The Split Of The International

[Delta]

So I'm reading Rudolf Rocker's Anarcho-Syndicalism and he talks about the split in the International having come about from Marx and Engels belief that it was urgent for the workers to take political power through parliamentary action and through provoking the split when, as Rocker states,


the International had room for every faction, and a continuous discussion of the different views could only have contributed to their clarification. But the effort to make all schools of thought subservient to one particular school, one which, moreover, represented only a small minority in the International, could but lead to a cleavage and to the decline of the great alliance of workers, could but destroy those promising germs which were of such great importance to the labour movement in every land

I knew that there was an anti-authoritarian/authoritarian split, but I didn't know that it seemed to be so forced upon by Marx.

So I was looking for other opinions. Was it forced upon by Marx and Engels? And if so, was the split necessary or not?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Ah, "the split"&#33; <_<

You know, personally, I think the split has been mystified quite a bit....and that most of the stuff written about it draws too much from a relatively simple thing. That is, Bakunin fucked up and was expelled....and although the way Marx got him expelled was a bit shitty, he still deserved to be expelled.

And therefore, in my opinion, I don&#39;t find Rockers analysis that there was an "effort to make all schools of thought subservient to one particular school" particularly valid.

Sure, there was a great deal of open debate within the International....and those debates were often pretty hostile. But, in the end, the International failed because it moved abroad....a move that Marx proposed and got passed thanks to support from the various anarchist factions; the pro-Marx faction wanted the International to stay in Europe, despite the opinions of Marx and Engels.

[rebelworker]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 29 2006, 05:27 AM
That is, Bakunin fucked up and was expelled....and although the way Marx got him expelled was a bit shitty, he still deserved to be expelled.



Sure, there was a great deal of open debate within the International....and those debates were often pretty hostile. But, in the end, the International failed because it moved abroad....a move that Marx proposed and got passed thanks to support from the various anarchist factions; the pro-Marx faction wanted the International to stay in Europe, despite the opinions of Marx and Engels.
Could you go into more detail.

I know Marx cheated to get Bakunin kicked out, but I never knew what his reasons were (other than he beleived Bakunin was at the head of a great conspiratorial organisation).

Also I have never heard the argument that anarchists supported Marx and Engles seizing the central leadership and moving to New York.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by rebelworker+--> (rebelworker)Could you go into more detail.[/b]

This is from memory, so I apologise in advance for any slight factual inaccuracies. Anyway, if memory serves me correctly, Bakunin was not willing to cooperate with his local International and continued to lead organisations which were outside of the International....something which was against the rules.

For this, he was warned and a compromise was even reached....with Bakunin allowed to have his own separate division. But, still, Bakunin still continued to lead organisations that were separate from the International....and, therefore, breaking the rules.

He got kicked for that and the fact that he knocked around with a really batty Russian (?) was also used....that was the shitty part in my opinion. Bakunin&#39;s extra-curricular activities, though, were enough to get him kicked; but, personally, I would have had him kicked for other, political, reasons.

Frankly, I quite like Francis Wheen&#39;s description of it all: "nonsense".


rebelworker
Also I have never heard the argument that anarchists supported Marx and Engles seizing the central leadership and moving to New York.

I think the voting records may be on MIA. Though, the anarchists supported the move precisely because they thought that when in America, the Internationals leadership wouldn&#39;t be "seized" by Charlie.

I mean, on top of that, Marx wasn&#39;t ever really a leader in any official sense....nor is there, as far as I know, any evidence that he sought to lead the International. And Engels, of course, turned down the formal role of "bookkeeper".

Marx was, essentially, just good at winning support for his arguments....and the only criticism I&#39;d make of this, is that he seems to have pandered to the English Trade Unionists quite a bit. I&#39;d rather him have linked himself with the Italian, I think, faction which later went on to be the "founders" of anarcho-communism.

[Leo]

This is from memory, so I apologise in advance for any slight factual inaccuracies. Anyway, if memory serves me correctly, Bakunin was not willing to cooperate with his local International and continued to lead organisations which were outside of the International....something which was against the rules.

Actually I think their quarrel had started earlier. The international was debating wether they should keep inheritence or not. Of course Marx and Engels were completely against inheritence, and they excepted members of this revolutionary organization to be like them on this, and most of the members were mostly like them. Bakunin however was supporting the right to inherit, apparently he was expecting to inherit lots of money from a relative, and he arranged a meting to vote this. Of course Marx was like "Oh my god <_< is this guy for real?" and he sent his tailor to represent him in the meeting. So Bakunin passionatly roared and defended the right to inherit however members of the international decided that they were collectively against inheritance with an overwhelming majority. Apparently Bakunin didn&#39;t take this too well :lol:

[Amusing Scrotum]

I&#39;d never heard about the inheritance stuff, is there anything online about this?

However, personally, as we all know, the real reason Bakunin had to leave the International was because he wore sandals and socks. Yuck&#33; <_<

[Leo]

I&#39;d never heard about the inheritance stuff, is there anything online about this?

I don&#39;t really know... I think I read this story in "To Finland Station" by Edmund Wilson.


However, personally, as we all know, the real reason Bakunin had to leave the International was because he wore sandals and socks. Yuck&#33; <_<

:lol:

[rebelworker]

Suprising to find Marx openly making a big deal about inheritance, specially since his very ability to do the work that he did was based on his ability to mooch money from Engles who inherited money from his factory owner father :lol:

Im gonna have to see more sources on this before Im fully convinced. ;)

[Leo]

Suprising to find Marx openly making a big deal about inheritance

Well, there wasn&#39;t much to say after the decision of the international. Insulting Bakunin on this would have been a pretty cheap shot and Marx usually didn&#39;t prefer doing that.


Specially since his very ability to do the work that he did was based on his ability to mooch money from Engles who inherited money from his factory owner father

He would have starved to death without Engels :D


Im gonna have to see more sources on this before Im fully convinced.

The inheritance thing is not a big secret. If you are interested read Wilson&#39;s book, it&#39;s pretty succesful.