Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

One thing I found interesting was his general attack of socialism. Here we can assume (?) he includes anarchist forms of socialism, since like in Martucci's intro it says he was part of an anarcho-communist group for a time, and had problems with them.

"Fascism is the other face of socialism.
Both of them are bodies without minds."

And it seems that he thinks that socialists and fascists alike have a politics of negation rather than affirmation of life in the Nietzschean sense.

Edit: Having read the "my opinions" section it does seem more likely that he is not including anarchist forms of socialism, but still not clear.

4

selver wrote (edited )

From The Revolt of the Unique:

With the realization of the unpleasant authoritarian communism of the socialists, the rulers would be a slimy handful of demagogues, vulgar, cunning insects; plebeian slaves in their turn of a dogma.

In realizing libertarian communism, the great majority would be the ruling Goddess. But libertarian communism (which is the dream of those who hate conflict and battle—which is youth and life—and for which they are nonetheless a quick, strange paradoxical contradiction, to make war in the name of equality and peace) would have to take extreme measures against those who want to come out, advance, rise up to a more ample affirmation of individual life.

Libertarian communism would then be forced to repress in order to preserve itself. But its materialistic preservation would be the categorical negation of the very spirit that informs and exalts it!

And here we are finally at anarchy—I admit that one can speak of this as a social realization of human life together. “Anarchy” would thus be nothing more nor less than the triumph of the higher “type.”

Radically vanished—because even the lowliest of all human beings would have had to go beyond it—the as-stupid-as-it-is-vulgar right to private property and everything that is “material good.” The spiritual dominator remains—the one who is noble by nature. He will stand above the others and dominate them.

(No one, I believe, would have the false pretension of levelling ethical, aesthetic, artistic, intellectual, and spiritual values, like physical and sexual values). Because the noble one, even in Anarchy—or rather, in anarchy more than in any other form of human life together—will enjoy pleasure that others would not be able to enjoy, even if he, for love of them, wanted to renounce them. Anarchy is therefore the natural Autocracy of the noble.

A simple test that thousands of other complicated ones are equal to him there. Yesterday a young woman offered herself—marvelous gift—to the charming and noble dominator Pietro Gori.

Today in the whirlpools of misery if a stunted “papa’s” boy who nature has condemned bought her! He has enjoyed with money the fruit that in Anarchy he would never have been able to enjoy. And I’m no longer able to argue that in anarchy a cobbler is the same as a genius or that a hunchback is equal to an Adonis.

We can give both the same bread, but not the same pleasures.

And if it is true that friendship and love give joy and pleasure, I would just like to ask any anarchist if he can give his old semi-idiotic doorman what, in fact, he gives to Errico Malatesta in love and friendship.

I would just like to ask a few of our free and intelligent woman comrades if she can give to any nasty, conceited, vain, ambitious “comrade” what she willingly concedes to a kind, cultivated, loving, good comrade...

I repeat: Anarchy—for me—means: Autocracy of beauty, of genius, of art, and of all those who possess the willful and selective qualities suitable for dominating and that mother nature—justly or unjustly—grants and lavishes so generously on a few, while she denies them to most, as if the latter were her bastard children!

And if the overhuman that you—oh comrade Molaschi—have thrown with implacable fury into the stormy waves of the sea, were that elect—superior—type to which I just now alluded, it’s enough that he rise up again out of the waters more beautiful and stronger than before, since this race is an immortal race.

Everyone can be levelled before society (we are all equal before god!...) but the selective-individual values remain. They remain and dominate!

And for these and a thousand other reasons, in my relations with the present society, I declare myself “united” with Stirner’s Unique, and in my posthumous relations with the future society of distant becoming, I feel drawn toward the Antichrist and Zarathustra transformed and purified in the sun of my thought.

Of course, I am neither Max Stirner, nor Friedrich Nietzsche. Rather, halfway, between me and them there might be a fearful depth powerfully dug out by the mystic Tolstoy, or the high and dreadful peaks illuminated by the voluptuously tormented spirit of Ibsen, as there could also be the conflagration of the pure and perverse Wildean mind!

So I think he was including anarcho-communists.

From what I've read, among all the similar writers from around that time, there was a whole lot of tension between their anti-society tendencies, and their dreams of an anarcho-communist future. Novatore, Armand, Martucci, etc. all seemed to go back and forth on it quite a bit, whether a society that was truly individualistic was really possible. The way I read Novatore is I think he felt that anarchists were heading in the right direction, but that the utopia of other anarchists was just the beginning. It would mean an end to the same old bullshit hierarchies & conflict, socialists & capitalists squabbling over bread, but all sorts of conflict, fluidity, and diversity would remain. Ultimately, he seems to be against stagnant social orders, or thinks they are a pipe dream. And some anarcho-communists do tend to preach that pipe dream.

4

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

That was a good section!

I have gotten confused a few times when he's referred to nobleness and aristocracy in ways that seemed non-pejorative.

For example, using the section you posted from Revolt, I can't tell if he's saying good or bad things about Pietro Gori. Based on how he speaks about Malatesta, it seems to be good things, but talking about "dominator" Gori confuses me.

Gori, for anybody who doesn't know and is reading this, composed a lot of definitive folk anarchist songs in Italy.

3

selver wrote (edited )

Oh, I think he definitely uses "noble" and "aristocracy" in a positive sense in many cases. He had quite the elitist streak in him. The use of "dominator" doesn't make too much sense to me, maybe a translation issue, but I assume he's speaking positively of Gori. Ie. anarchism allows folks like Gori thrive, while the useless rich kid doesn't have his artificial power anymore.

He might be using "dominator" to oppose the ancom idea of an egalitarian society.