Bakunin suggests centralization?!

[RASH chris]

I was reading today and came across quite a quote, one which essentially suggests the Bakunin employed vanguardism. (arguably) But undeniably used centralization and hierarchy. Have a look:


The society was to consist of three separate independent societies under differnt names and unacquainted with one another: one for the bourgeois, one for the students, and one for the villages. Each was subject to a strict hierarchy and to unconditional obedience. . . . These societies were to be limited to a small number of people and were to include as far as possible only able, experiences, energetic and influencial men who, in strict obedience to a central control, would in thier turn work invisibly on the masses. All three societies were coordinated by a central committee, which would have consisted of three, or at most five members: myself, Arnold, and other whom we should have had to select. . . . If my plan had been carried out, all the chief threads of the movement would have been concentrated in my hands, and I could have been sure that the intended revolution in Bohemia would not stray from the lines I had laid down for it.

Note that last sentence! This has dealt a serious blow to my anarchist/libertarian theory. And I'm interested in hearing some anarchist response to the demonstration that Bakunin, an anarchist, saw no contradiction that he was organizing secret societies around strict hierarchy and centralization.

[apathy maybe]

Could you please provide a source, preferably a link to the work in question. Until you do you have not proved anything.

Nor should on paragraph by one anarchist theoretician be any sort of blow to your opinions, especially as it doesn't contradict them.

If you had found absolutely undeniable proof that all humans are by nature nasty scum bags, then yes that would be a serious blow.

It does not shake my belief in anarchism one bit. This is not anarchism, even if provided by a person who most think is an anarchist. Nor should it discredit his other work.

[Severian]

Right. Except "vanguardism" is the wrong term here. This has nothing to do with Lenin's concept of a party which would seek to recruit the most conscious, militant workers (which is what vanguard means) and which would openly, through persuasion and propaganda, seek to lead the working class.

Rather, Bakunin set up layers of secret organization, in order to manipulate workers. Besides deception, force was also used to impose this leadership on working people - Nechaev's murder of a Russian student who he saw as a rival to his leadership, for example.

As Engels pointed out: "For it is essential to emphasise that the secret nature of this Alliance is not aimed at eluding government vigilance, otherwise it would not have begun its existence as a public society; this secret nature had as its sole aim the deception of the uninitiated members of the International, proof of which is the base way in which the Alliance deceived the General Council. "source (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/bakunin-report.htm)

[The Feral Underclass]

Bakunin wasn't always an anarchist.

Can I please see the source for this quote?

[YKTMX]

“This organization rules out any idea of dictatorship and custodial control. But for the very establishment of the revolutionary alliance and the triumph of revolution over reaction, the unity of revolutionary thought and action must find an agent in the thick of the popular anarchy which will constitute the very life and all the energy of the revolution. That agent must be the secret universal association of international brothers.

“This association stems from the conviction that revolutions are never made by individuals or even by secret societies. They come about of themselves, produced by the force of things, the tide of events and facts.... All that a well-organized secret society can do is first to assist the birth of the revolution by sowing ideas corresponding to the instincts of the masses, then to organize, not the army of the revolution – the army must always be the people – but a kind of revolutionary general staff made up of devoted, hardworking and intelligent men, and above all of sincere friends of the people, without ambition or vanity, and capable of acting as intermediaries between the revolutionary idea and the popular instinct.

“Therefore there should be no vast number of these individuals.... Two or three hundred revolutionaries are enough for the largest country’s organization.”48



Bold mine.


So much for Saint Mikhail, eh?

[SonofRage]

from the Anarchist FAQ:



J.3.7 Doesn't Bakunin's "Invisible Dictatorship" prove that anarchists are secret authoritarians?

This claim is often made by Leninists and other Marxists and expresses a distinct, even wilful, misunderstanding of the role revolutionaries should play in popular movements and the ideas of Bakunin on this issue. In actual fact, the term "invisible dictatorship" does not prove that Bakunin or anarchists are secret authoritarians, for reasons we will explain.

Marxists quote Bakunin's terms "invisible dictatorship" and "collective dictatorship" out of context, using it to "prove" that anarchists are secret authoritarians, seeking dictatorship over the masses. More widely, the question of Bakunin and his "invisible dictatorship" finds its way into the most sympathetic accounts of anarchist ideas. For example, Peter Marshall writes that it is "not difficult to conclude that Bakunin's invisible dictatorship would be even more tyrannical than a . . . Marxist one" and that it expressed a "profound authoritarian and dissimulating streak in his life and work." [Demanding the Impossible, p. 287] So, the question of setting the record straight about this aspect of Bakunin's theory is of more importance than just correcting a few Leninists. In addition, to do so will help clarify the concept of "leadership of ideas" we discussed in the last section. For both these reasons, this section, while initially appearing somewhat redundant and of interest only to academics, is of a far wider interest.

It is particularly ironic that Leninists (followers of a person who created an actual, very visible, dictatorship) accuse anarchists of seeking to create a "dictatorship" -- but then again, irony and a sense of humour is not usually noted in Leninists and Trotskyists. In a similar fashion, they (quite rightly) attack Bakunin for being anti-Jewish but keep quiet strangely quiet on Marx and Engels anti-Slavism. Indeed, Marx once published an article by Engels which actually preached race hatred and violence -- "that hatred of the Russians was and remains the primary revolutionary passion of the Germans; and since the revolution it extends to the Czechs and the Croatians . . . we . . . can safeguard the revolution only by the most determined terrorism against these Slavic peoples" and that the "stubborn Czechs and the Slovaks should be grateful to the Germans, who have taken the trouble to civilise them." [cited in Bakunin on Anarchism, p.432] Obviously being anti-Slavic is okay, being anti-Jewish is not (they also keep quiet on Marx's anti-Jewish comments). The hypocrisy is clear.

Actually, it is in their attempts to smear anarchism with closet authoritarianism that the authoritarianism of the Marxists come to the fore. For example, in the British Socialist Workers Party journal International Socialism number 52, we find this treat of "logic." Anarchism is denounced for being "necessarily deeply anti-democratic" due to its "thesis of the absolute sovereignty of the individual ego." Then Hal Draper is quoted arguing that "[o]f all ideologies, anarchism is the most fundamentally anti-democratic in principle." [p. 145] So, because anarchism favours individuals being free and making their own decisions, it is less democratic than Fascism, Nazism and Stalinism! Makes you wonder what they mean by democracy if ideologies which actively promote leader worship and party/leader dictatorships are more "democratic" than anarchism! Of course, in actuality, for most anarchists individual sovereignty implies direct democracy in free associations (see, for example, section A.2.11 or Robert Graham's excellent essay "The Anarchist Contract" in Reinventing Anarchy, Again). Any "democracy" which is not based on individual freedom is too contradictory to be take seriously.

But to return to our subject. Anarchists have two responses to claims that Bakunin (and, by implication, all anarchists) seek an "invisible" dictatorship and so are not true libertarians. Firstly, and this is the point we will concentrate upon in this section, Bakunin's expression is taken out of context and when placed within its context it takes on a radically different meaning than that implied by critics of Bakunin and anarchism. Secondly, even if the expression means what the critics claim it does, it does not refute anarchism as a political theory (any more than Bakunin's racism or Proudhon's sexism and racism). This is because anarchists are not Bakuninists (or Proudhonists or Kropotkinites or any other person-ist). We recognise other anarchists as what they are, human beings who said lots of important and useful things but, like any other human being, they make mistakes and often do not live up to all of their ideas. For anarchists, it is a question of extracting the useful parts from their works and rejecting the useless (as well as the downright nonsense!). Just because Bakunin said something, it does not make it right! This common-sense approach to politics seems to be lost on Marxists. Indeed, if we take the logic of these Marxists to its conclusion, we must reject everything Rousseau wrote (he was sexist), Marx and Engels (their comments against Slavs spring to mind, along with numerous other racist comments) and so on. But, of course, this never happens to non-anarchist thinkers when Marxists write their articles and books.

However, to return to our main argument, that of the importance of context. What does the context around Bakunin's term "invisible dictatorship" bring to the discussion? Simply that whenever Bakunin uses the term "invisible" or "collective" dictatorship he also explicitly states his opposition to government (or official) power and in particular the idea that anarchist organisations should take such power. For example, the International Socialist review mentioned above quotes the following passage from "a Bakuninist document" to "prove" that the "principle of anti-democracy was to leave Bakunin unchallenged at the apex of power":

"It is necessary that in the midst of popular anarchy, which will constitute the very life and energy of the revolution, unity of thought and revolutionary action should find an organ. This organ must be the secret and world-wide association of the international brethren."

This passage is from point 9 of Bakunin's "Programme and Purpose of the Revolutionary Organisation of International Brothers." In the sentence immediately before those quoted, Bakunin stated that "[t]his organisation rules out any idea of dictatorship and custodial control." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 172] Strange that this part of point 9 of the programme was not quoted! Nor do they quote Bakunin when he wrote, in point 4 of the same programme, "[w]e are the natural enemies of those revolutionaries -- future dictators, regimentors and custodians of revolution -- who. . . [want] to create new revolutionary States just as centralist and despotic as those we already know . . ." Nor, in point 8, that since the "revolution everywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control must always belong to the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations . . . organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegations . . . [who] will set out to administer public services, not to rule over peoples." [Op. Cit., p. 169, p. 172]

(As an aside, we can understand why Leninists would not willing to quote point 8, as Bakunin's position is far in advance of Marx's on the structure of revolutionary society. Indeed, it was not until 1917, when Lenin supported the spontaneously created Soviets as the framework of his socialist state -- at least in rhetoric, in practice, as we discuss in the appendix on "What happened during the Russian Revolution?", he did not -- that Marxists belatedly discovered the importance of workers' councils. In other words, Bakunin predicted the rise of workers' councils as the framework of a socialist revolution -- after all the Russian soviets were, originally, "a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations." It must be embarrassing for Leninists to have one of what they consider as a key contribution to Marxism predicted over 50 years beforehand by someone Marx called an "ignoramus" and a "non-entity as a theoretician.")

Similarly, when we look at the situations where Bakunin uses the terms "invisible" or "collective" dictatorship (usually in letters to comrades) we find the same thing -- the explicit denial in these same letters that Bakunin thought the revolutionary association should take state/governmental power. For example, in a letter to Albert Richard (a fellow member of the anarchist "Alliance of Social Democracy") Bakunin states that "[t]here is only one power and one dictatorship whose organisation is salutary and feasible: it is that collective, invisible dictatorship of those who are allied in the name of our principle." He then immediately adds that "this dictatorship will be all the more salutary and effective for not being dressed up in any official power or extrinsic character." Earlier in the letter he argues that anarchists must be "like invisible pilots in the thick of the popular tempest. . . steer[ing] it [the revolution] not by any open power but by the collective dictatorship of all the allies -- a dictatorship without insignia, titles or official rights, and all the stronger for having none of the paraphernalia of power." Explicitly opposing "Committees of Public Safety and official, overt dictatorship" he explains his idea of a revolution based on "workers hav[ing] joined into associations . . . armed and organised by streets and quartiers, the federative commune." [Op. Cit., p. 181, p. 180 and p. 179] Hardly what would be expected from a would-be dictator?

As Sam Dolgoff notes, "an organisation exercising no overt authority, without a state, without official status, without the machinery of institutionalised power to enforce its policies, cannot be defined as a dictatorship. . . Moreover, if it is borne in mind that this passage is part of a letter repudiating in the strongest terms the State and the \zauthoritarian statism of the 'Robespierres, the Dantons, and the Saint-Justs of the revolution,' it is reasonable to conclude that Bakunin used the word 'dictatorship' to denote preponderant influence or guidance exercised largely by example. . . In line with this conclusion, Bakunin used the words 'invisible' and 'collective' to denote the underground movement exerting this influence in an organised manner." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 182]

This analysis is confirmed by other passages from Bakunin's letters. In a letter to the Nihilist Sergi Nechaev (within which Bakunin indicates exactly how far apart politically they where -- which is important as, from Marx onwards, many of Bakunin's opponents quote Nechaev's pamphlets as if they were "Bakuninist," when in fact they were not) we find him arguing that:

"These [revolutionary] groups would not seek anything for themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power. . . [but] would be in a position to direct popular movements . . . [via] the collective dictatorship of a secret organisation. . . The dictatorship. . . does not reward any of the members. . . or the groups themselves. . . with any. . . official power. It does not threaten the freedom of the people, because, lacking any official character, it does not take the place of State control over the people, and because its whole aim. . . consists of the fullest realisation of the liberty of the people.

"This sort of dictatorship is not in the least contrary to the free development and the self-development of the people, nor its organisation from the bottom upward. . . for it influences the people exclusively through the natural, personal influence of its members, who have not the slightest power. . .to direct the spontaneous revolutionary movement of the people towards. . . the organisation of popular liberty. . . This secret dictatorship would in the first place, and at the present time, carry out a broadly based popular propaganda. . . and by the power of this propaganda and also by organisation among the people themselves join together separate popular forces into a mighty strength capable of demolishing the State." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 193-4]

The key aspect of this is the term "natural influence." In a letter to Pablo, a Spanish member of the Alliance, we find Bakunin arguing that the Alliance "will promote the Revolution only through the natural but never official influence of all members of the Alliance. . ." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 387] This term was also used in his public writings. For example, we find in one of his newspaper articles Bakunin arguing that the "very freedom of every individual results from th[e] great number of material, intellectual, and moral influences which every individual around him and which society. . . continually exercise on him" and that "everything alive . . . intervene[s] . . . in the life of others. . . [so] we hardly wish to abolish the effect of any individual's or any group of individuals' natural influence upon the masses." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 140, p. 141]

Thus "natural influence" simply means the effect of communicating which others, discussing your ideas with them and winning them over to your position, nothing more. This is hardly authoritarian, and so Bakunin contrasts this "natural" influence with "official" influence, which replaced the process of mutual interaction between equals with a fixed hierarchy of command and thereby induced the "transformation of natural influence, and, as such, the perfectly legitimate influence over man, into a right." [cited by Richard B. Saltman, The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin, p. 46]

As an example of this difference, consider the case of a union militant (as will become clear, this is the sort of example Bakunin had in mind). As long as they are part of the rank-and-file, arguing their case at union meetings or being delegated to carry out the decisions of these assemblies then their influence is "natural." However, if this militant is elected into a position with executive power in the union (i.e. becomes a full-time union official, for example, rather than a shop-steward) then their influence becomes "official" and so, potentially, corrupting for both the militant and the rank-and-file who are subject to the rule of the official.

Indeed, this notion of "natural" influence (or authority) was also termed "invisible" by Bakunin -- "[i]t is only necessary that one worker in ten join the [International Working-Men's] Association earnestly and with full understanding of the cause for the nine-tenths remaining outside its organisation nevertheless to be influenced invisibly by it. . ." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 139] So, as can be seen, the terms "invisible" and "collective" dictatorship used by Bakunin in his letters is strongly related to the term "natural influence" used in his public works and seems to be used simply to indicate the effects of an organised political group on the masses. To see this, it is worthwhile to quote Bakunin at length about the nature of this "invisible" influence:

"It may be objected that this. . . [invisible] influence. . . suggests the establishment of a system of authority and a new government. . . [but this] would be a serious blunder. The organised effect of the International on the masses. . . is nothing but the entirely natural organisation -- neither official nor clothed in any authority or political force whatsoever -- of the effect of a rather numerous group of individuals who are inspired by the same thought and headed toward the same goal, first of all on the opinion of the masses and only then, by the intermediary of this opinion (restated by the International's propaganda), on their will and their deeds. But the governments. . . impose themselves violently on the masses, who are forced to obey them and to execute their decrees. . . The International's influence will never be anything but one of opinion and the International will never be anything but the organisation of the natural effect of individuals on the masses." [Op. Cit., pp. 139-40]

Therefore, from both the fuller context provided by the works and letters selectively quoted by anti-anarchists and his other writings, we find that rather than being a secret authoritarian, Bakunin was, in fact, trying to express how anarchists could "naturally influence" the masses and their revolution. As he himself argues:

"We are the most pronounced enemies of every sort of official power. . . We are the enemies of any sort of publicly declared dictatorship, we are social revolutionary anarchists. . . if we are anarchists, by what right do we want to influence the people, and what methods will we use? Denouncing all power, with what sort of power, or rather by what sort of force, shall we direct a people's revolution? By a force that is invisible. . . that is not imposed on anyone. . . [and] deprived of all official rights and significance." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, pp. 191-2]

Continually opposing "official" power, authority and influence, Bakunin used the term "invisible, collective dictatorship" to describe the "natural influence" of organised anarchists on mass movements. Rather than express a desire to become a dictator, it in fact expresses the awareness that there is an "uneven" political development within the working class, an unevenness that can only be undermined by discussion within the mass assemblies of popular organisations. Any attempt to by-pass this "unevenness" by seizing or being elected to positions of power (i.e. by "official influence") would be doomed to failure and result in dictatorship by a party -- "triumph of the Jacobins or the Blanquists [or the Bolsheviks, we must add] would be the death of the Revolution." [Op. Cit., p. 169]

This analysis can be seen from Bakunin's discussion on union bureaucracy and how anarchists should combat it. Taking the Geneva section of the IWMA, Bakunin notes that the construction workers' section "simply left all decision-making to their committees . . . In this manner power gravitated to the committees, and by a species of fiction characteristic of all governments the committees substituted their own will and their own ideas for that of the membership." [Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 246] To combat this bureaucracy, "the construction workers. . . sections could only defend their rights and their autonomy in only one way: the workers called general membership meetings. Nothing arouses the antipathy of the committees more than these popular assemblies. . . In these great meetings of the sections, the items on the agenda was amply discussed and the most progressive opinion prevailed. . ." [Op. Cit., p. 247]

more here: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ3.html#secj37

[YKTMX]

What a pitiful little piece that is.


It is particularly ironic that Leninists (followers of a person who created an actual, very visible, dictatorship) accuse anarchists of seeking to create a "dictatorship" -- but then again, irony and a sense of humour is not usually noted in Leninists and Trotskyists.

I'll ignore the historical ineptitude for the sake of sanity. In my experience, Trots are a barrel of laughs, whereas Anarchist are pretentious, middle class, unwashed sandle wearers who wouldn't know what a working class person looked like they had a map and a diagram. Anyway, leaving that aside.



Any "democracy" which is not based on individual freedom is too contradictory to be take seriously.


Rubbish, absolute nonsense. Of course individual freedom has its limits in democracy. Democracy can only exist if individual freedom stops somewhere, presumably at the point where it infringes upon the freedom of others. Democracy is the rule of the people, not the rule of the individual ego, with all its whims and fluctuations.

"Starting from unlimited freedom, I arrive at unlimited despotism".


Bakunin's expression is taken out of context

But of course.

I find this article interesting in that uses all Bakunin's flowery rhetoric to repeal some other things he wrote and did.

Of course, if I was to try this tactic with Lenin and Trotsky, and some of the stuff they wrote and did during the Civil War (a period when one's ideals are far more pressured) I would get shouted down by someone screaming something along the lines of "they planned it all along".


"These [revolutionary] groups would not seek anything for themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power. . . [but] would be in a position to direct popular movements . . . [via] the collective dictatorship of a secret organisation. . . The dictatorship. . . does not reward any of the members. . . or the groups themselves. . . with any. . . official power. It does not threaten the freedom of the people, because, lacking any official character, it does not take the place of State control over the people, and because its whole aim. . . consists of the fullest realisation of the liberty of the people.


Lovely. So what do we have here, a few hundred annointed anarchists, appearing before the befuddled masses with their messianic propaganda designed to "naturally" win over the masses. These people don't have wings and halos do they? :lol:

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Don't spam.

Atleast make an usefull respons. You don't refute any point that he made. You only make another accusation of anarchists being some sort of middle-class tree hugging hippies. Which is utter-bullshit, not even worthy to adress.

Thank you SonofRage, enjoyed reading that.

[BOZG]

It does not shake my belief in anarchism one bit. This is not anarchism, even if provided by a person who most think is an anarchist. Nor should it discredit his other work.

It's quite surprising how often this excuse is acceptable to anarchists but is not acceptable if made by Leninists.

[YKTMX]

Exactly, BOZG. Not only do "we" have to "pay" for the excesses of Lenin himself, but Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, they're all "our" fault as well. Whereas the Anarchists are, of course, as pure as the driven snow.


Don't spam

That wasn't spam. If you think it was then you don't understand what 'spam' means.



Which is utter-bullshit, not even worthy to adress.


If you'll read the post, I was responding to the acusation that Trotskyists have "no sense of humour", so I thought I would reply with a little cruel stereotype of my own.

Didn't realise you were so sensitive, s'cute.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 09:50 AM
Marxists quote Bakunin's terms "invisible dictatorship" and "collective dictatorship" out of context,
Ridiculous. Whole paragraphs have been quoted - right up the end of the program.
Hardly out of context.

Here's the source for YouKnowTheyMurderedX's quote - the program of Bakunin's secret "Brotherhood." (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm)

By way of contrast, here's the program of its public face. (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1868/iasd-program.htm) The dupes are not to know who's really in charge. Angkar anyone?

And we also know what Bakunin and the Alliance did, which was indeed an attempt to impose a dictatorship on the International Working Men's Association through deception and sometimes force.

And we have two different, contradictory excuses being made here:

That Bakunin didn't advocate these things; he's been misinterpreted.

And that Bakunin, in advocating these things, was not being anarchist.

Of course different people are using these different excuses. But clearly those making the second excuse know the first is false.

(This is, in fact, from a period when he was an anarchist and the main leader of anarchism. The period when he was the leader of the Alliance and operating within the IWMA. Not only do most people consider Bakunin an anarchist; most anarchists today consider Bakunin an anarchist.)

I would also be interested in knowing the source for the first quote; but it's wholly consistent with everything else Bakunin said and did.

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:53 PM

Ridiculous. Whole paragraphs have been quoted - right up the end of the program.
Hardly out of context.

There's nothing ridiculous about it, because if you go to the link I provided you will see the full context. Go read it: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secJ3.html#secj37

[Severian]

No, that FAQ you linked only quotes a sentence here and there - out of context. If you go to the link I gave, you see the whole context - its the full text of the document by Bakunin. All the relevant paragraphs are quoted in X's post.

Possibly you are inventing some new meaning for the phrase "out of context", opposite to its usual meaning?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:56 PM

It does not shake my belief in anarchism one bit. This is not anarchism, even if provided by a person who most think is an anarchist. Nor should it discredit his other work.

It's quite surprising how often this excuse is acceptable to anarchists but is not acceptable if made by Leninists.
What are you talking about? When is it useful for Leninists to use this argument against anarchists?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:23 PM

"These [revolutionary] groups would not seek anything for themselves, neither privilege nor honour nor power. . . [but] would be in a position to direct popular movements . . . [via] the collective dictatorship of a secret organisation. . . The dictatorship. . . does not reward any of the members. . . or the groups themselves. . . with any. . . official power. It does not threaten the freedom of the people, because, lacking any official character, it does not take the place of State control over the people, and because its whole aim. . . consists of the fullest realisation of the liberty of the people.


Lovely. So what do we have here, a few hundred annointed anarchists, appearing before the befuddled masses with their messianic propaganda designed to "naturally" win over the masses. These people don't have wings and halos do they? :lol:
Bakunin is reaffirming the necessity of libertarian organisation within these revolutionary collectives. Nothing more.

None of the words formed in that paragraph you quoted relate to what you said.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Bakunin+--> (Bakunin)“This organization rules out any idea of dictatorship and custodial control. But for the very establishment of the revolutionary alliance and the triumph of revolution over reaction, the unity of revolutionary thought and action must find an agent in the thick of the popular anarchy which will constitute the very life and all the energy of the revolution. That agent must be the secret universal association of international brothers. [/b]
What are your criticisms here?

It's difficult to critique Bakunin without putting it into historical context. When Bakunin wrote these books and pamphlets it was at a time of massive reaction in Europe. People were arrested, murdered, executed and the right to free speech was non-existent in places like France, Germany and Russia, which were ruled by despotic tyrants.

Creating a secret alliance of revolutionaries must have been a practical solution to a tyrannical problem. Inciting dissent and agitating rebellion at that time was extremely dangerous. The Paris commune is a prime example of revolution being attempted and then being ruthlessly suppressed. Had these small revolutionary groups existed around France to incite unity with the commune, things may have been different, no?

The organisation of secret "collectives" of anarchists was a necessity in order to move within these countries and spread propaganda without being detected. I don't see anything wrong with that?

As it stands now, this is no longer the case, so the rejection of these ideas about organisation are both desirable and necessary. Ok?


Originally posted by [email protected]
“Therefore there should be no vast number of these individuals.... Two or three hundred revolutionaries are enough for the largest country’s organization.”48

Spread over an entire country. This would make sure that the centralisation of power over the masses could not happen. Having small groups of people working separately around a country can be an effective way of agitating in times of extreme reaction.


YKTMX
So much for Saint Mikhail, eh?

So much for what? What are your criticisms?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:53 PM
I would also be interested in knowing the source for the first quote; but it's wholly consistent with everything else Bakunin said and did.
Yes, actually it would be wholly inconsistent, both with his recorded ideas and with the quotes laid out in this thread.

Bakunin clarifies ways of libertarian organisation and asserts the need for a secret organisation of revolutionaries in the quotes by YKTMX.

The quote punk gave suggests that Bakunin actually wanted to control a revolution personally, which would contradict everything else which has been quoted here, and books like 'Marxism, Freedom and the State' and 'Stateless Socialism.'

[The Feral Underclass]

Also, for those people who are unaware of Bakunin's thoughts on the reaction I have mentioned, I would insist that you read 'Statism and Anarchy', which was the first volume to a massive work critiquing European reaction in unbelievable depth.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2005, 04:55 AM
When Bakunin wrote these books and pamphlets it was at a time of massive reaction in Europe. People were arrested, murdered, executed and the right to free speech was non-existent in places like France, Germany and Russia, which were ruled by despotic tyrants.
A feeble excuse which has already been answered in this thread - and over 150 years ago.

As Engels pointed out: "For it is essential to emphasise that the secret nature of this Alliance is not aimed at eluding government vigilance, otherwise it would not have begun its existence as a public society; this secret nature had as its sole aim the deception of the uninitiated members of the International, proof of which is the base way in which the Alliance deceived the General Council.

The First International's investigating commission (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-commission/index.htm) found considerable evidence, including Bakunin's correspondence, that the organization was secret to deceive the membership of the international, not the cops.

May I point out also that plenty of parties which have operated secretly under repressive regimes, have not kept their existence or their program secret from the people they claim to serve. Only their membership and operations are kept secret from the cops.


This would make sure that the centralisation of power over the masses could not happen. Having small groups of people working separately around a country can be an effective way of agitating in times of extreme reaction.

Nonsense. This was merely the innermost layer controlling larger organizations - in a hierarchy of degrees of secrecy. On top, the "international brothers", then the "national brothers", then the public Alliance, then the First International it was operating in.

The small size assures, rather, that the secret brotherhood is alien to the masses, that they are not represented in it, that instead it is responsive to Bakunin's dogmas and Bakunin personally. Extreme exclusivity, and making small size a virtue, has also been a characteristic of some of the worst Stalinist parties, including in power.


The quote punk gave suggests that Bakunin actually wanted to control a revolution personally, which would contradict everything else which has been quoted here.

The biggest nonsense yet. Bakunin said his secret brotherhood would be the general staff of the army of the people. A general staff controls an army.

And actions speak louder. In Spain, where the Bakuninists took power temporarily and locally, they set up complete dictatorships where people needed permits even to move around.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 01:53 PM
As Engels pointed out: "For it is essential to emphasise that the secret nature of this Alliance is not aimed at eluding government vigilance, otherwise it would not have begun its existence as a public society; this secret nature had as its sole aim the deception of the uninitiated members of the International, proof of which is the base way in which the Alliance deceived the General Council.
In respect to anarchism, no one should trust Engel. I certainly do not accept he is a valid source. His aims were always to undermine or distort it Bakunin and anarchism.


The First International's investigating commission (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-commission/index.htm) found considerable evidence, including Bakunin's correspondence, that the organization was secret to deceive the membership of the international, not the cops.

One does not exclude the other.

And so what? what do you expect when the organisation is controlled by a tyrannical bureaucrat.


May I point out also that plenty of parties which have operated secretly under repressive regimes, have not kept their existence or their program secret from the people they claim to serve. Only their membership and operations are kept secret from the cops.

There intentions were to smash capitalism and overthrow the state to create an anarchist society. I don't think Bakunin or his followers had any other intentions or claimed otherwise.


Nonsense. This was merely the innermost layer controlling larger organizations - in a hierarchy of degrees of secrecy. On top, the "international brothers", then the "national brothers", then the public Alliance, then the First International it was operating in.

Bakunin never hid his organisational opinions. The idea of smaller bodies of organisation moving up to a larger bodies of organisation is one of his proponents and he never claimed otherwise. If you had taken the time to study him, you'd know that.

Also, your opinions on hierarchy or the organisation of such bodies are pure speculation. You have no evidence to support that hierarchy existed within these organisations or that one group exacted control over the other.


The small size assures, rather, that the secret brotherhood is alien to the masses, that they are not represented in it, that instead it is responsive to Bakunin's dogmas and Bakunin personally.

Speculative opinion, not fact.


The biggest nonsense yet. Bakunin said his secret brotherhood would be the general staff of the army of the people. A general staff controls an army.

It's a figure of speech.

Bakunin also stated, including in the quotes that YKTMX listed, that these groups should have no power over or privilege to those they were serving.

The quote from Punk isn't even sourced and this little rant of yours still does not prove that Bakunin personally wanted to control a revolution, which would indeed contradict everything he had written about achieving anarchism.


And actions speak louder. In Spain, where the Bakuninists took power temporarily and locally, they set up complete dictatorships where people needed permits even to move around.

Even if that's true, so what? How do you know that these decisions weren't a collective one?

[RASH chris]

My quote was from "Bakunin's 1851 Confession to the Czar.

My having said that it dealt a blow to my libertarians opinions was a bit of an overstatement (in hindsight). More specificaly it has dealt a blow to my opinion of Bakunin.

My issue isn't so much with the societies themselves, so much as the fact that Bakunin was to be the central figure and the end-all authority in these societies, which is, in my eyes, not anarchistic. And this, also combined with his (Bakunin) attempts to take over the IWA.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 4 2005, 08:24 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jun 4 2005, 08:24 AM)
[email protected] 4 2005, 01:53 PM
As Engels pointed out: "For it is essential to emphasise that the secret nature of this Alliance is not aimed at eluding government vigilance, otherwise it would not have begun its existence as a public society; this secret nature had as its sole aim the deception of the uninitiated members of the International, proof of which is the base way in which the Alliance deceived the General Council.
In respect to anarchism, no one should trust Engel. I certainly do not accept he is a valid source. His aims were always to undermine or distort it Bakunin and anarchism. [/b]
Ad hominem. Answer the idea, please.


And so what? what do you expect when the organisation is controlled by a tyrannical bureaucrat.

Oh, that's exactly what I expect from the Alliance controlled by Bakunin.

Heh. Of course, you probably mean Marx. In fact, he didn't control the International; the majority on its General Council was held by English trade unionists.

The International was not a Marxist organization, it included a number of tendencies. Although Marx drafted most of its programmatic documents, he limited them to the points which the different tendencies could agree on. He led the International politically through open persuasion, the opposite of Bakunin's secret dictatorship.

Of the various socialist tendencies, only the Bakuninists could not accept this situation and the International's rules. Though they promised to accept them, this proved to be a lie.


Bakunin never hid his organisational opinions. The idea of smaller bodies of organisation moving up to a larger bodies of organisation is one of his proponents and he never claimed otherwise. If you had taken the time to study him, you'd know that.

This is completely false, and "if you had taken the time to study him, you'd know that." Read the links I gave. There's nothing in the program of the public Alliance acknowledging the existence of the secret Brotherhood. The documents of the secret Brotherhood were, well, secret. Then, in entering the International, Bakunin claimed to dissolve even the public Alliance, but he lied. The Bakuninists refused to cooperate with the commission attempting to find out the truth. Bakunin's letters published by that commission contradict his public declarations.

Frankly, this discussion reminds me of arguing with a fanatical Maoist. They refuse to look at the evidence of what Mao actually did, and persist in blindly believing everything Mao ever said about himself. They repeat Mao's phrases as if word spoke louder than actions. You're doing the same thing with Bakunin.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 4 2005, 10:35 AM
It's quite surprising how often this excuse is acceptable to anarchists but is not acceptable if made by Leninists.
What are you talking about? When is it useful for Leninists to use this argument against anarchists? [/quote]
My point is that anarchists will often raise some point about excesses made by Lenin or Trotsky (fictitious or not, I won't get into that debate) and then use it to discredit the works of Lenin or Trotsky as a whole because their supposed actions contradict their writings. And this type of argument is perfectly acceptable to anarchists but when the same logic is used against anarchists, they dismiss it with petty arguments such as that Bakunin wasn't always an anarchist or that "well he wrote this other book that says this or that so therefore he couldn't have". That same logic, if ever used by a Marxist is dismissed and criticised without a second's thought.

[Severian]

Originally posted by anarchopunk[email protected] 4 2005, 11:00 AM
My quote was from "Bakunin's 1851 Confession to the Czar.


Thanks. Here's part of Bakunin's confession, taken from a book edited by the anarchist Sam Dolgoff. (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1851/confession.htm)

Incidentally, the very existence of that groveling confession reflects Bakunin's lack of backbone. Many Russian revolutionaries refused to repent even when faced with death; Bakunin repents and begs the tsar's forgiveness in hopes of getting better prison conditions.


My having said that it dealt a blow to my libertarians opinions was a bit of an overstatement (in hindsight). More specificaly it has dealt a blow to my opinion of Bakunin.

Right. This type of conduct isn't inherent in anarchism - or limited to it. It's the conduct of a petty-bourgeois sect seeking to impose its petty-bourgeois dogmas on the workers' movement regardless of the will of the workers. 'Other anarchist groups in history have had different class composition...for example, the later Spanish CNT was a workers' organization...and its leadership were simply union bureuacrats.

'Course, some anarchists today persist in making excuses for this behavior, which does tell you something about them, IMO.

More fun with Bakunin's secret dictatorship:

1870 letter to Albert Richard (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1870/albert-richard.htm)
"We must bring forth anarchy, and in the midst of the popular tempest, we must be the invisible pilots guiding the Revolution, not by any kind of overt power but by the collective dictatorship of all our allies [members of the anarchist vanguard organization International Alliance of Social Democracy], a dictatorship without tricks, without official titles, without official rights, and therefore all the more powerful, as it does not carry the trappings of power."

Note that most of this stuff was not written during a period of reaction when only secret organization was possible, contrary to what TAT says. This stuff was writtent pre-1871, during the period leading up to the Paris Commune - not during the reaction that followed its defeat. The International, a wholly open and public organization, was growing throughout this period.

[redstar2000]

You Leninist guys are having so much fun bashing Bakunin that I think there's a small detail that you've understandably overlooked.

Modern anarchists are not "organizational Bakuninists" -- they don't use his ideas in their own organizations now.

So while you're pounding the crap out of that corpse, you might want to keep in mind that what you're saying has no contemporary relevance whatsoever.

Moved to the History forum.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:56 AM

It does not shake my belief in anarchism one bit. This is not anarchism, even if provided by a person who most think is an anarchist. Nor should it discredit his other work.

It's quite surprising how often this excuse is acceptable to anarchists but is not acceptable if made by Leninists.
The difference is that anarchists do not call themselves Bakuninists, while Leninists do.

I, as an anarchist, am quite prepared to accept that a lot of what Lenin said makes sense. However, his crap about vanguardism seems to me, to be crap. The same with Marx, I think that Marx said a lot of good stuff. But I don't go around calling myself a Marxist.

Besides, anarchists vary so much, some anarchists aren't even communist, and thus would not hold Bakunin up to the same extent. (Individualist and Syndicalist come to mind.)

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:21 AM
My point is that anarchists will often raise some point about excesses made by Lenin or Trotsky (fictitious or not, I won't get into that debate) and then use it to discredit the works of Lenin or Trotsky as a whole because their supposed actions contradict their writings.
Trotsky and Lenin were perfectly clear about their intentions.


That same logic, if ever used by a Marxist is dismissed and criticised without a second's thought.

I haven't dismissed the points raised in here. I perfectly accept that Bakunin said, believed and did the things mentioned in this thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:06 AM
Ad hominem. Answer the idea, please.
What idea? That Bakunin deceived the General Council of the International? So what! It may well have been necessary.


In fact, he didn't control the International; the majority on its General Council was held by English trade unionists.

Then you say:


He led the International politically through open persuasion, the opposite of Bakunin's secret dictatorship.

So you have highlighted a tactical difference between the person who controlled the political nature of the international and the person who wanted to destroy that authority.


Of the various socialist tendencies, only the Bakuninists could not accept this situation and the International's rules. Though they promised to accept them, this proved to be a lie.

First of all, I'm not going to apologise for Bakunin's actions. Secondly, whether Bakunin lied or not is of little consequence. His abilities as a revolutionary and as a theorist are not disputable.

His tactics of organisation may not be appropriate now, but may have been then. The threat of authoritarianism on the international must have been intimidating. I can understand why he employed those tactics.



Bakunin never hid his organisational opinions. The idea of smaller bodies of organisation moving up to larger bodies of organisation is one of his proponents and he never claimed otherwise. If you had taken the time to study him, you'd know that.

This is completely false, and "if you had taken the time to study him, you'd know that."

Don't be absurd. Read 'Revolutionary Catechism' for one.


There's nothing in the program of the public Alliance acknowledging the existence of the secret Brotherhood.

That's because it was secret. My point was that the organisational points you seem to think contradicts Bakunin's overall political beliefs, in fact don't. The organisation of groups as you mentioned is a Bakuninist tenet, one I have discussed on this board.

He advocated multi-tier federalism. From local groups to regional groups to national groups to international groups. The organisation of this brotherhood was entirely inline with his beliefs.


Then, in entering the International, Bakunin claimed to dissolve even the public Alliance, but he lied. The Bakuninists refused to cooperate with the commission attempting to find out the truth. Bakunin's letters published by that commission contradict his public declarations.

So?


Frankly, this discussion reminds me of arguing with a fanatical Maoist. They refuse to look at the evidence of what Mao actually did, and persist in blindly believing everything Mao ever said about himself. They repeat Mao's phrases as if word spoke louder than actions. You're doing the same thing with Bakunin.

I accept that Bakunin may have lied, he may have created a secret organisation and he may have had several bodies increasing in federalisation.


This stuff was writtent pre-1871, during the period leading up to the Paris Commune - not during the reaction that followed its defeat.

European reaction was intensely tyrannical and oppressive long before the consequences of the Paris Commune.


The International, a wholly open and public organization, was growing throughout this period.

An open organisation dominated and controlled by one man. Keeping information and tactics a secret from Marx was most likely a necessity.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jun 7 2005, 06:24 AM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jun 7 2005, 06:24 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 02:06 AM
Ad hominem. Answer the idea, please.
What idea? That Bakunin deceived the General Council of the International? So what! It may well have been necessary. [/b]
The membership. You're dodging.

I wrote a response to the rest of your post, but then I realized I was just repeating myself. You've avoided all the real points and made charges of "authoritarianism" in the International without providing any supporting evidence, and which are ridiculous in light of the many tendencies in the international and the non-Marxist majority on the General Council.

Oh yeah, one new thing: The "revolutionary catechism" does not in fact contain anything about party organization. Bakunin's documents which do contain his views on "revolutionary" organization, were not intended for public distribution. A lot of currently well-known Bakunin writing wasn't....his "Confession", for example, only became public knowledge after the Russian Revolution opened the tsar's files.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 01:59 PM
The membership. You're dodging.
What do you actually want me to discuss here?


You've avoided all the real points

What points? You have made claims about Bakunin, I have agreed with you. Albeit in a different way.

It seems to me that you're trying to say something without saying it. If you want to attack the validity of Bakunin's tactics, then make your point.


made charges of "authoritarianism" in the International without providing any supporting evidence

I don't think I need to prove Marx was an authoritarian and 'Marxism, Freedom and the State' along with 'Anarchy and the State' are proof enough.


which are ridiculous in light of the many tendencies in the international and the non-Marxist majority on the General Council

Bollocks.


Oh yeah, one new thing: The "revolutionary catechism" does not in fact contain anything about party organization.

I never claimed that it did.

You seem to be criticising Bakunin, accusing him of being a hypocrite or keeping his organisational beliefs a secret. That isn't true.

He may well have kept his Alliance a secret, but the organisation of it was never hidden. He never argued anything other than multi-tier federalism and infact his secret organisational idea's were evident in the letter you keep bashing on about.


Bakunin's documents which do contain his views on "revolutionary" organization, were not intended for public distribution.

Even if that's true he was never inconsistent:

'Where I stand' - 1862
'National Catechism' - 1866
'Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism' - 1867
'The Program of the International Brotherhood' - 1869
'On the Program of the Alliance' - 1871


A lot of currently well-known Bakunin writing wasn't....his "Confession", for example, only became public knowledge after the Russian Revolution opened the tsar's files.

So?

[RASH chris]

But Bakunin clearly states that the revolution would not "stray from the lines I had laid down for it". That is not federalism, that is authoritarian. When it came down to it Bakunin said he made the plans, not a federated council.

Not to mention the Marx controlled the IWA by gaining the support of the majority of the members. Bakunin was trying to take control by cheating the system, many times over.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 03:47 PM
But Bakunin clearly states that the revolution would not "stray from the lines I had laid down for it". That is not federalism, that is authoritarian.
That passage you quoted came from a letter which Bakunin was forced to write by Tzar Nicholas I in 1851 while he was in prison. I don't think it is something to take very seriously.


When it came down to it Bakunin said he made the plans, not a federated council.

Maybe you should read the works he wrote after that letter. The ones I listed in my previous post. There you can find that Bakunin had revised his position greatly from that particular passage you quoted.


Not to mention the Marx controlled the IWA by gaining the support of the majority of the members.

No he didn't. He controlled the political direction of the international.

And as Severian points out, which I know agree with after researching it, the majority of thye IWA was not Marxist.


Bakunin was trying to take control by cheating the system, many times over.

Bakunin had to create a secret organisation because of a) the reaction in Europe and b) because Marx refused to accept Bakunin's organisation into the IWA.

[RASH chris]

I am under the impression that there was a vote to see if they would accept Bakunin's (many) groups into the international. And they were all voted down, so Bakunin lied and tried to stack the international with his supporters so that he could control it. How is that not authoritarian?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:25 PM
I am under the impression that there was a vote to see if they would accept Bakunin's (many) groups into the international. And they were all voted down, so Bakunin lied and tried to stack the international with his supporters so that he could control it. How is that not authoritarian?
I wish you would be consistent with your arguments. Why are you so desperate to prove that Bakunin was an authoritarian? You keep changing arguments.

Bakunin and Marx were friends when Bakunin joined the international. Bakunin helped Marx found it. Bakunin created the International Brotherhood and attempted to join the IWA. Marx voted him down and it was broken up into other sections, including the Alliance for Social Democracy, which was not secret.

Bakunin was expelled at The Hague conference, apparently because of this report made to say that Bakunin had not in fact disbanded the International Brotherhood. Even if that's true, I don't see anything tactically wrong with that. Secondly it is not widely accepted that Bakunin did lie. The editors at Marxist.org don't seem to think so.

In terms of "stacking" the international with supporters, I don't see how that can be defined as authoritarian? Are you claiming that it is inline with anarchist theory not to insist on having comrades within an organisation? Or are you claiming that Bakunin attempted to take over the International by force? In which case that is completely untrue and you have no evidence to support it.

I'd also like to point out that it was Marx who moved the International to New York in order for anti-Marxist tendencies, which were a majority, couldn't democratically vote down Marx's political dogmas. This ultimately killed it.

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by anarchopunkchris+Jun 4 2005, 05:00 PM--> (anarchopunkchris @ Jun 4 2005, 05:00 PM) My quote was from "Bakunin's 1851 Confession to the Czar. [/b]
That was written before he was an anarchist, when he was still a Republican & pan-slavic Nationalist. So it's no wonder he was saying authoritarian things in it, he was still an authoritarian.


it has dealt a blow to my opinion of Bakunin

Bakunin before he became an anarchist and Bakunin after he became an anarchist are quite different. It's not really fair to judge Bakunin on what he said before he became an anarchist. Most of us here have held crap opinions at one point or another in our past. There are, however, plenty of other reasons to hold a low opinion of him. eg. his anti-semitism. IMO, most of Bakunin's writings are mediocre or crap. His critique of Marx was right on but most everything else wasn't that great.


"BOZG"
It's quite surprising how often this excuse is acceptable to anarchists but is not acceptable if made by Leninists.

There are two key differences. First, wer'e anarchists, not Bakunists. You identify as a Leninist and so attacks on Lenin are legitmate since your'e a follower of him. We aren't followers of Bakunin, he's just another anarchist. Bakuninism died over a century ago. Just because Bakunin said or did something doesn't necessarily mean it has any relevence to what other anarchists believe because no one believes exactly in his form of anarchism anymore. You don't see anybody going around calling themselves Bakunists. Any contemporary anarchist who reads enough of his writings is going to find things s/he doesn't agree with. Attacking Bakunin and pretending it refutes anarchism would be like us attacking Rosa Luxemburg and pretending it refutes Leninism. For Leninists Lenin isn't just a well-known Leninist, as Bakunin was just a well-kown anarchist, he was THE Leninist. The guy who founded it, the leader. This is indicated by the fact that you name your ideology, which he invented, after him. Since Lenin is the fount from which Leninism springs attacks on Lenin are legitimate. As (consistent) anarchists don't have leaders who found ideologies named after themselves as you do a similar avenue of isn't possible. Refuting the beliefs of an individual anarchist (Bakunin or otherwise) only refutes the version of anarchism that individual held, it doesn't refute anarchism in general. To do that you must deal with anarchism in general, the core ideas, rather than simply refuting one individual's version of anarchism. With Lenin, however, since Lenin's ideology is Leninism refuting his ideology isn't just refuting an individual's version of Leninism it's refuting Leninism itself.

The second key difference is that anarchist criticism of Lenin & other state communist leaders is generally a subset of a critique of Leninist/Marxist social systems, rather than a critique of the individuals themselves. What the supporters of a particular social system, or of a modification to a social system, think the results will be and what those actual results will be are quite different. For example, many Bush supporters honestly believed that invading Iraq would make the average Iraqi better off. Some believe it actually has made the average Iraqi better off. The actual results of invading Iraq were obviously quite different. The same is true of other ideas, like the "workers' state" advocated by Marxists (except Redstar). For as long as Marxism has been around Anarchists have predicted that "proletarian" dictatorship would turn into a bureaucratic tyranny if it were actually implemented, despite the democratic intentions of most Marxists. The Russian Revolution & subsequent Marxist revolutions prove this criticism correct - they did in fact become bureaucratic tyrannies, as predicted. Of course, Leninists generally dispute this and so we usually have to go into details as to who did what, etc. in order to prove our case. However, Lenin himself wasn't that important to that process. Anyone else in the same position, with the same power would have done the same because power corrupts and because of how all states operate. The point is that the social system you advocate inevitably has these undesirable results no matter what; Lenin's "excesses" are the inevitable results of the social system you advocate, not merely individual character flaws. Anyone with the same amount of power will do the same. This isn't applicable to attacks on Bakunin (or other individual anarchists) because anarchism, the social system, wasn't implemented in this case and so it doesn't really tell us anything about how anarchy behaves in the real world.


I am under the impression that there was a vote to see if they would accept Bakunin's (many) groups into the international. And they were all voted down, so Bakunin lied and tried to stack the international with his supporters so that he could control it. How is that not authoritarian?

That's not at all what happened. Let's start at the beginning. Bakunin & Marx first met years before the international existed when they were both young Hegelians. They didn't get along well personally but Bakunin respected Marx' intellect. At the time Marx was developing towards Communism while Bakunin was developing towards Republicanism, nationalism & pan-slavism. Remember that this was relatively early in their lives and both were still developing their ideas. Bakunin was very much a child of the enlightenment at the time - all for liberalism, self-determination, bourgeois democracy, and so on. Marx was starting to move beyond that stuff towards what would become Marxism.

Marx went on to develop his various theories, while Bakunin went on to lead a bunch of failed revolutions. During this phase of his life Bakunin tended to believe both in a spontaneous uprising of the masses that would crush the old order and in small secretive & authoritarian conspiracies that would be used to help topple the old order. Bakunin was a direct participant in the revolutions of 1848. Marx was more of a theorist while Bakunin was more a man of action. IMO, this difference is part of the origin of the prejudice held by some Marxists that anarchists "have no theory" (and the thousand variations on that theme). Of course, just because Bakunin wasn't much of a theorist doesn't mean other anarchists weren't. Bakunin's emphasis on action is probably also the reason why he wrote so few theoretical works and why so many of them were mediocre.

Bakunin's revolutionary activism eventually got him thrown in jail and shipped back to the Tsar, who sentenced him to death. It was in the Tsar's prison that he wrote the "confession" you read. The Tsar commuted his sentence to exile in Siberia, from which Bakunin eventually escaped. He made his way back to Europe and got involved in revolutionary activity again. He became more readical, eventually dropping his Slavic Republicanism for anarchism (in the late 1860s IIRC). Ironically, Marx's own writings influenced his move away from Republicanism. Bakunin agreed with Marx's economic theories and even translated Capital into Russian. However, he thought Marx's political program would ruin the revolution and result in a bureaucratic tyranny.

Eventually, Bakunin & his followers joined the International Workingmans' Association (IWMA). The IWMA was founded in the mid-1860s by a number of different left-wing groups and individuals with the goal of working together across the world, or at least across Europe. Marx was one of its founding members and it was through the first international that something which could be called a 'Marxist movement' arose. Marx had gained some notice due to Capital, but until now there weren't really any Marxists other than Marx himself and some of his friends. The IWMA was composed of numerous different leftist factions that fought with each other over how the international should be structured, what its political positions should be, and other things. Bakunin & Marx actually allied together against a different faction, the mutualists, before they had their famous battle.

Over time Marx became the formost leader of the various statist/centralist factions, most of whom eventually ended up adopting his ideology or at least sympathizing with many aspects of it. The popularity of anti-authoritarianism grew within the international, threatening the hegemony of Marx & his statist allies. By the time the battle between Bakunin & Marx, and the factions they represented, came to a head the anti-authoritarians had become the most popular faction within the international, overshadowing Marx & his followers. Marxism, and other statist factions, drew its main support from England & Germany while the anti-authoritarians drew their main support from France, Spain & Italy.

The Hague Congress of 1872, which historians usually describe as the end of the international, was a kind of coup by Marx & his friends. It was stacked with Marx's supporters; several affiliates (who "coincidentally" just happened to be predominantly anti-authoritarian affiliates) were unable or unwilling to send delegates to it. This was in the wake of the Paris Commune when France was under Martial Law & hunting radicals, making travel difficult. The Hague Congress expelled Bakunin (and other anarchists) and moved the headquarters of the international way across the ocean to New York. In terms of helping the international that move was stupid; the international was predominantly European and having the HQ away from most of its members made it less effective. It did, however, help insulate it from pressures from the membership and make it easier for Marx to retain control over it. The next Congress of the international declared the Hauge Congress illegitimate. The Marxists, of course, refused the recognize the legitimacy of that declaration and the international split in two. The Marxist international died since the Marxists had lost the support of most members by this time. Historians usually consider this death to also be the death of the 1st international. The anarchist international continued on for years after the split until a depression combined with extensive government repression suceeded in destroying it. Historians generally refer to that anarchist international as the Anti-Authoritarian International. Other than changing the structure to be more federalist, the switchover from the 1st international involved little more than changing stationary. It was basically the same organization on a local level, just with an anti-authoritarian orientation.

In order to justify their coup, Marx & friends made up all sorts of crap about Bakunin conspiring to take over the international & whatnot. When Bakunin joined the 1st international he joined with an organization he was a member of, the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy. The International initially rejected the application of this organization to join because its rules specified that only local & national affiliates were allowed, not internationals within the international. So the alliance dissolved into national parts and each part, formerly part of the alliance, joined the international. Marx & company accused Bakunin of secretly keeping the alliance together as a "secret brotherhood" (lying about its dissolution) and using it to conspire to take over the international for himself. That allegation was the pretext used to expell him. It's entirely a load of crap, there's no evidence whatsoever to support it. Engels' claim:

"For it is essential to emphasise that the secret nature of this Alliance is not aimed at eluding government vigilance, otherwise it would not have begun its existence as a public society; this secret nature had as its sole aim the deception of the uninitiated members of the International, proof of which is the base way in which the Alliance deceived the General Council."

Is a lie. The alliance had ceased to exist by this point, there was no "secret alliance." The fact that the alliance's investigating commission on this issue said otherwise means nothing because it was stacked with opponets of Bakunin looking for a pretext to boot him out. It's pure fabrication. The first paragraph of the page Marxists cited earlier in this thread to support their attacks http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...869/program.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program.htm) says:

All the evidence indicates that the secret “International Brotherhood,” also called “Secret Alliance,” was formally dissolved early in 1869. In reply to accusations made by the General Council of the International, both Bakunin and Guillaume denied its existence. There was undoubtedly an informal group of adherents to Bakunin’s ideas, but as a formal organization, says Guillaume, “[the International Brothers] existed only theoretically in Bakunin’s brain as a kind of dream indulged in with delight....”

Bakunin was only "trying to take over the international" in the sense that he was trying to persuade most members that his ideas were right. He didn't lie or form a conspiracy to stack votes or anything like that. It was Marx who behaved in an undemocratic & authoritarian manner; a precursor to the authoritarianism of his later followers.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 10 2005, 05:02 AM
The editors at Marxist.org don't seem to think so.


It's not stated who that editorial material is from. My guess it's from the book they're scanning - that is by Dolgoff, an anarchist and apparently an apologist for Bakunin.

"The editors at Marxist.org" do not seem to be in the habit of expressing political judgements on many things, probably because there is not necessarily agreement among them on anything other than scanning and hosting documents.


I'd also like to point out that it was Marx who moved the International to New York in order for anti-Marxist tendencies, which were a majority, couldn't democratically vote down Marx's political dogmas. This ultimately killed it.

Um, a Congress of the International voted to move it to New York. While a majority of the International was non-Marxist, Marx was able to openly persuade a majority to support his proposals.

From its programmatic documents like the Rules and Inaugural Address - which were not fully Marxist, but were drafted by Marx to reflect the points its components agreed on - to the expulsion of Bakunin. For maintaining the secret organization - which was contrary to the International's rules, regardless of whether you approve of it. An organization which enforces its rules when a majority votes to do so! Gasp! How authoritarian! Call the Rebel Alliance!

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 12:25 AM
That was written before he was an anarchist, when he was still a Republican & pan-slavic Nationalist. So it's no wonder he was saying authoritarian things in it, he was still an authoritarian.
There were a number of points of continuity throughout Bakunin's political career. One is pan-Slavism, including offering to support the tsar provided he became the champion of a great Slavonic federation. This still part of some of Bakunin's anarchist works.

Another is his (secret) advocacy of secret authoritarian organizations, as we can see from the Bakunin works I linked.


Just because Bakunin said or did something doesn't necessarily mean it has any relevence to what other anarchists believe because no one believes exactly in his form of anarchism anymore.

True. But Bakunin's record does indicate that being an anarchist isn't an automatic ironclad guarantee of not being a wannabe dictator. OK, in general there are no guarantees in life. I sometimes get the impression some anarchists think they do have such a guarantee, though.

And the fact that some anarchists still feel they have to make excuses for Bakunin - apparently including you - tells you something about those anarchists, as I said earlier.


Bakunin was a direct participant in the revolutions of 1848.

So were Marx and Engels. Even if you think only fighting with weapons is participation in a revolution, so was Engels.


Bakunin's revolutionary activism eventually got him thrown in jail and shipped back to the Tsar, who sentenced him to death. It was in the Tsar's prison that he wrote the "confession" you read. The Tsar commuted his sentence to exile in Siberia, from which Bakunin eventually escaped.

Misleading. The death sentence had already been commuted before he wrote the confession. And of course many Russian revolutionaries refused to repent even when facing death. Source for this and some other statements in this post. (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/worldwidemovements/anarchisminrussia1.html)


It was stacked with Marx's supporters; several affiliates (who "coincidentally" just happened to be predominantly anti-authoritarian affiliates) were unable or unwilling to send delegates to it.

What? It's Marx's fault the Bakuninists couldn't or wouldn't send delegates? That constitutes stacking? Sounds like sour grapes from people who didn't show up 'cause they knew they couldn't win the votes.


This was in the wake of the Paris Commune when France was under Martial Law & hunting radicals, making travel difficult.

Not under Marx's control, was that?


The next Congress of the international declared the Hauge Congress illegitimate. The Marxists, of course, refused the recognize the legitimacy of that declaration and the international split in two.

Already had split. That was an anarchist congress. The Marxist international was already largely defunct, as national parties grew in the various countries.


The fact that the alliance's investigating commission on this issue said otherwise means nothing because it was stacked with opponets of Bakunin looking for a pretext to boot him out. It's pure fabrication.

And the letters from Bakunin and other evidence presented before the commission - linked from the page I linked earlier - "means nothing" either; you don't even have to look at or deal with them.


There was undoubtedly an informal group of adherents to Bakunin’s ideas, but as a formal organization, says Guillaume, “[the International Brothers] existed only theoretically in Bakunin’s brain as a kind of dream indulged in with delight....” [/i]

Probably written by Dolgoff, see last post. I linked that page, yes...to show what Bakunin himself wrote...which his defenders have to ignore. In any case, we see that that Bakunin's defenders can only deny he was an authoritarian conspirator by affirming he was delusional. Which would explain his letters, I have to admit.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 02:52 AM
Um, a Congress of the International voted to move it to New York. While a majority of the International was non-Marxist
Then what was the point of moving it 5000 miles away from Europe.


Marx was able to openly persuade a majority to support his proposals.

That's because he had political and administrative dominance. It's quite easy to persuade people when you're in charge.

[violencia.Proletariat]

im confused, did Bakunin write the letter about how he wouldnt "stray from the lines I had laid down for it" before he was an anarchist?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 05:09 PM
im confused, did Bakunin write the letter about how he wouldnt "stray from the lines I had laid down for it" before he was an anarchist?
Yes.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2005, 06:19 AM
Then what was the point of moving it 5000 miles away from Europe.
Partly what you said - to avoid a situation where Blanquist exiles in London might get control of the General Council. Partly it was felt the International had outlived its usefulness in Europe, but still had a future ahead of it in the Americas.

A couple of Engels' letters where he assesses this:
To Sorge (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/letters/74_09_12.htm)
To Bebel, on the "unity shouters". (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1873/letters/73_06_20.htm)
The considerations involved were not narrowly factional, but involved advancing the development of the workers' movement.

My point is, that a majority of the Congress voted for the decision to move. Including some of the Bakuninists, according to Steklov's history of the First International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/steklov/history-first-international/ch14.htm): "Some of the minority faction, in the belief that, once the General Council was on the farther side of the Atlantic, it would, as far as they were concerned, cease to exist, and that they would soon be able to prove how well the International could get on without it, voted with the Marxist group."


That's because he had political and administrative dominance. It's .

He didn't have administrative dominance - Marx's only post was "Corresponding Secretary for Germany." So you're left only with the argument that Marx was politically dominant because he was politically dominant.


quite easy to persuade people when you're in charge

Which sounds like an argument that people are sheep.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 06:03 PM
Another is his (secret) advocacy of secret authoritarian organizations, as we can see from the Bakunin works I linked.
They do not show that he was an authoritarian at all. Stop insisting this to be the case.


Partly what you said - to avoid a situation where Blanquist exiles in London might get control of the General Council. Partly it was felt the International had outlived its usefulness in Europe, but still had a future ahead of it in the Americas.

He was clearly wrong.


He didn't have administrative dominance - Marx's only post was "Corresponding Secretary for Germany." So you're left only with the argument that Marx was politically dominant because he was politically dominant.

I'm sorry, I don't accept that. In spite of his official titles, it is obvious, from the correspondence Bakunin had with others and the articles he wrote that Marx controlled the International.

On the International Workingmen's Association and Karl Marx (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1872/karl-marx.htm)
Letter to La Liberté (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1872/la-liberte.htm)


Which sounds like an argument that people are sheep.

I am reading conflicting things about the diversity of the Internatonal. Some say it was full of Marxists, the others say they were in the minority.

I am not asserting that members of the International were sheep, but it is a possibility that Marx's influence and fame played a major role in persuading people.

In Stekloff's book and in the Marxist Paul Thompsons book 'Marx, Bakunin and the International' it is clear that the members of the international were surprised and confused by this sudden proposel. Marx's force of argument must have been very convincing.

As history shows, his argument was wrong. The international failed. This would lead one to consider that Marx had other motives.

[Severian]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2005, 11:47 AM
I'm sorry, I don't accept that. In spite of his official titles, it is obvious, from the correspondence Bakunin had with others and the articles he wrote that Marx controlled the International.
Wait, it's obvious because Bakunin says so? What did I say earlier, about how this is like arguing with fanatical Maoists?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Severian+Jun 13 2005, 10:46 PM--> (Severian @ Jun 13 2005, 10:46 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 13 2005, 11:47 AM
I'm sorry, I don't accept that. In spite of his official titles, it is obvious, from the correspondence Bakunin had with others and the articles he wrote that Marx controlled the International.
Wait, it's obvious because Bakunin says so? What did I say earlier, about how this is like arguing with fanatical Maoists? [/b]
Yet I should accept your Engels links as fact because?

Its called a double standard.

[Severian]

Not as fact, but as what Engels thought. I've linked Bakunin for the same purpose. In both cases private letters...the only difference is, there's a contrast between Bakunin's public and private statements which does not exist in Marx and Engels.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:16 PM
the only difference is, there's a contrast between Bakunin's public and private statements which does not exist in Marx and Engels.
In your opinion.