Bakunin and the Jews

[Искра]

Well now, this whole Jewish world which constitutes a single exploiting sect, a sort of bloodsucker people, a collective parasite, voracious, organized in itself, not only across the frontiers of states but even across all the differences of political opinion—this world is presently, at least in great part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand and of the Rothschilds on the other. I know that the Rothschilds, reactionaries as they are and should be, highly appreciate the merits of the communist Marx; and that in his turn the communist Marx feels irresistibly drawn, by instinctive attraction and respectful admiration, to the financial genius of Rothschild. Jewish solidarity, that powerful solidarity that has maintained itself through all history, united themQuoted from Ibid., 296. The circular letter is available as “Lettre aux Internationaux de Bologne (décembre 1871),” in Bakounine, Œuvres Complètes, Volume 2. For more of Bakunin’s anti-Semitic rhetoric, see his “Aux Compagnons de la Fédération des Sections Internationales du Jura (février-mars 1872),” in Michel Bakounine, Œuvres Complètes, Volume 3: Michel Bakounine et les Conflits Dans L’Internationale 1872 (Paris: Editions Champ Libre, 1975). In Bakunin’s reply to Marx and Engels’ “The Alleged Splits in the International,” he denounced the lies of “German and Russian Jews.” See “Résponse à la Circulaire Privée du Conseil Général: Les Prétendues Scissions dans L’Internationale,” in Bakounine, Œuvres Complètes, Volume 3, 121.


Bakunin has issued a furious, but very weak, abusive letter in reply to the Scissions. That fat elephant is beside himself with rage because he has finally been dragged from his Locarno lair out into the light, where neither scheming nor intrigues are of any more use. Now he declares that he is the victim of a conspiracy of all the European—Jews!
“Engels to Theodor Cuno,” in Marx and Engels, Collected Works Vol. 44, 408.

Link: http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism#footnote56_yh3ztb8

I was reading again this article (which I recomend you!), so when I got to this part I kind ouf laughed. Especially when Engels called Bakunin fat elephant. Hahaha.

[PhoenixAsh]

Bakunin was extremely anti-semitic and often used this in his dissertations against Marx. Partially he concocted the idea that Marxian communism was actually a plot to create a centralised stated in order to prep up the international banking system as part of a jewish conspiracy.

This is a well known fact. The guy was an ass. And this everybody should realise when they read Bakunin.

That does not necessarilly dismiss his other political theories though.


So...I am not sure...but what is your topic question/debate starter?

[Искра]

Well I'm not sure what you write for most of the time, but I'm to polite to ask.

What's point of discussions/topic? Anti-semitism, idiotism and link to a nice article.

[Red Noob]

An antisemitic anarchist... isn't that what Nationalist Anarchists advocate?

[The Douche]

Well I'm not sure what you write for most of the time, but I'm to polite to ask.

What's point of discussions/topic? Anti-semitism, idiotism and link to a nice article.

I'm curious, who actually gives a fuck about Bakunin anymore? Most of the anarchists I know aren't particularly interested in him.

[Искра]

I'm curious, who actually gives a fuck about Bakunin anymore? Most of the anarchists I know aren't particularly interested in him.
You are wrong. Bakunin is to anarchists like Marx to Marxists. He's "the one" who founded anarchism as political ideology. Also, without Bakunins conflict with Marx anarchism wouldn't exist as ideology. It's mithology lies in Bakunin. So, there's interesting article which shows how Bakunin was an asshole. If anarchists didn't care about Bakunin anymore they wouldn't write so many texts on him.


An antisemitic anarchist... isn't that what Nationalist Anarchists advocate? Sorel was also antisemitic anarchist and NA's use his and Bakunin slander against Jews to constitute their redicolous ideology. NA's are nothing but fascists who wank on Black Bloc pictures and Sieg Heiling.

Also, even Bakunin (and some other anarchists) made certain antisemitic statemants anarchism should never be taged as antisemitic ;)

[hatzel]

To be honest if we had to disregard anybody who happened to be an antisemite we'd instantly have to throw out like half of all hitherto existing European thought and as far as I'm concerned that's the very definition of effort so you won't see me giving a toss...

[Sasha]

I'm curious, who actually gives a fuck about Bakunin anymore? Most of the anarchists I know aren't particularly interested in him.

Hey, we had a squat bar called "barkunin" here for a while..... :D

But @ o.p. Yeah, bakunin was a anti-semite dick, Marx was a narcissist and Engels treated his wife as shit.
Luckily we are neither into the religious nor personality cults, you take what is worthwhile, you leave or even denounce what was crap.

[Tim Cornelis]

You are wrong. Bakunin is to anarchists like Marx to Marxists. He's "the one" who founded anarchism as political ideology. Also, without Bakunins conflict with Marx anarchism wouldn't exist as ideology. It's mithology lies in Bakunin. So, there's interesting article which shows how Bakunin was an asshole. If anarchists didn't care about Bakunin anymore they wouldn't write so many texts on him.

I've never read any works by Bakunin to be honest, still an anarchist though.

[Искра]

I've never read any works by Bakunin to be honest, still an anarchist though.
Half of people on this board have never read Marx and they claim that they are Marxists, so what your point?

I doubt that you dispute Bakunins idea's which you have probably read somewhere. Or that you consider that Marx was right in his conflict with Bakunin, because if you did that whole "libertarian vs. authoritarian" structure of anarchism would fall. Also, if you read works of temorary anarchists "thinkers" you can see that they stick to and defend Bakunin like he's the biggest tressure they have (van der Walt & Schimt for example).

[Sasha]

I've never read any works by Bakunin to be honest, still an anarchist though.

Ditto (although not a pure anarchist though)

[The Douche]

Half of people on this board have never read Marx and they claim that they are Marxists, so what your point?

I doubt that you dispute Bakunins idea's which you have probably read somewhere. Or that you consider that Marx was right in his conflict with Bakunin, because if you did that whole "libertarian vs. authoritarian" structure of anarchism would fall. Also, if you read works of temorary anarchists "thinkers" you can see that they stick to and defend Bakunin like he's the biggest tressure they have (van der Walt & Schimt for example).

Dude, I bailed on Bakunin when I was like 15, because of his dispute with Marx re: the international.

That didn't stop me from continuing to call myself an anarchist. And while the term "anarchist" does not accurately describe my politics, and the term "marxist" certainly does not, the fact that I choose not to call myself either an anarchist or a marxist does not preclude me from adopting their positions.



Maybe Bakunin is more popular in Europe? I feel like nobody that I know even talks about him. Even here on revleft, he isn't referenced much when anarchists support their positions.

[Sasha]

Half of people on this board have never read Marx and they claim that they are Marxists, so what your point?

I doubt that you dispute Bakunins idea's which you have probably read somewhere. Or that you consider that Marx was right in his conflict with Bakunin, because if you did that whole "libertarian vs. authoritarian" structure of anarchism would fall. Also, if you read works of temorary anarchists "thinkers" you can see that they stick to and defend Bakunin like he's the biggest tressure they have (van der Walt & Schimt for example).

I think the conflict between Marx and bakunin had a lot more to do with exactly bakunins anti-semitism vs Marx his jealousy on the popularity of Italian anarchism than with the actual ideological differences
And I don't know how it is around you but I for one never even heard about vans der Walt & schmit, most anarchists here read mostly bonanno & the invisible committee.

[Kadir Ateş]

Let's not forget Proudhon's anti-semitism as well (while we're on the subject of anarchists).


That does not necessarilly dismiss his other political theories though.

Really? Would you be so kind as to offer that courtesy to say, Lenin and the Bolsheviks? I don't think many anarchists would (if any at all). There is of a course a certain logic which underscores an ideology such as anarchism that is inescapable. The tendency to fetishize what appears to be the concrete, immediate manifestations of bourgeois society, such as the state or its institutions and make them transhistorical seems to encompass anarchist thought.

[Susurrus]

Kropotkin really is the main founder of a comprehensive anarcho-communism. Marx probably is a more influencing figure on left anarchism than Bakunin at this point. He(bakunin) makes a few good points, but they are better argued and explored by later anarchist theorists.

[The Douche]

Let's not forget Proudhon's anti-semitism as well (while we're on the subject of anarchists).



Really? Would you be so kind as to offer that courtesy to say, Lenin and the Bolsheviks? I don't think many anarchists would (if any at all). There is of a course a certain logic which underscores an ideology such as anarchism that is inescapable. The tendency to fetishize what appears to be the concrete, immediate manifestations of bourgeois society, such as the state or its institutions and make them transhistorical seems to encompass anarchist thought.

I would say that my shallow understanding of Lenin's labor aristocracy has some sort of effect on my politics, or that I at least see his premise to be correct (as I understand it), and I abhor Lenin.

[The Douche]

Kropotkin really is the main founder of a comprehensive anarcho-communism. Marx probably is a more influencing figure on left anarchism than Bakunin at this point. He(bakunin) makes a few good points, but they are better argued and explored by later anarchist theorists.

In before "Kropotkin picked sides in WW1!!!!!!!"

[PhoenixAsh]

Let's not forget Proudhon's anti-semitism as well (while we're on the subject of anarchists).

Really? Would you be so kind as to offer that courtesy to say, Lenin and the Bolsheviks? I don't think many anarchists would (if any at all).

On what specific topic?


There is of a course a certain logic which underscores an ideology such as anarchism that is inescapable. The tendency to fetishize what appears to be the concrete, immediate manifestations of bourgeois society, such as the state or its institutions and make them transhistorical seems to encompass anarchist thought.

What kind of historical bounds are you talking about exactly?

[Omsk]

Bakunin,he was a supporter of Russian Colonialism and an antisemite.
He also had Eurocentric views.

The only anarchist that mentioned Bakunin in a discussion i participated in,if i remember correctly,later adopted fascist views..Most anarchists i know rarely mentioned him,probably because of his antisemitic views.


On what specific topic?

On what specific topic? On every specific topic,his entire political and scientific thought..

[hatzel]

I sometimes get the feeling Bakunin is considered far more significant an anarchist amongst Marxists than he is amongst anarchists. For reasons we could probably guess...

On top of that I've lost count of how many people have been called "the anarchists' Marx" or "the founder of anarchism" or similar by this or that person in this or that place during this or that time period. Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Gesell, and now in this thread we see Kropotkin...and exactly how many contemporary anarchists pay all that much attention to anything those guys wrote? (In fact I'd hazard to say that most anarchists probably haven't even read anything written by 2-4 of those names) Or, to come from a slightly different angle, how many of them would contemporary anarchists acknowledge as anarchists at all?

[PhoenixAsh]

On what specific topic? On every specific topic,his entire political and scientific thought..

Then I reject most of them on their own merit and not for the fact that he treated his wife badly.

[bcbm]

this should be moved to history


You are wrong. Bakunin is to anarchists like Marx to Marxists.

its clear this isn't the case based just on this statement- notice that anarchism isn't called 'bakuninism'


He's "the one" who founded anarchism as political ideology.

today nobody cares.


Also, without Bakunins conflict with Marx anarchism wouldn't exist as ideology.

today nobody cares.


It's mithology lies in Bakunin.

today nobody cares. most anarchist 'mythology' focuses on things like makhno or the spanish civil war or '68. bakunin rarely gets a mention and when he does there almost always a disclaimer about his stupider ideas.


So, there's interesting article which shows how Bakunin was an asshole.

pretty much every major political thinker of the 19th century was an asshole in one way or another. and the 20th for that matter. people have flaws, holy shit!


If anarchists didn't care about Bakunin anymore they wouldn't write so many texts on him.

um, they don't.

[Nox]

I'm curious, who actually gives a fuck about Bakunin anymore? Most of the anarchists I know aren't particularly interested in him.

Who is Bakunin?

[Искра]

Hm yeah, except all those people in IWA and IAF... but yeah... if people on revleft claim that Bakunin is not so important then I guess I'm wrong ;)

[Искра]

Who is Bakunin?
Your new superhero after you left Stalin.

[Susurrus]

I sometimes get the feeling Bakunin is considered far more significant an anarchist amongst Marxists than he is amongst anarchists. For reasons we could probably guess...

On top of that I've lost count of how many people have been called "the anarchists' Marx" or "the founder of anarchism" or similar by this or that person in this or that place during this or that time period. Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Gesell, and now in this thread we see Kropotkin...and exactly how many contemporary anarchists pay all that much attention to anything those guys wrote? (In fact I'd hazard to say that most anarchists probably haven't even read anything written by 2-4 of those names) Or, to come from a slightly different angle, how many of them would contemporary anarchists acknowledge as anarchists at all?

Well, it's really a chain of theorists that really got leftist anarchism out there. Proudhon was probably the first major one, then Bakunin made collectivist anarchism, then Kropotkin made anarcho-communism, which has more or less stuck since then, with anarcho-syndicalism adding to it in terms of tactic.

[The Douche]

Hm yeah, except all those people in IWA and IAF... but yeah... if people on revleft claim that Bakunin is not so important then I guess I'm wrong ;)

Do either of those organizations have sections in the US?

[bcbm]

Hm yeah, except all those people in IWA


http://www.iwa-ait.org/?q=search/node/bakunin


and IAF...

http://www.iaf-ifa.org/component/search/?searchword=bakunin&ordering=&searchphrase=all

[Omsk]

Then I reject most of them on their own merit and not for the fact that he treated his wife badly.


That is my stance on Bakunin.



most anarchist 'mythology' focuses on things like makhno or the spanish civil war


If the Spanish Civil War falls in their mythology basket,i would not like to find out what is regarded as the "dark moment".



today nobody cares.


Im not so sure that anarchists today arent preoccupied with the past.

[The Douche]

http://www.iwa-ait.org/?q=search/node/bakunin



http://www.iaf-ifa.org/component/search/?searchword=bakunin&ordering=&searchphrase=all

:ohmy:
:lol:


But for real, I have seen some people from @Fed in England who are super into Bakunin, are they part of IWA or IAF?

[bcbm]

If the Spanish Civil War falls in their mythology basket,i would not like to find out what is regarded as the "dark moment".

zzzz


Im not so sure that anarchists today arent preoccupied with the past.

says the guy quoting engels about anarchism being 'petit bourgeois' in a thread about punx

[Искра]

But for real, I have seen some people from @Fed in England who are super into Bakunin, are they part of IWA or IAF?
Afed is in IAF.

And regarding nothing to be found on their websites, well that's the problem of anarchist movement and the fact that their 2 internationales don't do their job... they are not internationalist organized. Still, they consist the majority of anarchist movement.

Do they have sections in US? No. IWA kicked its US section. Why don't they have sections? Well... that's not my problem :D (anymore :D)

[Omsk]

zzzz

Whats the matter,why are you runing away from that one?





says the guy quoting engels about anarchism being 'petit bourgeois' in a thread about punx


You confused me with someone.

[The Douche]

Afed is in IAF.

And regarding nothing to be found on their websites, well that's the problem of anarchist movement and the fact that their 2 internationales don't do their job... they are not internationalist organized. Still, they consist the majority of anarchist movement.

Do they have sections in US? No. IWA kicked its US section. Why don't they have sections? Well... that's not my problem :D (anymore :D)

I asked, in order to get some perspective. I never encounter anarchists who care about Bakunin, but just because people don't care about Bakunin here, doesn't mean the same goes in Europe.

But then again, I don't know anybody who gives two shits about Rudolf Rocker, but I bet if I hung out with the IWW I'd know plenty...

[bcbm]

Whats the matter,why are you runing away from that one?

the spanish civil war has been argued to death and i really don't care


You confused me with someone.

oh yeah some other guy with a lenin avatar

speaking of the past...

[Omsk]

oh yeah some other guy with a lenin avatar

speaking of the past...

What poor point are you trying to make?I am interested in the past,but i am arguing that a lot of anarchists also cant get over some events,not that only anarchists are preoccupied with the past and that i am not.

[bcbm]

most leftists can't get over some events because most leftists are historical re-enactors, i don't think its especially prominent in anarchism more than anywhere else. less if anything because they don't need to have a 'line' on some bullshit that happened 40 years ago nobody cares about

[Искра]

I asked, in order to get some perspective. I never encounter anarchists who care about Bakunin, but just because people don't care about Bakunin here, doesn't mean the same goes in Europe.

But then again, I don't know anybody who gives two shits about Rudolf Rocker, but I bet if I hung out with the IWW I'd know plenty...
I've encounter anarchists with Bakunin pictures on their walls. :crying: In IWA people like Rudolf Rocker and sections such as CNT's (both French and Spanish), USI, ASI etc. usually pretty much care about all other "important" anarchist thinkers.

I guess that the thing is little bit different in the USA where mostly you have anti-organisational anarchists or smaller collectives. If we exclude those I only know for WSA (which was kicked out of IWA) and NEFAC (which are neo-platformists).

[Omsk]

most leftists can't get over some events because most leftists are historical re-enactors, i don't think its especially prominent in anarchism more than anywhere else. less if anything because they don't need to have a 'line' on some bullshit that happened 40 years ago nobody cares about


You truly are a nihilist communist.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I like how Engels calls Bakunin a fat elephant, lol, Engels was always pretty funny in his criticism lol.

[Susurrus]

What poor point are you trying to make?I am interested in the past,but i am arguing that a lot of anarchists also cant get over some events,not that only anarchists are preoccupied with the past and that i am not.

Well, saying that anarchists can't get over the Spanish revolution or whatever is a bit like saying Marx couldn't get over the Paris Commune.

[The Douche]

I have a confession to make guys.

I have never read Bakunin (well not a whole text, just excerpts)
I have never read anything by Kropotkin in its entirety
I have never read anything by Proudhon
I never finished "anarcho-syndicalism" by Rocker

I considered myself an anarchist, and at a time an anarcho-syndicalist, for a very long time.

I have read Marx
I have read Luxembourg
I have read Mattick
I have read Pannekoek

But I am not and have never considered myself a left-communist.

The thinkers you do/do not read do not qualify/disqualify you from having certain politics.

[hatzel]

You truly are a nihilist communist.

You don't have to be a nihilist to not care about an official party line on some obscure event that happened in the Philippines in 1964 or whatever, you know...

[bcbm]

You truly are a nihilist communist.

truth hurts

[Omsk]

Well, saying that anarchists can't get over the Spanish revolution or whatever is a bit like saying Marx couldn't get over the Paris Commune.

1.] I am not saying that anarchists cant get over the Spanish revolution.


saying that anarchists

I said,a lot of anarchists,not all.Just as there are communists who dont cover themselves completely in the ashes of former revolutions and movements,there are some who are looking at the present,and the future.

[hatzel]

Just as there are communists who dont cover themselves completely in the ashes of former revolutions and movements,there are some who are looking at the present,and the future.

But I assume you read your own posts, particularly on GDR, and as such know to which of these two categories you belong, right?

[Искра]

Well I consider myself a Kempeitai, but I'm not even Japanese nor do I support Kodoha. :rolleyes:


The thinkers you do/do not read do not qualify/disqualify you from having certain politics.
Of course, but how did you got that politics? Did it fall from the sky or have you read some people who wrote about their experence within working class movement? I doubt that you could exeperience most of these things in present day conditions.

Also, it's funny how not-reading is like some some kind of achivemant.

[Susurrus]

Just as there are communists who dont cover themselves completely in the ashes of former revolutions and movements,there are some who are looking at the present,and the future.

Well, one kindof has to do both. We must look to history and the past to create an accurate analysis of material conditions and how they are shaped and how they shape society, but on the other hand, we must analyze the present to get an idea of how the future will be, and how we can change it.

[Omsk]

But I assume you read your own posts, particularly on GDR, and as such know to which of these two categories you belong, right?

Well,i am not saying that i am the fine example of a modern,"looking to the future" leftist,but most of the posts i wrote back in 2011 [heh time flys] are in the history section,as i am interested in 20 century history,nothing strange about that.When i write about the current happenings,i dont make parallels with the past.
We are all changing are we not?


Well, one kindof has to do both. We must look to history and the past to create an accurate analysis of material conditions and how they are shaped and how they shape society, but on the other hand, we must analyze the present to get an idea of how the future will be, and how we can change it.

Yes,and since i am currently not in the possition to change much,[things could change..] i usually entertain myself with the past.

[The Douche]

Of course, but how did you got that politics?

Cause I hated authority (the authority of teachers, the authority of my parents, the authority of cops, the authority of the church). And because I experienced the material differences in class in the US (I went from being a kid in a petite-bourgeois family which owned a small business, to being a kid in a family which was unemployed, to being a kid in a family where my mom worked minimum wage and my pops was a union worker). And because I saw the power of solidarity and human community (during the two years my parents were kept employed the community around them, namely the people in their church, were able to donate enough money for my parents to keep their house, and keep me fed/clothed).

With a combined hatred for authority and appreciation for supporting communities it was pretty easy for me to get into punk and anarchism. And it was in talking to other people who called themselves anarchists, in reading shitty fucking band lyrics, reading dumb articles in punk zines, and (horror of horrors!!) reading crimethinc. That helped cement for me what anarchism meant.

Obviously I was interested in marxism to, and there wasn't really marxist stuff that was geared towards youth like there was for anarchism, so I read classical marxist thinkers that were relevant to me. And I realized I wasn't either an anarchist or a marxist, I was just a communist.


Also, it's funny how not-reading is like some some kind of achivemant.

I don't think its an achievement per se, but I resent the way a lot of people seem to think that if you haven't read A, B, or C that you can't be a whatever the fuck. Like, a lot of us are really smart, and a lot of us aren't so smart, or have learning disabilities or a thousand other factors that prevent us from being able to read, understand, and apply theory, especially high theory (i.e. Capital). I don't think anybody should be able to tell me I'm not a communist or that I don't have the authority to debate because I haven't read a book.

[Nox]

Everyone knows Noam Chomsky is the best Anarchist theorist.

[hatzel]

I've never read any Chomsky. Not even the linguistics shizzle.

[PhoenixAsh]

Chomsky is our God. We worship him and sacrifice Leninists to his honour...

o...wait...I wasn't supposed to say that.

***

Anarchy goes back far before Bakunin.

And Bakunin isn't considered the father of Anarchism....if anybody it would be Proudhon.

[The Douche]

Proudhon, also an anti-semite.

[Rafiq]

Chomsky is a fuckface.

[PhoenixAsh]

Marx has also had some anti-semitic tendencies I believe. "Zur Judenfrage" is often considered to have them.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Hey, we had a squat bar called "barkunin" here for a while..... :D

But @ o.p. Yeah, bakunin was a anti-semite dick, Marx was a narcissist and Engels treated his wife as shit.
Luckily we are neither into the religious nor personality cults, you take what is worthwhile, you leave or even denounce what was crap.
But Emma Goldman kicked ass!

[Искра]

You like E. Goldman just because she was a women.

Also, Prodhon was for state and against class struggle. Nice father you have hindsight20/20.

[Alf]

Marx's essay on the Jewish question was a vital text in the development of his thought. Some of the allusions to Judaism it uses are not acceptable today. But it was first and foremost a rebuttal of those who didn't want to give political emancipation to the Jews, even those who used spurious radical excuses, like David Bauer. It fully supported the civic emancipation of the Jews in semi-feudal Prussia, a bourgeois revolutionary demand which was still valid at that time. But it also showed that Marx was becoming a communist; the text is mainly devoted to showing that political emancipation in civil society is still entirely within the boundary of commodity relations,alienation and the state. Real emancipation meant the emancipation of society from the state and from commodity relations.

Bakunin's anti-semitism goes much deeper than Marx's sometimes crude jokes. This is because it is part of his largely reactionary world view, which did not come from the proletarian movement, but from classes outside the proletariat.

[hatzel]

You like E. Goldman just because she was a women.

She also happens to be amongst the better of the old anarchists, as far as I'm concerned, not least for her implementation of Nietzschean ideas into her anarchism, resulting in something pretty darn palatable. The same cannot be said of vast swathes of 'the Left.'


Also, Prodhon was for state and against class struggle. Nice father you have hindsight20/20.And how exactly does talking about what some long-dead dude who called himself an anarchist said as if it were still at all relevant differ from half your other posts?

[Искра]

hm, what?

[The Douche]

You like E. Goldman just because she was a women.

Also, Prodhon was for state and against class struggle. Nice father you have hindsight20/20.

Dude, this is pretty borderline. It would appear that you're suggesting Esperanza only likes Goldman because they are both women...

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

You like E. Goldman just because she was a women.
No, but the fact that she is a woman certainly isn't a bad thing

[PhoenixAsh]

You like E. Goldman just because she was a women.

Also, Prodhon was for state and against class struggle. Nice father you have hindsight20/20.

Ah yes...more snide remarks towards me. I see what you are doing.

But if you ever bothered to do some reading to the development of anarchist thought and politics you would see that Proudhon is regarded in that way. It is simply a statement of fact.

Another statement of fact is that Proudhon and Marx were friends and influenced each other before Marx got his panties all in a bunch because some guy he didn't like was translating for Proudhon.

So does your criticism extend to Marx?

Now aside from your snide remarks....Proudhon is actually held in higher regard by the IWA than Bakunin ever was.

Now in 1851 he wrote society without authority in general idea of the revolution....so I am not totally sure where you base your claim on that Proudhon was a stateist seeing as he pretty much denounced the state in that work.

And your alledged claim he was against class struggle is probably based on the fact that he was preaching absolute and strict non-violence.


So far your facts seem to be pretty fucked up...

[Sasha]

You like E. Goldman just because she was a women.

Also, Prodhon was for state and against class struggle. Nice father you have hindsight20/20.


Dude, this is pretty borderline. It would appear that you're suggesting Esperanza only likes Goldman because they are both women...

I would say that that's well beyond borderline, infraction for sexism.

[The Insurrection]

Bakunin was an incredibly important contributer to modern anarchism and his views on the state, on Marxism, on religion and on the principles of anti-authoritarianism are just as relevant now as they have always been. I would say that Bakunin is one of the most misunderstood radicals of the last 200 years, largely because of Marxist slander and subterfuge, but also because Bakunin left a lot of his theoretical work unfinished, which doesn't do him any favours. I would suggest that people read Mark Leier's biography if you haven't already. It's quite brilliant and does a great job unraveling the myths and lies about him.

I don't understand how any anarchist would not be interested in reading his ideas, because they were pretty amazing. Bakunin is essential reading for any anarchist. He was fucking awesome.

[The Insurrection]

Dude, I bailed on Bakunin when I was like 15, because of his dispute with Marx re: the international

Which was what exactly?

[The Insurrection]

Quoted from Ibid., 296. The circular letter is available as “Lettre aux Internationaux de Bologne (décembre 1871),” in Bakounine, Œuvres Complètes, Volume 2. For more of Bakunin’s anti-Semitic rhetoric, see his “Aux Compagnons de la Fédération des Sections Internationales du Jura (février-mars 1872),” in Michel Bakounine, Œuvres Complètes, Volume 3: Michel Bakounine et les Conflits Dans L’Internationale 1872 (Paris: Editions Champ Libre, 1975). In Bakunin’s reply to Marx and Engels’ “The Alleged Splits in the International,” he denounced the lies of “German and Russian Jews.” See “Résponse à la Circulaire Privée du Conseil Général: Les Prétendues Scissions dans L’Internationale,” in Bakounine, Œuvres Complètes, Volume 3, 121.


“Engels to Theodor Cuno,” in Marx and Engels, Collected Works Vol. 44, 408.

Link: http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism#footnote56_yh3ztb8

I was reading again this article (which I recomend you!), so when I got to this part I kind ouf laughed. Especially when Engels called Bakunin fat elephant. Hahaha.

What is the point of this by the way? I'm just interested to know. I was trying to work out why I would start a thread about Marx being a racist, and I couldn't really think of a legitimate reason why I would do that, except to try and piss Marxists off...

[Искра]

hindsight20/20 get a grip, you are not important. You wrote that "Proudhon is father of anarchism" and I've replayed you.

Proudhon was against class struggle. He condemned miners who rebeled against their bosess and praised army which suppresed their riot. Also in one of his works he said that he was wrong about state and that state should exist. I've read that in Laslo Sekelj: O anarhizmu (1980.). I'll go trought that book and quote you Proudhon from his works if you don't believe. Sekelj was "libertarian socialist" from 80's Serbia who wrote a lot of books on anarchism, council communism and anti-Bolshevik communism. He ended up as liberal... Shame on him. ;)

[The Douche]

Which was what exactly?

His attempt to found a secret organization commanded by him, which he would use to carry out revolution, after taking over the international.

[Искра]

His attempt to found a secret organization commanded by him, which he would use to carry out revolution, after taking over the international.
This.

Or something you could read from this article: http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism#footnote56_yh3ztb8

[The Insurrection]

His attempt to found a secret organization commanded by him, which he would use to carry out revolution, after taking over the international.
What is the evidence for that?

[PhoenixAsh]

hindsight20/20 get a grip, you are not important. You wrote that "Proudhon is father of anarchism" and I've replayed you.

Well...If I am not important you start an awful lot of your posts with a personal jab. Not to mention on the other fora ;) So you are being a bit self contradictory....


Proudhon was against class struggle. He condemned miners who rebeled against their bosess and praised army which suppresed their riot. Also in one of his works he said that he was wrong about state and that state should exist. I've read that in Laslo Sekelj: O anarhizmu (1980.). I'll go trought that book and quote you Proudhon from his works if you don't believe. Sekelj was "libertarian socialist" from 80's Serbia who wrote a lot of books on anarchism, council communism and anti-Bolshevik communism. He ended up as liberal... Shame on him. ;)


I am very curious. I think you are refering to The Philosophy of Misery.

[The Douche]

What is the evidence for that?

Dude, its uh, historical record?

That link Kontra posted talks about it...

[28350]

This.

Or something you could read from this article: http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism#footnote56_yh3ztb8

This is just slander in attempt to discredit him. I'm very surprised that someone as intelligent as you has been deceived by this nonsense.


Dude, its uh, historical record?

That link Kontra posted talks about it...

Well that's just like, your interpretation, man.

[Искра]

This is just slander in attempt to discredit him. I'm very surprised that someone as intelligent as you has been deceived by this nonsense.
What exactly is a slander when guy is quoting Bakunin from books published by anarchist publishers?

[The Insurrection]

Dude, its uh, historical record?

Uh. No it isn't.

Provide evidence that such a secret organisation was meant to be "commanded by him", that it was to be used to "carry out revolution" and it was meant to "take over the international". If it is historical record, you should have no problem. The other main point of contention is to provide evidence that the Alliance continued to exist after official demands for it to be disbanded.

But no evidence exists. Bakunin spoke about this secret organisation and discussed quite openly and clearly what its intentions were, and since in the same text and in all other texts on the subject of revolution he talks emphatically about social revolution and the need for the workers to lead it themselves, I don't see how you can claim what you are claiming; unless you want to claim that his entire body of work was predicated on a lie in order to lay the seed of doubt so that he could control a future hypothetical international organistion...[/URL]


No political or national revolution can ever triumph unless it is transformed into a social revolution, and unless the national revolution, precisely because of its radically socialist character, which is destructive of the State, becomes a universal revolution. Since the Revolution must everywhere be achieved by the people, and since its supreme direction must always rest in the people, organized in a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations, the new revolutionary State, organized from the bottom up by revolutionary delegations embracing all the rebel countries in the name of the same principles, irrespective of old frontiers and national differences, will have as its chief objective the administration of public services, not the governing of peoples. It will constitute the new party, the alliance of the universal revolution, as opposed to the alliance of the reaction.

This revolutionary alliance excludes any idea of dictatorship and of a controlling and directive power. It is, however, necessary for the establishment of this revolutionary alliance and for the triumph of the Revolution over reaction that the unity of ideas and of revolutionary action find an organ in the midst of the popular anarchy which will be the life and the energy of the Revolution. This organ should be the secret and universal association of the International Brothers.

This association has its origin in the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They make themselves; they are produced by the force of circumstances, the movement of facts and events. They receive a long preparation in the deep, instinctive consciousness of the masses, then they burst forth, often seemingly triggered by trivial causes. All that a well-organized society can do is, first, to assist at the birth of a revolution by spreading among the masses ideas which give expression to their instincts, and to organize, not the army of the Revolution – the people alone should always be that army – but a sort of revolutionary general staff, composed of dedicated, energetic, intelligent individuals, sincere friends of the people above all, men neither vain nor ambitious, but capable of serving as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the instincts of the people.

[URL="http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm"]Program of the International Brotherhood (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm)

Also, the commission to investigate the alliance itself agreed that there was no evidence to support the assertion that the alliance continued to exist after it was asked to disband. Bakunin et al were essentially expelled from the international becaue a secret society "perhaps" existed as some draft rules were signed by Bakunin (what is that evidence of?) and because he owed Marx £300 for not translating Capital...

In any case, what is your allegiance to the first international? If it were true that Bakunin et al attempted to set up an organisation that challenged the preconception of a Marx dominated international, why is that a bad thing? Marx's political platform was bullshit.

Commission report (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/hague-commission/report.htm)
Minutes (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1872/hague-commission/minutes.htm)


That link Kontra posted talks about it...What do you think that article demonstrates?

[28350]

What exactly is a slander when guy is quoting Bakunin from books published by anarchist publishers?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2329593&postcount=128

I was mocking certain anarchists who think Bakunin is the true champion of liberty and make Marx his evil foil, going so far as to ignore all the historical evidence / texts with such stubbornness it would put MLs to shame

EDIT: wait we can even see it happen in this thread too!

[Искра]

UIf it were true that Bakunin et al attempted to set up an organisation that challenged the preconception of a Marx dominated international, why is that a bad thing? Marx's political platform was bullshit.
Because freemasonism has nothing to do with class struggle, while political organisation of proletariat on international scale does.

That's why Mussolini and Bordiga kicked out all freemasons from PSI.

[The Insurrection]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2329593&postcount=128

I was mocking certain anarchists who think Bakunin is the true champion of liberty and make Marx his evil foil, going so far as to ignore all the historical evidence / texts with such stubbornness it would put MLs to shame

I've never said that Marx was evil. And it's not a question of stubbornness. The attacks on Bakunin are simply untrue.

Provide some historical evidence to prove your assertions and I will read it...

[The Insurrection]

Because freemasonism has nothing to do with class struggle, while political organisation of proletariat on international scale does.

That's why Mussolini and Bordiga kicked out all freemasons from PSI.

What?

[hatzel]

I don't understand this necessity to defend or attack every little detail of historical figures at once. Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, all of them said some stuff that's valuable and accurate. Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, all of them adopted some thoroughly reactionary positions. So what? Are you all totally incapable of engaging with people as anything other than a coherent whole? "Marx thought this about the Mexican-American war, and I disagree with that, therefore let's burn anything he wrote about the LTV!" or "well Bakunin wrote a book I like so I'll defend absolutely everything he said to the death, and if I can't defend it I'll call it lies!"

Two lessons for you: 1) these people were not saints; and 2) one doesn't have to be a saint to express valuable ideas - in fact one can be the complete opposite. Case in point: Carl Schmitt; admitting Schmitt made some valuable contributions to political philosophy doesn't mean one then has to defend his Nazism or any other element of his questionable character.

People are going to have to learn to stop engaging with thinkers in such a way that the only options are to embrace them in their entirety or reject them in their entirety, as if the third option - a partial embrace and a partial rejection - were an impossibility.

[The Insurrection]

It's a valid question. What is the purpose of defending historical figures from attacks? For me, it's because these questions get to the heart of what these different politics' represent. What does it mean to accept that Bakunin was a nefarious authoritarian who attempted to destroy the international through insidious machinations? What does that represent for the ideas and the movement? I think it's important to be clear about our history.

But I think it's fair to say that both sides did things wrong and mistakes were made. But it is important to be clear about the facts also.

[The Douche]

It's a valid question. What is the purpose of defending historical figures from attacks? For me, it's because these questions get to the heart of what these different politics' represent. What does it mean to accept that Bakunin was a nefarious authoritarian who attempted to destroy the international through insidious machinations? What does that represent for the ideas and the movement? I think it's important to be clear about our history.

But I think it's fair to say that both sides did things wrong and mistakes were made. But it is important to be clear about the facts also.

It means that Bakunin is not an anarchist, certainly not the kind of anarchist I'd work with.

You're saying the allegations are untrue, why? Because Bakunin denied them?:rolleyes:

[Bronco]

Only Bakunin text I've read is Marxism, Freedom and the State which was a decent read, he might well have been an anti-Semite but that alone is not really good enough grounds to completely disregard everything he ever wrote, nor is this claim that he tried to take over the International

And as for Proudhon I believe he was the first to ever use the term "Anarchism" so it would be logical to say he was the founder of it, even if most Anarchists today would disagree with a great deal of his thought

[The Insurrection]

You're saying the allegations are untrue, why? Because Bakunin denied them?:rolleyes:

Yes. What evidence is there to suggest he was lying? Also because everything he said and wrote about was contrary to these allegations and furthermore, there's no evidence that supports the assertions. What is evident is that Marx and his followers didn't want Bakunin, who was hugely critical of Marx and Marxism to have any influence in the international. We see all the time Marxists maneuver against anarchists in these kind of united front organisations. Marx and Engels didn't like Bakunin or what he said or what he stood for and they were successful in having him and other anarchists expelled. Didn't matter that the reasons were highly spurious (as reported in the commission report). This is what realpolitik looks like and Marx and Engels were particularly good at it.

[hatzel]

What is the purpose of defending historical figures from attacks? For me, it's because these questions get to the heart of what these different politics' represent.

This may be true for a Marxist - when your ideology is named after and based on the ideas of an individual it may be expedient to defend said individual from criticism - but I don't see why an anarchist would ever feel any need to follow suit. Bakunin's various failings certainly don't represent my politics in the slightest, and as such I feel no urge to defend them, as I don't feel any urge to defend the positions of any other individual simply because they dared to call themselves an proponent of anarchy...

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't understand this necessity to defend or attack every little detail of historical figures at once. Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, all of them said some stuff that's valuable and accurate. Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, all of them adopted some thoroughly reactionary positions. So what? Are you all totally incapable of engaging with people as anything other than a coherent whole? "Marx thought this about the Mexican-American war, and I disagree with that, therefore let's burn anything he wrote about the LTV!" or "well Bakunin wrote a book I like so I'll defend absolutely everything he said to the death, and if I can't defend it I'll call it lies!"

Yeah, I agree with this. I'm sure that people in Veracruz would've loved the opinion that their backwards society was being taken under the "tutelage" of the American military. :rolleyes:

Bakunin contributed some good things, other things not so much. I take the good elements and leave the bad ones. A lot of anarchist groups still give nods to Bakunin (Anarchist Federation in the UK published a pamphlet about him that I read at one point, for example) but there are also a lot of anarchists who don't really care about Bakunin anymore. I think you'd find on this website that the other three often referenced anarchists (Kropotkin, Rocker, Malatesta) are more popular.

[Yazman]

Chomsky is a fuckface.

Please don't make these sorts of posts. You're not contributing to the topic at all by posting this. Think about that before you post.

Consider this a warning.

[A Marxist Historian]

I sometimes get the feeling Bakunin is considered far more significant an anarchist amongst Marxists than he is amongst anarchists. For reasons we could probably guess...

On top of that I've lost count of how many people have been called "the anarchists' Marx" or "the founder of anarchism" or similar by this or that person in this or that place during this or that time period. Godwin, Stirner, Proudhon, Bakunin, Gesell, and now in this thread we see Kropotkin...and exactly how many contemporary anarchists pay all that much attention to anything those guys wrote? (In fact I'd hazard to say that most anarchists probably haven't even read anything written by 2-4 of those names) Or, to come from a slightly different angle, how many of them would contemporary anarchists acknowledge as anarchists at all?

Compared to Proudhon, Bakunin was an admirer of Jews. Proudhon was *really* anti-Semitic, he even advocated killing them all. That was pretty unusual back in the 19th Century, even proto-Nazis weren't as anti-Semitic as Proudhon back then. He was also a white racist, sided with the Confederacy in the Civil War, and a gross male chauvinist.

Stirner was pretty anti-Semitic too, though in fact he was hardly an anarchist at all.

Kropotkin? Yes, almost as influential a figure in anarchism as Bakunin. Difference being that whereas Bakunin was an anarchist revolutionary, Kropotkin was against violence, and ended up supporting the Allies during WWI. Wrote a great book about the French Revolution however.

So Bakunin is the godfather for the "black bloc," whereas Kropotkin is the godfather of the anarchist "peace police."

Godwin I've at least heard of. Who's Gesell?

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Marx has also had some anti-semitic tendencies I believe. "Zur Judenfrage" is often considered to have them.

An old tired saw, spread primarily by the Zionists.

Old Hal Draper wrote the definitive disproof of that one, very worth reading, and not just about Marx and anti-Semitism. He really does a good job of explaining how things were different in the 19th Century, and how we can manage to wrap our tiny shrunken Internet-befuddled 21st Century brains around them.

Back then people interested in leftwing politics actually read books by the people who formulated the ideas they believe in! Ah, the good old days...

Anyway, here's the URL:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1977/kmtr1/app1.htm

I particularly like his little comment there on Proudhon and Bakunin:

"In France, indeed, one first finds a new note: here Jew-hatred took a proto-Nazi form in the express desire of Proudhon (father of anarchist “libertarianism”) for the physical extermination of all Jews. Bakunin, the other father of anarchism, was almost as virulently anti-Semitic in the modern sense as Proudhon. [27] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1977/kmtr1/app1.htm#n27) But in this period, this proto-Nazi anti-Semitism is found only among these anarchist liberty-shouters, as far as I know."

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

She also happens to be amongst the better of the old anarchists, as far as I'm concerned, not least for her implementation of Nietzschean ideas into her anarchism, resulting in something pretty darn palatable. The same cannot be said of vast swathes of 'the Left.'

And how exactly does talking about what some long-dead dude who called himself an anarchist said as if it were still at all relevant differ from half your other posts?

Nietsche? The ideological godfather of fascism? Eep!

Some longdead dude who founded anarchism as an organized movement is irrelevant to anarchism? That's pretty sad to hear anybody saying that. As long as people think that we, we are all doomed.

Santayana said it all. Those who don't remember history are condemned to repeeat it.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

I don't understand this necessity to defend or attack every little detail of historical figures at once. Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, all of them said some stuff that's valuable and accurate. Proudhon, Bakunin, Marx, all of them adopted some thoroughly reactionary positions. So what? Are you all totally incapable of engaging with people as anything other than a coherent whole? "Marx thought this about the Mexican-American war, and I disagree with that, therefore let's burn anything he wrote about the LTV!" or "well Bakunin wrote a book I like so I'll defend absolutely everything he said to the death, and if I can't defend it I'll call it lies!"

Two lessons for you: 1) these people were not saints; and 2) one doesn't have to be a saint to express valuable ideas - in fact one can be the complete opposite. Case in point: Carl Schmitt; admitting Schmitt made some valuable contributions to political philosophy doesn't mean one then has to defend his Nazism or any other element of his questionable character.

People are going to have to learn to stop engaging with thinkers in such a way that the only options are to embrace them in their entirety or reject them in their entirety, as if the third option - a partial embrace and a partial rejection - were an impossibility.

No, you do have to engage such stuff. Marx on the Mexican War? He wrote an erroneous letter in the year 1847, when he was young, which you can't be sure if he was serious about or just needling the guy he was polemicizing with to get a rise out of him.

What Marx didn't realise (and Abraham Lincoln did) was that the Mexican-American War wasn't about advancing capitalism by replacing control over the Southwest by advanced America instead of feudally-challenged Mexico, but about slavery. So Mexico not America was the progressive side in that war.

By the time the Civil War broke out, Marx had that all figured out, and supported the Union 100%, whereas Proudhon, the pro-slavery white racist, supported the Confederacy.

So that 1847 letter wasn't Marx's shining moment, but basically he was on the right side and Marxists have nothing to be ashamed about here, unlike anarchists.

And as for Carl Schmitt and his "contributions to political philosophy," well, he provided philosophical groundwork for the Nazis during the Third Reich and more recently for the Neo-Cons. I think we can do without such "contributions."

But yes, neither Marx nor Bakunin nor for that matter even Schmitt, or Mussolini (at one point in his life an upstanding revolutionary), were either saints or devils. We need neither icon-worship nor ritual exorcism.

And I don't want to get involved in the ins and outs of the *organizational* disputes between Marx & Bakunin in the 1870s, surely none of that means a thing a century and a half later.

But you have to have a wholistic picture of where people stood and what they were about, and the fact is that the founders of anarchism are ideologically problematic on a lot of levels, anti-Semitism being one.

-M.H.-

[Susurrus]

Kropotkin? Yes, almost as influential a figure in anarchism as Bakunin. Difference being that whereas Bakunin was an anarchist revolutionary, Kropotkin was against violence, and ended up supporting the Allies during WWI. Wrote a great book about the French Revolution however.

So Bakunin is the godfather for the "black bloc," whereas Kropotkin is the godfather of the anarchist "peace police."

-M.H.-

Ummm, no...

Kropotkin was for a violent revolution: "There are periods in the life of human society when revolution becomes an imperative necessity, when it proclaims itself as inevitable. New ideas germinate everywhere, seeking to force their way into the light, to find an application in life; everywhere they are opposed by the inertia of those whose interest it is to maintain the old order; they suffocate in the stifling atmosphere of prejudice and traditions. ...Such periods demand revolution. It becomes a social necessity; the situation itself is revolutionary."

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/spiritofrevolt.html

[A Marxist Historian]

Ummm, no...

Kropotkin was for a violent revolution: "There are periods in the life of human society when revolution becomes an imperative necessity, when it proclaims itself as inevitable. New ideas germinate everywhere, seeking to force their way into the light, to find an application in life; everywhere they are opposed by the inertia of those whose interest it is to maintain the old order; they suffocate in the stifling atmosphere of prejudice and traditions. ...Such periods demand revolution. It becomes a social necessity; the situation itself is revolutionary."

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/spiritofrevolt.html

Well, yeah, he was certainly for the French Revolution, and that was pretty violent. And he was for the Allies in WWI, which was even more violent. So he wasn't some Gandhi style 100% pacifist. But yes, he was anti-violence as a general rule, unlike Bakunin, hoping for a revolution as peaceful as possible.

Now Bakunin was the ultimate Black Blockster, even supporting Nechayev, who I'm sure 99% of Black Bloc folk would recoil from, with his advocacy of deceit of the masses, extermination of the class enemy and all enemies of the Revolution for that matter, etc. etc.

A lot of your anarchist "peace police" folk in OWS aren't 100% anti-violence everywhere and anywhere, just not during OWS. Great-grandchildren of Kropotkin for sure.

But Kropotkin did have his good sides, no doubt about it, a lot of the stuff he wrote was good, and he certainly meant well. Even Stalin recognized that. You have a subway station named after Kropotkin in Moscow to this day.

-M.H.-

[hatzel]

Boring stuff about how racist everybody was

Didn't we just establish that I couldn't care less what Proudhon or Bakunin or Stirner or Kropotkin or Conan the Barbarian had to say about the best way to cook a steak? Actually I'd struggle to think of anything less relevant to 21st century activism...but if you wish to engage in ad homs (and it seems you do), then go ahead. Just don't expect anybody to take you all that seriously.


Who's Gesell?

Well I only put him in just because I've heard him referred to as the anarchist Marx during the interwar period, when his economic theories were particularly popular amongst German-speaking (individualist) anarchists. Nothing important. The fact that the vast majority of anarchists have probably never heard of him should be proof enough that somebody can be the 'anarchist Marx' one minute and some totally forgotten no-mark the next, as the movement ebbs and flows and hops between different ideas, casting some by the wayside. That applies, by the way, to a lot of the stuff the likes of Proudhon and Bakunin said - cast by the wayside.


Nietsche? The ideological godfather of fascism? Eep!

Strange. I thought you would have reserved that title for Proudhon, what with fascism being heavily influenced by the French Cercle Proudhon. Ah well. You really missed a golden opportunity there, boy!

Anyway, read much Nietzsche, have you?


Some longdead dude who founded anarchism as an organized movement is irrelevant to anarchism? That's pretty sad to hear anybody saying that. As long as people think that we, we are all doomed.


As long as people think a 19th century whoever are sitting in the driving seat of history then we'd might as well all go home right now, as far as I'm concerned.


Boring stuff about the Mexican-American war

Couldn't care less what Marx had to say on that. Newsflash: it's 2011.


So that 1847 letter wasn't Marx's shining moment, but basically he was on the right side and Marxists have nothing to be ashamed about here, unlike anarchists.


Oh yeah yeah yeah all those 21st anarchists should have red faces because some guy back in the day said whatever and some other guy said whatever but then for some reason that doesn't matter but still anarchists better blush. Their blood be on us and on our children. Eejit.


And as for Carl Schmitt and his "contributions to political philosophy," well, he provided philosophical groundwork for the Nazis during the Third Reich and more recently for the Neo-Cons. I think we can do without such "contributions."


Quick question: are you aware of how many Marxists have written pretty extensively on Schmitt? And how many German Marxists in particular went to his house in the 60's and 70's and stuff to discuss politics with him and squeeze the wisdom out of his head? Because...well, considering the games you seem to like playing here, with all the "Proudhon was a racist therefore anarchists are fucked up" and "some anarchists like Nietzsche but Hitler liked Nietzsche so they're like totally the same thing" or whatever, I could easily bring out the "well plenty of Marxists don't seem all that offended by Negri and Virno and Badiou and all that but they're all a bunch of Nazi-lovers, so like a shitload of Marxists are actually crypto-Nazis or something so that means there's fascist sympathies inherent in Marxism because you can like Marxism and Nazism at like the same time and all that stuff so they must be pretty much identical, right?" I wouldn't make such an argument, though, partly because it would go against my previous assertion that even reactionary little so-and-sos can occasionally give us gems (as revolutionaries can dish up steaming turds every once in a while), and partly because it would be an unbelievably lazy and unconvincing argument. Though that's honestly the level you're at right about now.

Oh, let me guess...you're actually going to take this seriously and write a load of boring stuff explaining how that's wrong and that there is no compatibility whatsoever between Marxism and Nazism, and the fact that a load of Marxists were influenced by some Nazi guy isn't enough to prove this link. Feel free to, but I sure as hell won't read it...


We need neither icon-worship nor ritual exorcism.

And I don't want to get involved in the ins and outs of the *organizational* disputes between Marx & Bakunin in the 1870s, surely none of that means a thing a century and a half later.


Then why the actual fuck are you blabbering on about what this or that person said in the 1840's as if it's even remotely important to anything? Seriously? Why are you wasting your time writing any of this crap?


But you have to have a wholistic picture of where people stood and what they were about, and the fact is that the founders of anarchism are ideologically problematic on a lot of levels, anti-Semitism being one.


We just agreed it doesn't make any difference what the "founders of anarchism" said about anything because we don't care for "icon worship" (or "ritual exorcism," remember, though the fact that you wrote a load of crap defending Marx in response to my comment that I don't care what Marx thought or said about every little issue suggests you're more than a bit touchy about it) and also "none of that means a thing a century and a half later." So please stop writing about it and wasting people's time. Unless you want to pick one of the two sides and stick to it.

[PhoenixAsh]

you are confusing Kropotkin and Proudhon.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Stirner was pretty anti-Semitic too, though in fact he was hardly an anarchist at all.

He wasn't an anarchist at all. He criticized anarchists. Although some anarchists adopted elements of his thought.


Kropotkin? Yes, almost as influential a figure in anarchism as Bakunin. Difference being that whereas Bakunin was an anarchist revolutionary, Kropotkin was against violence, and ended up supporting the Allies during WWI. Wrote a great book about the French Revolution however.

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion at all, honestly. He wasn't anti-violence when he was affiliated with the Tchaikovsky Circle, nor when he was part of the "Black International" (which basically co-signed unto the whole revolutionary violence idea that would become stereotypically "anarchist"), nor in his later life. Saying he was the godfather of anarchist "peace police" is completely bonkers! You could only maybe say he was "anti-violence" if compared to some of the more extreme demented anarchists of the era, like Luigi Galleani.

His stance on ww1 was a terrible treasonous position, but I suppose that conflict really made people show their true colors.


Who's Gesell?

Silvio Gesell, Italian mutualist. Received some praise from John Maynard Keynes for his economic treatise.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

You are wrong. Bakunin is to anarchists like Marx to Marxists. He's "the one" who founded anarchism as political ideology. Also, without Bakunins conflict with Marx anarchism wouldn't exist as ideology.
You have a point, but the original point still stands:

who actually gives a fuck about Bakunin anymore?
I'm with cmoney. I, as an anarchist, don't care for Bakunin. I know some anarchists do, but it seems like most people get their inspiration from Goldman, Berkman, Parsons, Durruti, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Rocker, or organizations (CNT-FAI, SAC, IWW, etc.)

I'm glad for what Bakunin started, but to me, anarchism truly began after Bakunin's death by his followers: Kropotkin, Malatesta, and the lesser-known Italian left (Costa, Cafiero, Merlino, etc.)

[NoOneIsIllegal]

I don't understand how you came to this conclusion at all, honestly. He wasn't anti-violence when he was affiliated with the Tchaikovsky Circle, nor when he was part of the "Black International" (which basically co-signed unto the whole revolutionary violence idea that would become stereotypically "anarchist"), nor in his later life. Saying he was the godfather of anarchist "peace police" is completely bonkers! You could only maybe say he was "anti-violence" if compared to some of the more extreme demented anarchists of the era, like Luigi Galleani.
I think the problem with people thinking Kropotkin was some type of pacfist if because his writing style was often romantic. People probably assumed he thought peaceful revolution was possible.
Even though he later distanced himself from the idea of Propaganda of the Deed, he wasn't anti-violence. There are few rare writings of his where you can see his more violent side. He stopped this because it didn't go over well with his followers; it sounded too forced and insincere. This still doesn't necessarily mean he abandoned violence as a force of revolutionary process.
(IIRC, you can find some these rare writings in "Words of a Rebel" from Black Rose Books)

[Belleraphone]

I don't see how this is relevant, sure he hated Jews, but he grew up in anti-Semitic Russia and as another user pointed out much of the European intellectuals had one reactionary opinion or another, so we can't just throw all of their arguments out the window. Bakunin's conflict with Marx stemmed from Bakunin's extreme paranoia and antisemitism, and maybe his (Bakunin's) own ego, but still agreed with Marxist economics. The one big thing he disagreed upon was The Dictatorship of the Proletariat, which I am told is not literally a workers state, it's just when the working class are in control. In the end Bakunin misinterpreted the phrase DoTP (Did Marx ever specifically clarify on this?) and that's what caused this rivalry. That and secret societies, but this stems more from his paranoia and not his political ideology. I still think most of his writings hold up.

[The Insurrection]

This may be true for a Marxist - when your ideology is named after and based on the ideas of an individual it may be expedient to defend said individual from criticism - but I don't see why an anarchist would ever feel any need to follow suit. Bakunin's various failings certainly don't represent my politics in the slightest, and as such I feel no urge to defend them, as I don't feel any urge to defend the positions of any other individual simply because they dared to call themselves an proponent of anarchy...

What failings am I defending. On the contrary, I'm setting the record straight.

You are of course entitled to do whatever you want, but as an anarchist and as someone with a clear knowledge and understanding of a historical figure who defined the ideology of which I prescribe, I feel an obligation to defend him from lies and slander against my political opponents. In the same way I would defend anyone who was an anarchist and whom was being attacked and criticised based on lies and misrepresentation. It's called solidarity.

[A Marxist Historian]

Didn't we just establish that I couldn't care less what Proudhon or Bakunin or Stirner or Kropotkin or Conan the Barbarian had to say about the best way to cook a steak? Actually I'd struggle to think of anything less relevant to 21st century activism...but if you wish to engage in ad homs (and it seems you do), then go ahead. Just don't expect anybody to take you all that seriously...

The world does not revolve around your head. Just because you don't give a damn about the history of your own movement doesn't mean that the rest of the political world feels the same.



...Strange. I thought you would have reserved that title for Proudhon, what with fascism being heavily influenced by the French Cercle Proudhon. Ah well. You really missed a golden opportunity there, boy!

Anyway, read much Nietzsche, have you?

Well, Proudhon was disgusting on many many levels but no, he wasn't the founder of fascism, he was one of the main founders of the French working class movement--unfortunately. Accuracy is important, not point scoring.

Nietsche on the other hand--I've tried to read that arrogant elitist pro-ruling class twit, and could never get beyond a few pages. Historian Arno Mayer did a brilliant analysis of the links between Nietzche and fascist ideology.

Whatever else one could say about Nietsche, he wasn't an anti-Semite. He hated the poor and the oppressed. He hated Christianity because he suspected Jesus of being in favor of the poor. He thought Jews were all rich, and were patrons of The Arts and not philistines like your average bourgeois.

So he wouldn't have been in favor of putting Jews in Auschwitz, but he would have been all in favor of the Ubermenschen doing whatever they goddam pleased with the Untermenschen, including killing them if they weren't useful as slaves. After all, they don't appreciate Art and Culture, dontcha know?



...
Quick question: are you aware of how many Marxists have written pretty extensively on Schmitt? And how many German Marxists in particular went to his house in the 60's and 70's and stuff to discuss politics with him and squeeze the wisdom out of his head? Because...well, considering the games you seem to like playing here, with all the "Proudhon was a racist therefore anarchists are fucked up" and "some anarchists like Nietzsche but Hitler liked Nietzsche so they're like totally the same thing" or whatever, I could easily bring out the "well plenty of Marxists don't seem all that offended by Negri and Virno and Badiou and all that but they're all a bunch of Nazi-lovers, so like a shitload of Marxists are actually crypto-Nazis or something so that means there's fascist sympathies inherent in Marxism because you can like Marxism and Nazism at like the same time and all that stuff so they must be pretty much identical, right?" I wouldn't make such an argument, though, partly because it would go against my previous assertion that even reactionary little so-and-sos can occasionally give us gems (as revolutionaries can dish up steaming turds every once in a while), and partly because it would be an unbelievably lazy and unconvincing argument. Though that's honestly the level you're at right about now...

Yeah, yeah, and Ezra Pound was a great poet, which he was come to think of it.

As for all those alleged Marxists hanging out with Schmitt, I think that was in poor taste and dumb. But I should hope none of 'em were dumb enough to go around saying that they were "Marxist-Schmittists" or something, which indeed would be some sort of "Third Way" crypto-fascism. Just 'cuz somebody says they're a Marxist don't mean they are.

In the words of Karl himself, "if that's Marxism, then I'm not a Marxist."

This is not some sort of game of guilt by association. The fact is that Proudhon and Bakunin and Kropotkin, and maybe a couple others, were the *creators* of anarchism as an ideology. So to understand anarchism you have to understand them. But then you don't really want to understand anarchism, 'cuz then you'd have to get serious.


...We just agreed it doesn't make any difference what the "founders of anarchism" said about anything because we don't care for "icon worship" (or "ritual exorcism," remember, though the fact that you wrote a load of crap defending Marx in response to my comment that I don't care what Marx thought or said about every little issue suggests you're more than a bit touchy about it) and also "none of that means a thing a century and a half later." So please stop writing about it and wasting people's time. Unless you want to pick one of the two sides and stick to it.

So anybody who gives a damn what the founders of anarchism has to say is either an icon worshipper or a devil exorciser? Jeez, how 'bout the contemporary anarchists? Why should we care what they have to say about anything either?

Proudhon and Kropotkin and Bakunin, whatever else you have to say about them, led big movements that mattered in the world. What they had to say is important.

What your average modern day anarchist who nobody much listens to, any more than they listen to your average modern day Marxist, the world being so reactionary right now, is not important and, compared to what P and K and B and Karl and so forth had to say, far, far less important.

'cuz, whatever else you have to say about them, they'd been there, done that, and knew what they were talking about.

-M.H.-

[JustMovement]

Why? Why does it matter to a modern day anarchist what Bakunin thought about the Jews? I still don't understand.

First, why is a modern day anarchist obliged to take on Bakunin? It is possible appreciate the historical significance of a thinker but recognise that they are outdated and have been superseded (I'm not saying this is the case with Bakunin in particular, but it is possible).

Second, does one particular opinion of Bakunin "infect" the rest of his thought? Can we not seperate ideas that are useful and relevant from the ones that are not? The wheat from the chaff?

Maybe sometimes this isn't possible. It can be argued that if you reject one aspect of a thinker than the whole coherence of their thought is destroyed. For example if you reject Marx's labour theory of value then you reject all of Marx's thought because it is all related.

Then though you have to prove though how Bakunin's anti-semitism (which is rightfully rejected) is fundamentally related to his critique of authority and capitalism.

Now to Nietzsche. I don't really know where to begin. Nietzsche didn't hate the poor and the oppressed. In fact in a sense he admired them. They are responsible for the development of our subtle mental life, and basically philosophy in general. If you know what the fuck Nietzsche was talking about with the ubermensch please enlighten us because no one is really sure and there are huge debates about this. What is more or less certain is that it had nothing to do with politics, and certainly nothing to do with killing slaves or whatever. Suggestions have ranged to living as if you had to live repeat it forever, living your life as if you were a character in a book, dominating your passions to put them to use, developing free will, being a "self-propelled" wheel... It's Nietzsche who the fuck knows what he was talking about (I say that affectionately). Anyways, if you are interested in Nietzsche read the Genealogy of Morals which will be the most readable one and vaguely relates to Marx's historical materialism, in fact it is about class struggle in a way.

[The Insurrection]

I challenge any anarchist to explain to me which aspects of Bakunin's ideology are outdated and why (aside from the anti-Semitism).

[A Marxist Historian]

Ummm, no...

Kropotkin was for a violent revolution: "There are periods in the life of human society when revolution becomes an imperative necessity, when it proclaims itself as inevitable. New ideas germinate everywhere, seeking to force their way into the light, to find an application in life; everywhere they are opposed by the inertia of those whose interest it is to maintain the old order; they suffocate in the stifling atmosphere of prejudice and traditions. ...Such periods demand revolution. It becomes a social necessity; the situation itself is revolutionary."

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/spiritofrevolt.html

Checked with a friend of mine with more expertise on anarchism than I have. I stand corrected, and hereby apologize to the ghost of Kropotkin.

Actually, it was pretty damn hard for any Russian to be a pacifist. Unless you're a total (albeit likable) nutcase like Tolstoy.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Why? Why does it matter to a modern day anarchist what Bakunin thought about the Jews? I still don't understand.

First, why is a modern day anarchist obliged to take on Bakunin? It is possible appreciate the historical significance of a thinker but recognise that they are outdated and have been superseded (I'm not saying this is the case with Bakunin in particular, but it is possible).

Second, does one particular opinion of Bakunin "infect" the rest of his thought? Can we not seperate ideas that are useful and relevant from the ones that are not? The wheat from the chaff?

Maybe sometimes this isn't possible. It can be argued that if you reject one aspect of a thinker than the whole coherence of their thought is destroyed. For example if you reject Marx's labour theory of value then you reject all of Marx's thought because it is all related.

Then though you have to prove though how Bakunin's anti-semitism (which is rightfully rejected) is fundamentally related to his critique of authority and capitalism.

Now to Nietzsche. I don't really know where to begin. Nietzsche didn't hate the poor and the oppressed. In fact in a sense he admired them. They are responsible for the development of our subtle mental life, and basically philosophy in general. If you know what the fuck Nietzsche was talking about with the ubermensch please enlighten us because no one is really sure and there are huge debates about this. What is more or less certain is that it had nothing to do with politics, and certainly nothing to do with killing slaves or whatever. Suggestions have ranged to living as if you had to live repeat it forever, living your life as if you were a character in a book, dominating your passions to put them to use, developing free will, being a "self-propelled" wheel... It's Nietzsche who the fuck knows what he was talking about (I say that affectionately). Anyways, if you are interested in Nietzsche read the Genealogy of Morals which will be the most readable one and vaguely relates to Marx's historical materialism, in fact it is about class struggle in a way.

Oh please, everybody has always been clear what Nietszche was talking about when he talked about the "ubermensch." When the Nazis started slaving and killing "untermenschen" they were just taking his ideas to their logical conclusion.

Arno Mayer did the great service of reading his letters, where he made it totally clear where he stood politically. He was a tremendous admirer of Tsarist Russia, that was his politcal model, and he wanted all socialists and anarchists to be killed.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Why? Why does it matter to a modern day anarchist what Bakunin thought about the Jews? I still don't understand.

First, why is a modern day anarchist obliged to take on Bakunin? It is possible appreciate the historical significance of a thinker but recognise that they are outdated and have been superseded (I'm not saying this is the case with Bakunin in particular, but it is possible).

Second, does one particular opinion of Bakunin "infect" the rest of his thought? Can we not seperate ideas that are useful and relevant from the ones that are not? The wheat from the chaff?

Maybe sometimes this isn't possible. It can be argued that if you reject one aspect of a thinker than the whole coherence of their thought is destroyed. For example if you reject Marx's labour theory of value then you reject all of Marx's thought because it is all related.

Then though you have to prove though how Bakunin's anti-semitism (which is rightfully rejected) is fundamentally related to his critique of authority and capitalism...



Back to Bakunin. How was his anti-Semitism related to his general worldview? Or Proudhon's?

This had to do with the basic nature of anarchism as a movement in the mid-late 19th century. As Marx and Engels explained, it wasn't a movement of the most advanced, heavy battalions of the industrial working class, but by and large of layers of the working class in small artisanal establishments, with especially in Proudhon's case visions of returning to the past rather than advancing to a socialist future. So heavily under the influence, again especially in Proudhon's case, of all sorts of medieval backwardness.

This is why Marxism dominated the workers movement of the most industrially advanced country of the late 19th Century, Germany, whereas anarchism was biggest in Spain and other economically and socially backward countries.

Nowadays? Going back to the past instead of moving forward to the future is certainly still a big factor in many forms of anarchism. Contemporary anarchism largely comes out of the "anti-globalization" movements of the '90s, which rebelled against "globalism" not capitalism, wanting to go back to an imagined better past. And at the extreme you get the primitivists and eco-anarchists, who want to abolish modern industry.

So Bakunin and Proudhon's anti-Semitism was not some weird accident, but meant something.

-M.H.-

[MarxSchmarx]

Chomsky is a fuckface.

Comrade, please be wary of oneliners in the future. The board has a nominal policy against this:



Spam/One-Line Posts

Please do not post any one-line posts like "I agree", "Good point", "Hear, Hear", or whatever to increase your post count. If you have nothing productive to say, don't say it!I think there is a legitimate critique to be levied against Noam Chomsky, namely that his leftist analysis is too confined to basically merely documenting the duplicity of the imperialist regimes. I think it is important to articulate your critique of Chomsky's approach more thoroughly for the benefit of members far less familiar with his work. Chomsky may be a "fuck-face" but in fairness so is Osama bin Laden, Pol Pot, and Steve Jobs. The critique must therefore extend beyond this point to be of import.

Thanks.

[Bronco]

This thread actually inspired me to read a bit more of Bakunin's work and I think people in this thread have somewhat understated his contribution to Anarchist thought and have given him too little credit. The Capitalist System in particular is a very powerful and damning critique of Capitalism while also remaining concise and easily understood, it's a text that I would recommend to Anarchists and Communists alike. It's also clear to if you look at his Recollections on Marx and Engels (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/various/mebio.htm) that, despite their differences, they did have a lot of respect for each other, and Bakunin concedes that Marx was more advanced than him in their early debates, I especially like this quote:


As far as learning was concerned, Marx was, and still is incomparably more advanced than I. I knew nothing at that time of political economy, I had not yet rid myself of my metaphysical aberrations, and my socialism was only instinctive. Although younger than I, he was already an atheist, a conscious materialist, and an informed socialist. It was precisely at this time that he was elaborating the foundations of his system as it stands today. We saw each other often. I greatly respected him for his learning and for his passionate devotion- thought it was always mingled with vanity- to the cause of the proletariat. I eagerly sought his conversation, which was always instructive and witty when it was not inspired by petty hate, which alas! was only too often the case. There was never any frank intimacy between us- our temperaments did not permit it. He called me a sentimental idealist, and he was right; I called him vain, perfidious, and cunning, and I also was right.

And Marx also apparently said that Bakunin "is one of the few people whom I find not to have retrogressed after 16 years, but to have developed further". So yeah, in spite of the anti-Semitism which should of course be condemned, I think people are a bit too quick to disregard him as something of an irrelevance today, when a lot of what he wrote is actually quite interesting and his criticism of States and the Church are still quite useful to any Anarchist

[Aspiring Humanist]

Not trying to justify antisemitism by any stretch but it was really really widespread back then, especially in europe
Tiny bit off topic, as I was browsing the religious literature section of my library I saw a book called "The Jews and their lies" written by none other than Martin Luther!
Thinking about buying a copy then leaving it in a Lutheran church to mess with them

[syndicat]

You are wrong. Bakunin is to anarchists like Marx to Marxists. He's "the one" who founded anarchism as political ideology. Also, without Bakunins conflict with Marx anarchism wouldn't exist as ideology.

well, this is clearly not correct. Bakunin was not much of a theorist, more of an activist or organizer. The split in the first international wasn't concocted by Bakunin but was a split with a whole political tendency in the international, which included many other activists such as Guillaume, Cesar Pepe, Anselmo Lorenzo and others. Bakunin's anti-semitism was not shared by others and was inconsistent with the tendency's internationalism. More to the point, it was not taken up as a part of anarchism historically. Anarchism has historically been anti-nationalist, anti-racist, internationalist.

Bakunin was inconsistent in other words. Also, it's not at all plausible to suppose that anarchism is defined by reference to Bakunin....or any particular theorist for that matter. The socialist movement of that era was at times defective in various ways, such as Marx & Engels' mistake about the beneficial effects of British colonization of India.

[derosnec]

Anti-Semitism and Anti-German stances are the dominant elements of Bakunin's socialism. These concepts (or “tracks”) can be found in following sources:

1. Aux citoyens rédacteurs du Réveil (Profession de foi d’un démocrate socialiste russe précédé d’une étude sur les juifs allemands), octobre 1969
2. La Théologie Politique de Mazzini et l’Internationale, décembre 1971
3. Lettre aux Internationaux de Bologne, décembre 1871
4. Rapports personnels avec Marx, décembre 1871
5. Aux Compagnons de la Fédération des Sections Internationales du Jura, février-mars 1872
6. Polémique au sujet des prétendues scissions de l’Internationale, Bulletin de la Fédération Jurassienne n°10/11 (15 juin 1872)
7. Lettre au journal la Libérte, Libérte, octobre 1872
8. Statism and Anarchy, 1873
9. Lettre au Journal de Genève, n°226, 25/09/1873
etc.. etc..

So, it is impossible to think that Bakunin's “anarchist” ideas without Anti-Semitism and Anti-German sentiments. In addition, there were many figures influenced by his ideas: “Anti-cratist” Eugene Dühring, “Dadaist” Hogo Ball and “Anarchists” James Guillaume, Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin.

I gonna admit: Some of these works remained unreleased during Bakunin's life. BUT his circle had been fully aware of his opinions.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Reading more about anti-semitism during this time period, it really does seem like a LOT of famous thinkers, philosophers and revolutionaries were anti-semitic.

Even people like Moses Hess (who was himself a Jew!) wrote in some of his earlier works about how "judentum" had poisoned the rest of society with a love of money, I believe he even used the word "bloodsucker".

[Nihilist Scud Missile]

I'm not sure if this has been said but antisemitism was almost the 'norm' back then. I'm not sure we Anarchists deify Bakunin (or any single anarchist) anyway. There was indeed a lot to learn from he and Marx's disagreements but it is rather unfair to broadly paint Marxism as authoritarian. His most important work is obviously the critique of the state and the nature of power which SHOULD have been somehow integrated into Marxism - even today we should attempt to find a sort of common ground which I would think surrounds making the revolution and post revolution process as democratic as humanly possible (which is why as an Anarchist I enjoy some of Kautsky's thoughts). The state is indeed (centralized power in the hands of a minority) to be mistrusted.

Anyway, most any socialist past or present had/has some very bad ideas or positions. In Bakunin's time though (not making excuses) antisemitism unfortunately wasn't really considered a bad position. He saw the large capitalists as being mainly Jewish so....do the math. I can't stand it when "Anarchist Nationalists" (NAZI "Anarchists") quote Bakunin to 'legitimize their filth. Oh well. Luckily we Anarchists don't people worship and take everything a long dead theorist said as the ten commandments handed down from heaven.

Some people have tried to show "Jews" were indeed the proverbial head of capitalism dating back to accumulated wealth made over the centuries via "money changing" even pre dating capitalism. I don't think it matters even if it were true. It is capital that needs to be abolished not Jews.


Nietzsche is a whole other topic. the only thing he said concerning communism was if the proletariat was indeed stronger than the bourgeoisie then in the end communism would prevail. His superman theory had nothing to do with racism or killing Jews - much of Nietzsche's works were twisted and perverted By Hitler- most of Hitlers actual inspiration came from the eugenics movement in America but Germany needed a German philosophy of racism. They used Nietzsche to some extent as they also used some Norse religion. This doesn't mean Norse religion is all about creating a master race. Again, history has almost completely ignored the role American eugenics had in forming Hitlers views. Hell, I'll bet my left foot Hitler didn't even understand Nietzsche's philosophy.