Bakunin's dictatorship

[Brutus]

All clubs, newspapers, and all manifestations of an anarchy of mere talk were to be abolished, all submitted to one dictatorial power; the young people and all able-bodied men divided into categories according to their character, ability, and inclination were to be sent throughout the country to provide a provisional revolutionary and military organization. The secret society directing the revolution was to consist of three groups, independent of and unknown to each other: one for the townspeople, another for the youth, and a third for the peasants.

Each of these societies was to adapt its action to the social character of the locality to which it was assigned. Each was to be organized on strict hierarchical lines, and under absolute discipline, These three societies were to be directed by a secret central committee composed of three or, at the most, five persons. In case the revolution was successful, the secret societies were not to be liquidated; on the contrary, they were to be strengthened and expanded, to take their place in the ranks of the revolutionary hierarchy.

Such a revolution, not limited to one nationality, would by its example and its fiery propaganda, attract not only Moravia, but ... in general all adjacent German territory.

In Russia I wanted a republic, but what kind of republic? Not a parliamentary one!! I believe that in Russia, more than anywhere else, a strong dictatorial power will be indispensable, but one which would concern itself solely with raising the standard of living and education of the peasant masses; a power free in direction and spirit but without parliamentary privileges; free to print books expressing the ideas of the people, hallowed by their Soviets, strengthened by their free activity, and unconstricted by anything or anyone.

Could someone explain this to me please. This appears to have goals contrary to a dictatorship. I'm sure I'm just being stupid, but I'm tired, so my brain isn't functioning.
Thanks

[Luc]

Could someone explain this to me please. This appears to have goals contrary to a dictatorship. I'm sure I'm just being stupid, but I'm tired, so my brain isn't functioning.
Thanks

Wheres it from?

[Brutus]

Wheres it from?
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1851/confession.htm

[Caj]

This is from his 1951 "Confession to Tsar Nicholas I," one of his earlier works written when he was more explicitly authoritarian.

[Brutus]

This is from his 1951 "Confession to Tsar Nicholas I," one of his earlier works written when he was more explicitly authoritarian.

Explicitly? Your saying he was secretly authoritarian later?

[Luc]

From Bakunin: The Creative Passion by Mark Leier


A socialist but not yet an anarchist, Bakunin believed that the state would still be necessary once the monarchy was abolished. Perhaps, he mused, Russia would require a "strong dictatorial government" for a time. Bakunin' detractors have pounced on this statement with glee to insist that he was the father of fascism and Stalinism. Even some Bolsheviks have argued that Bakunin was the prophet of the vanguard party. All of them have excited themselves unnecessarily. This was Bakunin's first attempt to resolve the questions of revolutionary tactics, strategy, and organisation, not his last. Yet even here it is obvious that his idea of a "dictatorship" bore no resemblance to fascism or vanguardism. In 1851 "dictatorship" meant something rather different than it does now. It reffered to the Roman practice of giving a magistrate limited, extraordinary powers in an emergency.

...

Later he would move even further from the notion of a benevolent dictatorship as his thinking became more sophisticated and subtle and as he understoodthat no one could be trusted to give up power once it had placed in their hands and that paternalism created infants, not adults.

[Comrade Jandar]

I like this Bakunin much better.

[Brutus]

I like this Bakunin much better.

Any reason, comrade?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Perhaps one should not put much stock in a confession extracted by an emissary of the emperor; it seems to me that Bakunin would have confessed to murdering Kirov at that point if he thought it would help him. And the editing is a bit suspect; it capitalises the term "soviet", implying that Bakunin is talking about something similar to the soviets in 1905 and 1917; but at the time of writing, "sovet" simply meant council.

Yes, I can be petty.

As for Bakunin's later authoritarianism, was Nechayev not one of his pupils, and closely affiliated with him? And Nechayev drew up a plan of life after the revolution that horrified Marx and Engels with its talk of "our committee" deciding everything for the members of society; the term "barracks communism" originally referred to this plan.

[Brutus]

Bakunin said "anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That he did; but perhaps he was not willing to apply that to his close associate Nechayev. Anyway, the association with the young radical ruined Bakunin's reputation in the First International, whether he agreed with Nechayev's views (the article Marx dismissed as "barracks-room communism" was called "Fundamentals of the Future Social Order", but I have not been able to find it online) or not.

[Luc]

EDIT: i am sorry for the bad spelling, aslo i have forgotten to delete some parts fully which has made my grammer worse than usual, im typing on ipod which is rlly hard to edit with if not just to type in the first place! Lol


Perhaps one should not put much stock in a confession extracted by an emissary of the emperor; it seems to me that Bakunin would have confessed to murdering Kirov at that point if he thought it would help him. And the editing is a bit suspect; it capitalises the term "soviet", implying that Bakunin is talking about something similar to the soviets in 1905 and 1917; but at the time of writing, "sovet" simply meant council.

Its not a confession its just a letter to basically tey and get his sentence reduced and to critique russian society and propose changes. This aint new The Decembrists did the same in hopes the Tsar would introduce some reforms. Bakunin had a sorta chivalry like respect for what he called "consistent reactionaries" like Nicholas I as opposed to the back stabbing and inconsistent reactionaries like liberals and parliamentarians. Naturally he made the cricisms flowery and probably threw in some sarcasm. Later he did he scoffed a the memory of this and of course he later abandoned the idea tha the Tsar or a benevolent dictator would introduce reforms.

As for Bakunin's later authoritarianism, was Nechayev not one of his pupils, and closely affiliated with him? And Nechayev drew up a plan of life after the revolution that horrified Marx and Engels with its talk of "our committee" deciding everything for the members of society; the term "barracks communism" originally referred to this plan.

lol Nechaev doesnt have much to do woth Bakunin except they hung out. Nechaev was selfish traitor who after escaping Russian repression brought on by his murdering of anotjer young radical because others wouldnt after he accussed the other radical o being a spy. After the police subsequant repression and making up a story about escaping Peter and Paul Fortress he went to West Europe and ran into Bakunin who had escaped exile in Siberia years before. Because Bakunin hadnt been clued into the Russian situation he stuck with Nechayev cos he was one of the few connections he had to the Russian radical youth. Nechaev's politics are closer to Jacobinism than Anarchism. Bakunin critised his terrorism and later broke with him after gettinf bakunin into shit.

[Skyhilist]

Section J.3.7 of the Anarchist FAQ does a much better job of explaining this than I could.

http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionJ3

[Caj]

Explicitly? Your saying he was secretly authoritarian later?

In some ways, yes (http://libcom.org/library/marx-bakunin-question-authoritarianism).

[Brutus]

Bakunin's invisible dictatorship appears to only want to inspire the masses to revolution.

[Arakir]

One idea is that he wrote this as a form of appeasement to the czar, rather than actually being honest. The context of this being written is Bakunin being incarcerated. This could be equivalent to how Galileo was forced to renounce his findings.