Was Bakunin Gay?

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Has anyone heard this? Further, has anyone heard this proposal?

"Indeed, Wilde's critiques of Marx - who had used homosexuality to have Bakunin thrown out of the First International - were very similar to those of Bakunin. Opposing state ownership of the means of production, Wilde wrote that, "If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we have to face Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first," words which today, after the fall of Communism, seem rather prescient."



So, it wasn't about libertarian socialism v. authoritarian socialism after all :laugh:.

I find this info highly amusing, and interesting. I'm not saying I buy into it, as I've never heard these ideas proposed (have I been living under a rock?). Thoughts on this? Was Marx a homophobe ;)?

I think it would be great if, in fact, Bakunin was gay, but would not, of course, excuse his anti-semitic conspiracy theories (that were so en vogue at the time).

[Random Precision]

Marx - who had used homosexuality to have Bakunin thrown out of the First International

Sources, or it didn't happen. :)

[Jethro Tull]

yes, bakunin and nechaeyev were homosexual lovers.

of course bakunin also used anti-semitism to attack marx. mutual assholishness....

[Absolut]

Never heard of it either. As far as I know, he had a wife. That might not prove much, but still.

[Jethro Tull]

That might not prove much

definitely not. :D

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

Sources, or it didn't happen. :)

No, I completely agree with you. I don't think this is precedent, what the author is implying. And I doubt it happened. Nonetheless intriguing, though.

[ZeroNowhere]

So, it wasn't about libertarian socialism v. authoritarian socialism after all http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/lol.gif. It wasn't before finding out that Bakky was apparently homosexual either. And there doesn't seem to be any evidence for this.


yes, bakunin and nechaeyev were homosexual lovers.Well, it's a creative explanation for why Bakky didn't mind Nechayev, certainly.

[Holden Caulfield]

he was gay, I should know
;)

[NecroCommie]

Was Marx a homophobe http://www.revleft.com/vb/bakunin-gayi-t118381/revleft/smilies/wink.gif?
For this and to the OP the real question goes: does it matter?

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

For this and to the OP the real question goes: does it matter?

He probably was every bit of a social reactionary as Bakunin vis-a-vis "The Jews," and no it doesn't matter. It was kind of a joke, as the winking smiley face indicated. If we teleported both men they would both come across as pretty backward, I'm sure. My god, it was the 19th century. The main point of my post was that I've never heard this idea, that Bakunin might be gay. Found it interesting.

[Luís Henrique]

George Woodcock, who is certainly unsuspect of Marxist sympathies, speculates that the strange submissiveness of Bakunin, who was generally a quite dominant personality, towards Nechayev could be due to some suppressed tendency of Bakunin. From that to an open love affair there seems to be a long, long road.

Woodcock also attributes malice to Marx in Bakunin's expelling from the International; but it has to do with Marx using Nechayev's blackmail of the would-be editor of Bakunin's translation to Russian against the anarchist leader.

Luís Henrique

[Jethro Tull]

My god, it was the 19th century.

so? the 21st century is worse....

[21st Century Kropotkinist]

so? the 21st century is worse....

As to the question of whether any epoch is "worse" than another is tricky; I don't think we can really quantify such things.

We're potentially on the verge of environmental disaster. It's doubtful that we'll remedy the problem appropriately, as that would involve, at the very least, putting a stop to capitalism and, I believe, replacing it with a non-market variant, eg, loose federations of democratized economies. Towards the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, this was obviously not a concern.

There was a greater hope, and potential, that the working class would mobilize and dismantle capitalism in its earliest, crudest stages, and the State, for that matter. This too, perhaps, made the 19th century "better." Also, capitalism has metastasized; it'll be much harder to dismantle than it would have been in its crudest days.

That said, we all benefit from human progress in the field of technology (though technology itself is a mixed bag). Communication in 2009 is certainly much more sophisticated, and medical technology has progressed exponentially. Racism was also abundant in the 19th century. People were completely intolerant of others on a much broader scale than in 2009. Every generation is more educated than the last (I'm not referring to formal education, per se). This is an axiom. It's still a huge problem, but it's not what it was in Marx and Bakunin's day.

Both centuries have, and had, massive problems to deal with. Hard to say which is "worse." I would certainly disagree with you that life is "worse" in the 21st century. Again, I don't think we can quantifiy this.

Now a separate question: is the State and capitalism more impervious than it was in the 19th century,and and ubiquitous? OF course. Will these be obstacles to human freedom, pursuing desires and living in a need-based society. You bet. Were these the same issues that plagued radicals of the 29th century? Absolutely. It's just that the cliche clash with the State seemed more tangible when both sides just had guns. If you're seeking a revolution in the more traditional sense, then you're gonna be pretty hopeless. But if you see potentiality in trying to build counter institutions, dual powers, or radical unions, you can always be hopeful that markets and the State will be delegitimized, and that the masses will see that both are anachronisms and terribly inefficient.

This is a pivotal time. We can allow the State and private tyrannies to fuck things up so bad that, certainly, the 22nd century will be worse than the 21st. Or, human beings can decide that they no longer want to be dominated, and govern their own communities and neighborhoods. This involves mass organizing and planning. It's hard to say whether this will happen or not. It is unlikely, but that is what it will take, perhaps, to avoid human extinction.

[Tower of Bebel]

Sources, or it didn't happen. :)
A little while ago I made a "discussion" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&group=&discussionid=2444) about pre-1914 Marxism and homosexuality. It appears that:

Well before the invention of the word "homosexual" by Karoly Maria Kertbeny in 1869, the correspondence of Marx and Engels is riddled with what we would now characterize as unmistakable homophobia of a vicious character. When the pioneering German homosexual liberationist Karl Ulrichs sent Marx one of his books on the subject, which Marx forwarded to his collaborator, Engels described Ulrichs' platform of homosexual emancipation from criminal laws as "turning smut into history." Marx, in commenting on Karl Boruttau's Gedanken über Gewissens Freiheit (Thoughts on Freedom of Conscience), disparaged the author as "this faggoty prick" (Schwanzschwulen) The homophobia of Marx and Engels has been meticulously documented by Hubert Kennedy of San Francisco State University, Ulrichs' U.S. biographer, in his essay "Johann Baptist von Schweitzer: The Queer Marx Loved to Hate," which is included in the anthology Gay Men and the Sexual History of the Political Left, edited by Gert Hekma, Harry Oosterhuis, and James Steakley (Haworth Press) and is also available online.
Socialism and gay liberation (http://www.wpunj.edu/%7Enewpol/issue46/Ireland46.htm)

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx, in commenting on Karl Boruttau's Gedanken über Gewissens Freiheit (Thoughts on Freedom of Conscience), disparaged the author as "this faggoty prick" (Schwanzschwulen)Wow, what a retard.

If anybody's interested in the attempted meticulous documenting, it can be read on Google books.

[Искра]

This thread is idiotic.
Who cares was he a gay or not? I pretty much don't care about him or Marx as persons, I care about what did they did and wrote.
When it comes to writings I'm more keen on Marx's stuff (since he wrote much more, and he had theory) although not all, since I'm an anarchist. Also, that dosen't mean that I'm against Bakunin, It's just that he's boring as hell.
But when it comes to practice I'm on Bakunin side 100% since he wasn't just a "writer" like Marx was, he actually did something.
Persons personality are not important as long as they do not meddle in their theories and work. I don't care if Marx was homophobic, because Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital are not homophobic works. Also, I don't care about Bakunin hating Jews, since he was involved in class struggle, not holocaust. Also, Marx hated Slavs, Bakunin hated Germans... So what? They were both internationalists.

[9]

Also, Marx hated Slavs, Bakunin hated Germans... So what? They were both internationalists.

err.. :lol:

[Искра]

err.. :lol:
What err?

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx hated SlavsMir.


What err?'I'm an internationalist! Fuck Germans!'
Though I'm not sure Bakky hated Germans either.


But when it comes to practice I'm on Bakunin side 100% since he wasn't just a "writer" like Marx was, he actually did something.Because Marx did nothing, of course, and people write by summoning text from the Heavens. When you have to work as a journalist to help support your family, and then do lots of research in order to finish a rather large book (Marx generally did this past midnight), it's quite understandable that this takes up most of your time. If you can manage quite a lot of participation in the socialist movement in the meantime, you're certainly not slacking. And really, Lenin 'did' more than both of them. So what? Hell, Czolgosz 'did' more than most people, but that doesn't really matter, since all that he accomplished was killing a man and giving the media an easy way to attack the socialist movement.

[Искра]

'I'm an internationalist! Fuck Germans!'
I never said Fuck germans... I'm German...
I said that they were internationalists, because they believed in international proletariat and not in the nations.


Though I'm not sure Bakky hated Germans either.
I read that in his book.


Because Marx did nothing, of course, and people write by summoning text from the Heavens. When you have to work as a journalist to help support your family, and then do lots of research in order to finish a rather large book (Marx generally did this past midnight), it's quite understandable that this takes up most of your time. If you can manage quite a lot of participation in the socialist movement in the meantime, you're certainly not slacking. And really, Lenin 'did' more than both of them. So what? Hell, Czolgosz 'did' more than most people, but that doesn't really matter, since all that he accomplished was killing a man and giving the media an easy way to attack the socialist movement.
I meant that Bakky ways concentrated on practice, while Marx was on writing.

[ComradeOm]

I meant that Bakky ways concentrated on practice, while Marx was on writing.Which is to ignore Marx's long and varied revolutionary career in organisations such as the Communist League, Democratic Union, Cologne Workers' Union, IWA, and many varied exile organisations. For him theory and practice were inseparable and he was as much an active revolutionary as he was a theorist

Where Marx differed from Bakunin was not in the realm of his activity but how he went about this. Marx was always struggling to place his practical activities within a broader theoretical framework and historical critique of society. In doing so he strongly rejected the conspiratorial and short-sighted methods favoured by Bakunin, Mazzini, and an entire preceding generation of revolutionaries

[chimx]

Bakunin and Richard Wagner were lovers.

[Random Precision]

On a related subject. In one of David Harvey's lectures on Capital Vol. 1 he claims that the split in the International centered around the issue of whether women could do the same work as men, and have that classed as "skilled labor". Harvey claims that since the anarchist faction was largely based on male artisans, it opposed this demand since their wages would drop should women's labor be classed as "skilled". Or something like that.

I'm much more comfortable, strangely, with the sectariana of the hundreds of Trotskyist toy Internationals than I am with that of the original one. Plus I'm really tired and Wikipedia is not being friendly to me. Can anyone give me reliable information on this?

[Prairie Fire]

"Was Bakunin gay" is not the issue. Does it matter if he was?

[Dimentio]

Has anyone heard this? Further, has anyone heard this proposal?

"Indeed, Wilde's critiques of Marx - who had used homosexuality to have Bakunin thrown out of the First International - were very similar to those of Bakunin. Opposing state ownership of the means of production, Wilde wrote that, "If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we have to face Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first," words which today, after the fall of Communism, seem rather prescient."



So, it wasn't about libertarian socialism v. authoritarian socialism after all :laugh:.

I find this info highly amusing, and interesting. I'm not saying I buy into it, as I've never heard these ideas proposed (have I been living under a rock?). Thoughts on this? Was Marx a homophobe ;)?

I think it would be great if, in fact, Bakunin was gay, but would not, of course, excuse his anti-semitic conspiracy theories (that were so en vogue at the time).

Oscar Wilde's political works are underestimated. His book "Man under socialism" has a very special place in my heart. He was a great man.