anarchists and the internationals

[Black Sheep]

Is it true that from the 2nd international and forth, the anarchists were excluded from the internationals?
The 'rumor' about this is that they moved the congresses from/to USA to/from europe for this reason.



The Second International (1889–1916) was an organization of socialist and labour parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_movement) formed in Paris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris) on July 14, 1889. At the Paris meeting delegations from 20 countries participated.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International#cite_note-0) It continued the work of the dissolved First International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_International), though excluding the still-powerful anarcho-syndicalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalist) movement and unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_unions), and was in existence until 1916.

I have no idea about this, so inform me please.:)

[which doctor]

My understanding was that they moved the 1st Internationale to the US because the European section was decimated after they slaughtered the Paris Communards. But even then, it really only existed in German immigrant communities in large cities like NYC.

As for the 2nd Internationale, they're were actually two 2nd Internationales that had their founding congresses on the same day in the same city. One was Marxist, and the other was a loose group of others, including anarchists. Only the Marxist 2nd Internationale was able to gain any traction and continue its existence. From what I've heard though, anarchists continued to show up at meetings of the 2nd Internationale to bang on tables, act belligerent, cause a ruckus, and generally display all the bad manners anarchists still have a reputation for.

[Red Commissar]

The First International had a division occur between Marxists (and their allies) and Anarchists, and Bakunin was ultimately thrown out, and took with him like minded followers. It was't sudden though, Bakunin had already been criticizing the Marxist approach to socialism as being inherently authoritarian. It was just a matter of when the rift would occur.

This would continue into the second international. The Second International got divisions between Marxists and Reformists, which got magnified in the years running up to WWI.

[ComradeOm]

This would continue into the second international. The Second International got divisions between Marxists and Reformists, which got magnified in the years running up to WWI.Careful, the split in the Second International was between revolutionaries and reformists. Nearly all were Marxists (to varying degrees)

[syndicat]

I would recommend consulting Mark Leier's excellent biography of Bakunin on the split in the first international. Marx was worried that, with the withdrawal of the English trade unions, the libertarian socialist sections in southern Europe would gain control of the first international. Hence it was exiled to New York to die.

The debate in the first international was over whether workers should focus on building political parties to "win the battle of democracy" (as Marx and Engels put it) or be an organization of mass worker organizations.

Eventually the libertarian wing formed the International Workers Association in 1922 in Berlin -- the syndicalist international, with about 3 to 4 million members in affiliated organizations, including organizations throughout Latin America.

The anarchist political organizations eventually formed the International of Anarchist Federations, but I'm not sure when that came into existence.

Anarchists did exist in some second international parties in the late 1800s and early 1900s but were usually expelled at some point. This happened in both Germany and Italy for example.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Careful, the split in the Second International was between revolutionaries and reformists. Nearly all were Marxists (to varying degrees)

Ebert was not a Marxist, and neither was Jaures (who, while being openly reformist was at least more anti-war than Bernstein).

[ContrarianLemming]

I would recommend consulting Mark Leier's excellent biography of Bakunin on the split in the first international. Marx was worried that, with the withdrawal of the English trade unions, the libertarian socialist sections in southern Europe would gain control of the first international. Hence it was exiled to New York to die.

The debate in the first international was over whether workers should focus on building political parties to "win the battle of democracy" (as Marx and Engels put it) or be an organization of mass worker organizations.

Eventually the libertarian wing formed the International Workers Association in 1922 in Berlin -- the syndicalist international, with about 3 to 4 million members in affiliated organizations, including organizations throughout Latin America.

The anarchist political organizations eventually formed the International of Anarchist Federations, but I'm not sure when that came into existence.

Anarchists did exist in some second international parties in the late 1800s and early 1900s but were usually expelled at some point. This happened in both Germany and Italy for example.

I can't put it better myself. Marx kicked the anarchists out and that where the first rivalry came from (see the first sectarian post after the OP)

[revolution inaction]

Eventually the libertarian wing formed the International Workers Association in 1922 in Berlin -- the syndicalist international, with about 3 to 4 million members in affiliated organizations, including organizations throughout Latin America.

The anarchist political organizations eventually formed the International of Anarchist Federations, but I'm not sure when that came into existence.


1968 http://www.iaf-ifa.org/home/index_en.html

[ComradeOm]

Ebert was not a Marxist, and neither was Jaures (who, while being openly reformist was at least more anti-war than Bernstein).Hence the "Nearly all" and "to varying degrees"


Marx kicked the anarchists out and that where the first rivalry came fromYes, because Marxists and anarchists were getting on just fine before this :rolleyes:

The schism in the International was a product of the existing rivalries between Marxist and anarchist currents and, especially, between Marx and Bakunin personally. It was not a matter of Evil Marx simply "kicking out" innocent anarchists

[StalinFanboy]

From what I've heard though, anarchists continued to show up at meetings of the 2nd Internationale to bang on tables, act belligerent, cause a ruckus, and generally display all the bad manners anarchists still have a reputation for.
That's so sick

[CChocobo]

From what I've heard though, anarchists continued to show up at meetings of the 2nd Internationale to bang on tables, act belligerent, cause a ruckus, and generally display all the bad manners anarchists still have a reputation for.
Cool story bro.

From what i've heard though, Leninists and Trots murdered Anarchists and others in favor of free soviets after the revolution. They would pretend to be their allies then stab them in the back, generally display all the bad actions they have a reputation for.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Secterianism is awesome

[StalinFanboy]

Secterianism is awesome
This assumes that Leninists and Anarchists are in the same sect.

[CChocobo]

This assumes that Leninists and Anarchists are in the same sect.
Yep, which is definitely not the case. :)

[which doctor]

Cool story bro.

From what i've heard though, Leninists and Trots murdered Anarchists and others in favor of free soviets after the revolution. They would pretend to be their allies then stab them in the back, generally display all the bad actions they have a reputation for.
Well this is what happens when you strike at a munitions plant when there's a counter revolution that needs defeating.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Rudolf Rocker writes fairly extensively about anarchists and the internationals in Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice, IIRC.

[RED DAVE]

From what i've heard though, Leninists and Trots murdered Anarchists and others in favor of free soviets after the revolution. They would pretend to be their allies then stab them in the back, generally display all the bad actions they have a reputation for.You've heard wong.

Why would you entertain such a notion backed only by what you "heard"?

Anarchists in the Russian Revolution – The Makhno Myth – By JASON YANOWITZ (http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml)

RED DAVE

[Os Cangaceiros]

Regardless of what you think of Makhno or Nabat, I think it's safe to say that anarchists and more generally non-Bolshevik revolutionary socialists were unfairly treated in the wake of the Bolsheviks assuming power. (I'm not talking about the Ukraine, either.)

I would like to read an objective evaluation of Makhno that's not written by anarchists or the International Socialist Review (LOL!), too. It's a bit condescending to point someone to an article that attributes the failure of anarchism to not being "revolutionary", unlike the glorious torchbearers of revolution, the Bolsheviks. ("But without the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism, their actions were often devoid of revolutionary content.")

The writer of that obviously forgot that Makhno often quoted the Holy Writ concerning the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat. :rolleyes:

[CChocobo]

Regardless of what you think of Makhno or Nabat, I think it's safe to say that anarchists and more generally non-Bolshevik revolutionary socialists were unfairly treated in the wake of the Bolsheviks assuming power. (I'm not talking about the Ukraine, either.)

I would like to read an objective evaluation of Makhno that's not written by anarchists or the International Socialist Review (LOL!), too. It's a bit condescending to point someone to an article that attributes the failure of anarchism to not being "revolutionary", unlike the glorious torchbearers of revolution, the Bolsheviks. ("But without the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism, their actions were often devoid of revolutionary content.")

The writer of that obviously forgot that Makhno often quoted the Holy Writ concerning the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletariat. :rolleyes:

Yes, the Cheka went around killing and arresting anarchists and others who believed in the revolution. All the free soviets were crushed, the Red Army under Trotsky was sent in to crush the Kronstadt. Not to mention all the other actions the Cheka committed in suppressing and crushing workers strikes.