding arms,” just through a general strike. The capitalists and their state could not be beaten, he insisted, without some armed struggle. Because he was an advocate of popular revolution, however, he did not advocate the bomb-throwing and assassination tactics (“attentats”) of anarchist terrorists.
He was a champion of anarchists organizing themselves into revolutionary federations, rooted in the working class, the peasantry, and all the oppressed. He opposed individualist and anti-organizationalist trends in anarchism. He called his political tendency the “anarchist party,” which definitely did not mean a “party” in the modern sense of a grouping aiming at taking state power.
Malatesta’s overall views may be evaluated in His Life and Ideas (1984). This is a selection of passages from various essays (chosen by V. Richards). Arranged thematically, the book covers the major topics of his anarchism. The more recent (and larger) Method of Freedom (2014) is a selection by D. Turcato of the major writings of his life, arranged chronologically. Turcato has written a biography and an assessment of Malatesta’s ideas, Making Sense of Anarchism (2015). Carl Levy is writing a biography, to be titled, Errico Malatesta: The Rooted Cosmopolitan. Finally, The Complete Works, being organized by Turcato, aims at a ten volume collection of Malatesta’s work, covering his 60 years of political activity. It is an important undertaking and a major contribution to anarchism. (See my earlier reviews: Price 2019; 2024.)
Volume III of the Complete Works was actually the first volume published; Volumes IV and V are out, but Volumes I and II are yet to be published. (As it happens, III is the last one I read, out of order.) It covers 1897 to 1898, when Malatesta was back in Italy, between his years of exile. In these approximately two years, he was the main editor of the anarchist newspaper, L’Agitazione, subtitled Periodico Socialista-Anarchico. By this period, “Malatesta’s intellectual development matured and his anarchist philosophy achieved full expression.” (Pernicone 1993; p. 246)
Most of Vol. III is a collection of his articles from his paper, plus some interviews and reports from other papers. It concludes with the government accounts of official interviews with Malatesta, before he was sentenced to banishment to a prison island.
This review is not an exposition of Malatesta’s full political program. As might be expected, his newspaper covered many topics. However, there was a major emphasis on topics relating to democracy, republicanism, voting, and elections. That is what I will emphasize in this review—plus a little on Malatesta’s views on the origins of anarchism and its relation to Marxism.
The State and Elections
Like all anarchists, Malatesta opposed the state and capitalism (hence “anarchist-socialism”) along with all other forms of oppression (racism, sexism, national oppression, etc.). He denied that the state was neutral between the oppressors and the oppressed. Instead, the state was the main prop and instrument of the capitalist class’ rule over the working class and everyone else. It is the mechanism by which factions of the bourgeoisie settle their disagreements and make decisions. The state is an ideological prop of the system, teaching the people to love “their” king, or to think that they ruled through “democracy,” or other scams. Besides upholding the existing ruling class, the state machinery—its bureaucracy, police, military, politicians, judges, etc.—served its own interests, over and against the rest of society. (So far, this analysis is consistent with that of Karl Marx.)
Unlike Marxists, in the words of Kropotkin, “The anarchists refuse to be a party to the present state organization and to support it by infusing fresh blood into it. They do not seek to constitute, and invite the workingmen not to to constitute, political parties in the parliaments….They have endeavored to promote their ideas directly among the labor organizations and to induce those unions to a direct struggle against capital….” (2002; p. 287)
This remained a central idea of Malatesta’s. It was opposed to the liberal republicans and the reformist democratic socialists who both hoped to use the parliamentary state. The Italian republicans wanted to remove the monarchy. (Before World War I, many countries still had kings besides Italy, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Russia, Turkey, Japan, Denmark, etc.) The king of Italy, while not an absolute dictator, still held much power, which capped a corrupt, bureaucratic, police-ridden, state. Italy did have a parliament, which “represented” less than 7 percent of the population, only males. The democratic socialists (social democrats) also wanted to remove the monarchy and create a more democratic parliament—in order to move towards their conception of (state) socialism.
Malatesta challenged the republicans: What kind of republic do you want? France has a republic, Switzerland has a republic, South America was filled with republican dictatorships. In all these countries the wealthy few dominate the economy and the state. “The republic of the United States…is a swamp of corrupt politicians in the service of millionaires.” (p. 248) “The republic of the United States…being the country where government dependence on the capitalists is at its most complete and blatant.” (p. 310) (This hasn’t changed.)
Is this what you want? he asked the republicans. Does your ideal republic still have land rent, interest, profit? Does it have police, prisons, and a military? If so, your republic is not much better than a monarchy. He challenged the democratic socialists: What good is it to overthrow a monarchy, if you end up with nothing more than a capitalist republic? Is this really closer to socialism? Is a “good parliamentary republic” any more real than a “good king”?
Malatesta was not a sectarian. He worked with the republicans to fight for civil liberties, in opposition to police repression, and “forced residence” of dissidents on prison islands. He worked with the democratic socialists in organizing labor unions and strikes. If either party was to participate in a revolution, he was for a united front with them—without abandoning the anarchist program. But his agreement with either party was negative: they were against the monarchy and he was against the monarchy; but he was not for a republic. The democratic socialists were against capitalism and he was against capitalism, but he was not for a state-run socialism (state capitalism, in practice).
Anti-electoralism was a consistent part of the anarchist-socialist program, from Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin to Malatesta. But there were occasionally those anarchists who broke away from traditional views. Over the two years of L’Agitazone, Malatesta carried on a debate with Francesco Saverio Merlino. They had been close friends over many years, working tirelessly for Italian and international revolutionary anarchism.
But now Merlino had decided that a variation in anarchism was necessary, namely that they should vote for non-anarchist socialists in parliamentary elections. Malatesta wrote that Merlino had the right to change his mind. But his new views led to violations of anarchism. It would lead to endorsing candidates and participating in their campaigns. If, Malatesta pointed out, you were willing to vote for socialists, why not run for elections yourselves, since your politics are better than the state socialists?
“Protest candidacy,” Malatesta wrote, “…is not ipso facto at odds with our principles…but it is nonetheless leaving the door open to equivocation and compromise. It is the first step on a slippery slope where it is hard to keep one’s footing.” (p. 23)
It was easy for the democratic socialists to keep from engaging in corrupt bourgeois politicking—so long as they don’t get elected or if only a few get elected. They can be just protest candidates, using the elections to make propaganda. But once enough of them are elected to have some political leverage, there will be increasing pressure to make deals and get caught up in the system. The voters who elected them will demand that they provide benefits. They will become….politicians!
Other reasons were raised for running in elections which were specific to Italy. One was the advantage of being a representative in Italy, where they got free railroad passes. Some democratic socialist deputies used this to travel throughout the country, meeting workers and making speeches. Malatesta did not really object to this, “especially when one can be sure that the person elected will not be going on to play the deputy at any price….” (p. 23) But he pointed out how few representatives could keep themselves from also getting involved in parliamentary business.
Also deputies were immune from arrest and imprisonment while serving in parliament. It was repeatedly proposed that the left run imprisoned radicals for parliament. If elected they would be freed from jail for the parliamentary season. They would be able to flee the country if they chose.
This approach was used to free a number of democratic socialists and radical republicans. Malatesta did not begrudge them the use of this trick. He criticized them only if they were to actually get involved in parliamentary politics. But he felt differently for anarchists. When he was stuck on a prison island, several groups of democratic socialists offered to run him as a candidate. With all due respect, he asked them not to nominate him, as it distorted his political message.
From his prison island, Malatesta wrote, “…We anarchist socialists, who believe that the parliamentary tactic is harmful to the growth of the spirit of resistance of the people;…we, who want to educate the people to rely solely on their own organized strength in combatting political and economic oppressors…; we cannot…encourage a method of struggle that drives the people to look in…hope to those ballot boxes that we would like to see deserted and reviled….I therefore request that my name not be used in any of the electoral struggles that socialists and republicans are fighting.” (p. 456-7)
Instead, he advocated a mass movement to demand the end of the system of jailing people on these little prison islands for extended periods. Before being arrested, one of his activities had been organizing such a movement. (He escaped four months later, to a new exile.)
Suppose They Elected a Majority?
Malatesta quoted from an article by Wilhelm Liebknecht, a comrade of Marx’s and a founder of the German Social Democratic Party. “Let’s imagine…that there was a social democratic majority in parliament. What would happen? …The yearned for moment to reform Society and the State has arrived! …A new era is about to dawn!…None of this will come to pass. Instead, a company of soldiers will come up to shoo the majority away, and should these gentlemen not comply immediately, it would require only a few policemen to show them the quickest route to prison….Revolutions are not made with government permission; the socialist ideal cannot be achieved within the compass of the present state, which will have to be done away with before a new-born future sees the light of day!” (p. 31)
Both the Marxist Liebknecht and the anarchist Malatesta recognized that “the socialist ideal cannot be achieved” through elections, and both disagreed with those reformist democratic socialists who did think that voting could bring in a better society. Liebknecht was, nevertheless, in favor of running in elections and building a parliamentary party, as a way to build the present workers’ movement. Eventually he aimed at a revolution for a new, workers-run, state.
Malatesta drew a different conclusion, that of anti-parliamentarianism and electoral abstentionism. Building a parliamentary social democratic party would lead to adaptation to parliament, bourgeois politics, and capitalist society. In practice, it would lead to abandoning original revolutionary goals. And this is exactly what happened to the European social democratic parties!
As for building a revolutionary movement and organization, “why give encouragement to the people’s illusion that they are the makers of the laws and that they can amend them?” (p. 27) “Whenever the people vote, they grow accustomed to looking to Parliament for everything and cease doing things for themselves.” (p. 71)
The democratic socialists argued that there was no reason to worry that their elected members would become corrupted by participating in bourgeois parliaments. This would be prevented by the party’s discipline over them, keeping them on the revolutionary path. Malatesta was not reassured by the Marxists’ proposal of a disciplined, centralized, party. “Is it…a foretaste of the famed ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ which would then prove to be the dictatorship of ‘Party’ over people, and of a handful of men over ‘Party’?” (p. 27) This was written before the Russian Revolution and the rise of Leninism and Stalinism.
Malatesta was not only against the existing parliamentary republics. In principle, he opposed any idea of a parliamentary (or congressional) democratic state. He did not like a system where people met every now and then (yearly, every four years, whatever) to chose (by majority vote) someone else to be political for them somewhere far way—while they went back to obeying the laws and doing their jobs. These elected representatives would gather in the capitol and decide how the country would be run—also by majority vote. Meanwhile the people are powerless. And is the majority always right? Does it have the right to impose its will on a minority?
“We anarchists…fight to achieve a society where nobody—majority or minority—has the right to make the law and impose it on others by force, and where, consequently, there should be no place for a parliament or any other legislative power; we…want…the people [to be] organizing the new life of society tomorrow, without waiting…for any orders from above.” (p. 456)
If Not Elections, Then What?
The liberals and democratic socialists asked, If not elections, then what? How will the people assert power against the ruling elites? Or are you waiting for the Great Day, the Final Revolution, which will solve all our problems? What do we do in the meantime?
Malatesta did believe in fighting for reforms and day-to-day qualitative improvements in the lives of the working class, the peasants, and all oppressed. Some improvements could be won and make life better even now; others would not be won but would clarify the gulf between the rulers and the people. But he did not advocate struggle through the parliament or other government structures. He called for methods which encouraged the people to rely on themselves. This included demonstrations, marches, boycotts, and “riots.” Most of all, he supported the formation of labor unions (then called “resistance societies”) and, when possible, strikes to enforce their demands.
In Belgium the workers’ won “universal suffrage” through general strikes by their unions and parties. Malatesta was not interested in their goal of voting-for-all, but he was very impressed by how they won it. Over the years the Belgian workers built a movement which climaxed in national general strikes, effecting all the cities and industries. The Belgian bourgeoisie were forced to grant “universal” voting rights, against their will. It was a reformist victory won through anarchist methods!
(Something similar may be said about the later winning of voting rights for African-Americans in the U.S. South. Anarchist-type methods, of bottom-up decentralized organizing and civil disobedience, were used to win the right to vote—which was then channelled into support for the Democratic Party. I am not denying that the defeat of legal racial segregation was a victory, within the limits of capitalism.)
Malatesta argued that it would have been better if the Belgian workers had used their mass power to force the rulers to grant them improvements directly—instead of winning the right to vote which, at best, would result in electing socialist and liberal representatives who would then fight for such improvements through parliament—indirectly. (Similarly, revolutionary anarchists might have argued for the Civil Rights Movement to put its efforts into organizing unions and self-defense groups which could directly lead to better incomes and living conditions, as well as desegregation.)
To suffering Sicilian peasants, who had gotten little help from government ministries or legislators, Malatesta proposed, “Let them form many strong production cooperatives; let them insist that communal lands and the lands of the latifundists are placed at their disposal; and let them work these lands for themselves, not with an eye to trade, but so that they themselves can consume these products and swap the surplus with workers’ cooperatives that will supply them with whatever industrial products they need. The system is opposed to this….But the system…would give way—if the demands were sufficiently forceful.” (p. 77) At least it would be the basis of a struggle with possibly revolutionary results.
To return to US history: In the ‘thirties, unions were built and social benefits were won through mass strikes, including occupations of factories and fights with police. In the ‘fifties and ‘sixties, Black gains were won through massive “civil disobedience” (law-breaking), demonstrations, and rebellions (“riots”). The movement against the war in Vietnam was most effective through large demonstrations, student strikes, and soldier mutinies. The LGBTQ movement began with the Christopher Street Rebellion, and included the civil disobedience of ACT-UP. The women’s movement was part of all these rebellions. To those who say, If not voting, what else is there? we can point to the effective power of popular movements and non-electoral direct action, again and again. Malatesta would not be surprised.
(However, this is not all Malatesta had to say about voting. See the section below on Democracy and Majority Rule in Anarchy.)
Jacobinism and Marxism
There had been an antidemocratic trend in early anarchism. Malatesta admitted, “…In the [anarchists’] movement early days, there was a strong residue of Jacobinism and authoritarianism within us, a residue that I will not make bold to say we have destroyed utterly, but which has definitely been and still is on the wane.” (p. 335) “All of us, just like the other revolutionary parties, have been more or less jacobins, authoritarian ‘revolutionaries in the old sense of the term,’ that is, people who wanted to impose their program by force.” (p. 366)
That is, there were antidemocratic views among the early anarchists, of seizing power over the people and forcing them to
be free. The anarchists were influenced by the broad movement of capitalist democracy in its revolutionary era. They were heavily affected by the Jacobin authoritarian tradition (although the most revolutionary—and libertarian—trends in the French Revolution were to the left of the Jacobins). (Guerin 1977)
Malatesta does not mention Bakunin here, but refers to him as “Bakunin to whom we anarchists of today trace most directly our lineage,” (p. 296), so certainly he was among the “early anarchists.” Bakunin was known for creating secret societies and conspiracies, often just in his imagination, alongside of his advocacy of free, self-organizing, popular movements. How these tendencies of Bakunin interacted is a matter of great controversy.
To Malatesta, it was the libertarian aspects which won out in the development of anarchism. “…These days the general belief among anarchists is that anarchy…must arise from on-going struggle against all and any imposition, whether in slowly evolving times or in tempestuously revolutionary periods….” (p. 335) Bakunin’s ideas of secret societies was developed into the concept of an organization of revolutionary anarchists, self-managed, autonomous, and federated.
Malatesta blamed much of the authoritarian trend in anarchism on Marx and Marxism. (He does not mention it, but Bakunin was greatly influenced by Marxism even as he opposed Marx.) “…Our mistakes…are in large measure something we owe to marxist theory….” (p. 302) Improvement “…in our thinking and practice…is the result of our jettisoning what little marxism we had embraced.” (p. 336)
Malatesta rejected Marx’s program of achieving socialism through conquest of the state (through elections or revolution). But what Malatesta most disliked about Marxism was its nonmoral determinism. This was the belief that history was following a predetermined path, which was knowable by “scientific socialists,” and which inevitably ended in communism. Malatesta felt that this denied human freedom. Without the will and determination of the workers and oppressed, there would never be libertarian communism. But revolutionaries’ belief in such determinism was bound to become authoritarian, since they “knew” what was good for everyone and how it would turn out. (Malatesta also criticized Kropotkin for similar determinist tendencies.)
While there are disputes over just how determinist Marx actually was, a hard determinist viewpoint dominated among the orthodox Marxists of Malatesta’s time—and after. Malatesta was correct in opposing this. In general, he did not think much of any sort of philosophy. If you came to the same political and social conclusions as he did, Malatesta did not much care how you reached that conclusion. What mattered was what you were for and what you did.
Actually, Malatesta knew little about Marxist theory. For example, he correctly rejected the “iron law of wages,” which said that workers’ real wages could not possibly rise above a set minimum necessary for their survival. No, he wrote, the will of the workers to fight made a real rise in wages possible. He ascribed this wrong theory to Marx, but actually it was an idea of F. Lassalle and rejected by Marx.
However, Malatesta agreed with Marx that workers and their families were the majority of the population, who included those who were most oppressed by capitalist society and those who had the greatest interest in changing it. “…The new revolution simply has to be, chiefly, the handiwork of the organized working class, conscious of the irreconcilable antagonism between its interests and those of the bourgeois class—the formulation, propagation, and conversion of that notion into the driving force behind all modern socialism being Marx’s greatest achievement.” (My emphasis; p. 334)
The reference to the workers being “chiefly” the agent of the revolution is not the same as saying they are the “only” agent— other oppressed forces must also be part of the revolution. The above statement also says that the workers must be “conscious” in order to make a revolution—it cannot be done behind their backs, so to speak, by an authoritarian elite or an invading army.
Those anarchist-socialists (such as myself) who are still influenced by aspects of Marxism can fully agree with Malatesta that this was indeed “Marx’s greatest achievement.”
Democracy and Majority Rule in Anarchy
Malatesta rarely used the term “democracy” in these years. However, references may be found in his works which show his rejection of “democracy.” Specifically, he was in revolutionary opposition to the capitalist states of all parliamentary (“democratic”) republics. And he rejected in principle that the majority should be able to force the minority to follow its orders, any more than the minority should be able to command the majority.
But how would society make decisions in anarchy? And how should anarchists make decisions now? It has been said, “If everyone rules (democracy) then no one rules (anarchy).” If all govern, then there is no government. That is, there is no state standing over the rest of society, separate from the people. But how can everyone “rule”?
It was central to Malatesta’s views that individual freedom was only possible in society, when all people were free and cooperative. Therefore there had to be collective means for resolving disputes, coordinating activities, and making group decisions—means which respected everyone’s freedom but were effective in getting things done. It was not possible for every decision to be made with everyone agreeing all the time on everything (“consensus”). He gave examples of meetings which went on interminably and never reached a conclusion. Too many anarchists, he argued, overreacted in their opposition to the republican state. They came to reject all reasonable group procedures. “…As they had condemned political elections, which only serve to choose a master, they could not use the ballot as a mere expression of opinion, and considered every form of voting as anti-anarchistic.” (p. 17)
Sometimes, he wrote, when there are differences of opinion, people can divide and each side act on their idea and see how it works out. However, when this is not possible or efficient, “where opinion is divided over a matter…they will be handled in accordance with the will of the majority, provided that all possible guarantees are given to the minority—…the majority having neither the right nor the power to command compliance from the minority….” (p. 391)
“…If it is impossible to exactly suit everyone, it is certainly better to suit the greatest possible number; always, of course, with the understanding that the minority has all possible opportunity to advocate its ideas, to afford them all possible facilities…to try to become a majority….But the submission of the minority must be the effect of free will,…must never be made a principle, a law….” (pp. 18-19) Perhaps what is most important is that everyone has an equal chance to participate in the back and forth of discussion, that all voices are heard and taken into account, even those which do not prevail. But that only matters if a conclusion is eventually reached and a decision is made.
This is the basic idea of democracy, also called radical democracy, participatory democracy, or (in face-to-face local groups) direct democracy. Some anarchists say they oppose “democracy,” yet they support “self-management” or “autogestion” or similar terms—which mean the same as democracy. Present-day methods of “consensus” include the possibility of the minority “standing aside” so as to not “block consensus,” that is, to let the majority get its way so as to move on. Malatesta might have approved of this method.
Under anarchy people will experiment with various forms of collective decision-making (whether calling it “democracy” or not) in their communities and at their self-governing worksites. Malatesta expected that a post-revolutionary society would be experimental and pluralistic in all areas, which would include this also. (For debate among anarchists on this topic, see Massimino & Tuttle 2020.)
Conclusion
As I write this, elections are happening in a number of countries, including the United States. In the U.S.A., anarchists may consider how to apply Malatesta’s views to the choice between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. One is a semi-fascist, the other is part of an administration which has, among other crimes, participated in the mass murder of tens of thousands of Palestinians.
Many of Malatesta’s expectations have come true. Most European countries are republics, with a few “constitutional monarchs” who are mainly for show. Undoubtedly it is better and more comfortable to live in a capitalist representative democracy than in an old-style monarchy, let alone a fascist or Stalinist totalitarian state, and easier to do political organizing for anarchists. Still a minority ruling class dominates all countries and is running the world toward disaster. The democratic socialist parties have mostly given up their goals of a new and better society different from capitalism. They have become just liberal reformists at best. This includes most U.S. democratic socialists, such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez. Other “socialists” have become dictators and mass murderers or their supporters. As Malatesta said, only the anarchist-socialists were continuing the liberating tradition of revolutionary socialism.
References
Guerin, Daniel (1977). (Trans.: I. Patterson.) Class Struggle in the First French Republic; Bourgeois and Bras Nus 1793—1795. London UK: Pluto Press.
Kropotkin, Peter (2002). “Anarchism” [from the Encyclopedia Britannica]. Anarchism; A Collection of Revolutionary Writings. (Ed.: Roger Baldwin) Mineola NY: Dover Publications. Pp. 284—300.
Malatesta, Errico (1984) (Vernon Richards, Ed.). Errico Malatesta: His Life and Ideas. London UK: Freedom Press.
Malatesta, Errico (2014) (Davide Turcato, Ed.) (Paul Sharkey, Trans.). The Method of Freedom; An Errico Malatesta Reader. Oakland CA: AK Press.
Malatesta, Errico (2015). (Davide Turcato, Ed.) (Paul Sharkey, Trans.). Making Sense of Anarchism. Errico Malatesta’s Experiments with Revolution. 1889—1900. Oakland CA: AK Press.
Malatesta, Errico (2016). (David Turcato, Ed.) (Paul Sharkey, Trans.) A Long and Patient Work: The Anarchist-Socialism of L’Agitazione 1897—1898; Vol. III of the Complete Works of Errico Malatesta. Oakland CA: AK Press.
Massimino, Cory, & Tuttle, James (Eds.). (2020). Anarchy and Democracy: Discussing the Abolition of Rulership. The Center for a Stateless Society Mutual Exchange. Kindle Direct Publishing.
Pernicone, Nunzio (1993). Italian Anarchism 1864—1892. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Price, Wayne (2019). The Revolutionary Anarchist-Socialism of Errico Malatesta: Review of Towards Anarchy; Malatesta in America 1899—1900. The Complete Works of Errico Malatesta; Vol. IV.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/31632?search_text=Wayne+Price
Price, Wayne (2024). Malatesta’s Revolutionary Anarchism in British Exile; Review of The Armed Strike: The Long London Exile of 1900—13. The Complete Works of Errico Malatesta. Vol. V.
https://www.anarkismo.net/article/32862?search_text=Wayne
*written for Black Flag: Anarchist Review