The prophetic words of Michael Bakunin

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I have always looked to Michael Bakunin as being the true revolutionary genious of the 20th century and not the other guy. His warnings to Marx about Marxism really just being in practice a "red bureacracy" and his warnings about the crimes of the state really seem to be spot on. It seems that the 20th century and the dismal record of communist governments have only verified his beleifs and made him look prophetic.

Anyone else agree?

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 04:51 am
I have always looked to Michael Bakunin as being the true revolutionary genious of the 20th century and not the other guy.
One problem: Bakunin wasn't a man of the 20th century.

And "the other guy"? Surely you know his name.. :rolleyes:

[Organic Revolution]

you believe in pacifist actions correct? you shouldnt be looking up to baukunin because adovcated the attendat (political assassanation) but yes, his warnings on marx and on the state were ingenius.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Lenin's [email protected] 03, 2006 12:17 am
One problem: Bakunin wasn't a man of the 20th century.

And "the other guy"? Surely you know his name.. :rolleyes:
Jesus? Oh wait, the resurrection is still to come.

Well, I think Marx's critique of capitalism was genius, and I agree with it. However, there are some things on which I strongly disagree with Marx. Namely, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', the notion that there is a unitary source of oppression and exploitation, and his vague handling of 'the State'.

I think Bakunin clearly pointed out the flaws, at least in the first and third category. However, I haven't read him enough to know whether he addressed the second.

Assuming a unitary source of oppression, i.e. capitalism, creates an atmosphere in which the destruction of capitalism is not only the primary, but the only real goal. The thought is that it's destruction will lead to the end of other forms of oppression, in a sort of cause-effect manner, and this I firmly disagree with. Well, this is actually more of a dialectic claim that a neccesarily 'Marxist' one.

[LoneRed]

PA, have you read the arguments between the two men? I recommend it, before making more posts like this

[Leo]

I have always looked to Michael Bakunin as being the true revolutionary genious of the 20th century and not the other guy.

I always looked to Michael Bakunin as an anti-semitic, opportunist, elisitist, fake anarchist nutcase.

How about reading a little about real anarchists?

[BreadBros]

Assuming a unitary source of oppression, i.e. capitalism, creates an atmosphere in which the destruction of capitalism is not only the primary, but the only real goal. The thought is that it's destruction will lead to the end of other forms of oppression, in a sort of cause-effect manner, and this I firmly disagree with. Well, this is actually more of a dialectic claim that a neccesarily 'Marxist' one.

The unitary source of oppression is a result of materialist analysis of the world. Historically it's clear to see that economic structure is the determinant factor in everything from the position of religion in society, family structure, the view of minorities and other ethnicities, etc. Of course not everything is the result of capitalism, some social norms are artifacts of previous epochs, some social norms are even being challenged by capitalism itself, however, I would say that Marx seems to be 100% correct that political-economy is the determinant factor in these matters. At least in a class society.

[Anarcho-Stalinist]

PA, do you like to hang on people's coattails

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Organic [email protected] 03, 2006 05:18 am
you believe in pacifist actions correct? you shouldnt be looking up to baukunin because adovcated the attendat (political assassanation) but yes, his warnings on marx and on the state were ingenius.
Actually I have renounced pacifism on this board. I have been convinced by members of this site that sometimes, sadly, in extreme situations violence IS necessary as a last resort.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2006 09:07 am

I have always looked to Michael Bakunin as being the true revolutionary genious of the 20th century and not the other guy.

I always looked to Michael Bakunin as an anti-semitic, opportunist, elisitist, fake anarchist nutcase.

How about reading a little about real anarchists?
Please explain how Bakunin is all those things you say he is.

First about the "anti semitic" part, well Marx was also accused of anti-semitism (yes I know he's Jewish) mostly due to the controversial statements about Jews in his "The Jewish Question"

That doesn't stop us from putting up Marx as a revolutionary, does it?

And elitist-opportunist!??! :blink: :blink: :wacko: That's just crazy! Bakunin came from nobility and gave that all up to support revolution!! That doesn't sound very "opportunist" or "elitist" to me.. He actively took part in revolutionary activity, and didn't just stay writing books in libaries and museums and what not. For this he was often jailed and beaten. In his jail in Russia, he was treated very badly and lost most of his teeth. Again, this is not the actions of an opportunist.

Bakunin was a man of faults and I don't believe in making Gods of anyone - no Gods no masters - but Bakunin was a big supporter of the revolutinoary struggle, a man who gave up all his riches and nobility and comfort to be someone of the working class and then lived as a working class revolutionary for the remainder of his life.

[Organic Revolution]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2006 03:07 am

I have always looked to Michael Bakunin as being the true revolutionary genious of the 20th century and not the other guy.

I always looked to Michael Bakunin as an anti-semitic, opportunist, elisitist, fake anarchist nutcase.

How about reading a little about real anarchists?
what of marx? what about he rich background, his leaching of of engels (not to mention engels owning a factory).

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Bakunin was an old fool and an anti-semite. He was also very like a Russian agent, of Czarist Russia that is and a provoacteur.

[Prairie Fire]

I always looked to Michael Bakunin as an anti-semitic, opportunist, elisitist, fake anarchist nutcase.

:D . Oh , I have no doubt that Bakunin was a real anarchist. That's the problem.


Actually I have renounced pacifism on this board. I have been convinced by members of this site that sometimes, sadly, in extreme situations violence IS necessary as a last resort.

Thank god for small favors.


First about the "anti semitic" part, well Marx was also accused of anti-semitism (yes I know he's Jewish) mostly due to the controversial statements about Jews in his "The Jewish Question"

Have you read "The Jewish Question?" I have. Don't drop titles, if you haven't read the works. You bring up a paradox: If a Jew criticizes other Jews ,is it anti-semitic? If you have read the "Jewish question", you would realize that Marx is not critiquing Judaism; He is critiquing religion, and setting a basis for how a proletarian state handles religion and such revolutionary (at the time) concepts as seperation of church and state.

Besides, not to sound like a fascist, but as you can see from Israel's response to any criticism, ANY unflattering statement about Jews, even if it is only about an individual or nation rather than Judaism as a whole, is controversial.


That's just crazy! Bakunin came from nobility

What a coincidence, so did Kropotkin. :D This, in a nutshell is part of the reason that I could never be an anarchist.


what of marx? what about he rich background, his leaching of of engels (not to mention engels owning a factory).

Get your facts straight on Marx. Marx may have been well off, but middle class only. Kropotkin, on the other hand, was Prussian nobility. Bakunin,also was nobility. Comparing Marx's wealth and class backround to Bakunin, is like comparing my wealth and class background to George W Bush. I may be much better off than millions of people around the world, but in the scheme of things I am only petty Bourgeosie.

The only other thing I want to bring up is, what is the problem about the dictatorship of the proletariat? Also, how is it different from Anarchist concepts about workers owning and operating all means of production?

[Vargha Poralli]

Though i have some diffrences with comrade ravenblade about stalin,trotysky and their respective ism's i second his opinions in this thread :)

IMHO it is really bullshit to discuss about a person's birth. we are not monarchists deciding who should be the hire to the throne and this is a Revolutionary Left forum. so pls maintain what characterises us. no one can choose even our parents so pls don't discuss these person's birth to their class rather discuss what they wrote/preached/stood for. :angry:


edit:
/************************************************** **************************************
Comrade PA :

Did my reply to your earlier post about v for vendetta had any thing to do with your renunciation of pacifism ?

************************************************** **************************************/

[Leo]

Please explain how Bakunin is all those things you say he is.


And elitist-opportunist!??! :blink: :blink: :wacko: That's just crazy!

Bakunin was...


Originally posted by Bakunin+--> (Bakunin) You will ask 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 no one admits and that is not imposed on anyone, by the collective dictatorship of our organization which will be all the greater the more it remains unseen and undeclared, the more it is deprived of all official rights and significance. Imagine yourself in the midst of a triumphant, spontaneous revolution in Russia. The state and with it all forms of social and political organization have been demolished. But imagine that in the middle of this universal anarchy there were a secret organization, dispersing its members in small groups throughout the empire, but nevertheless firmly united and inspired with a single idea. These small groups, unknown to anyone as such, would have no officially declared power. But these groups would finally have the strength of that close solidarity which binds isolated groups in one organic whole. These groups would not seek anything for themselves, and they would be in a position to direct popular movements. This is what I call the collective dictatorship of a secret organization.[/b]


Originally posted by [email protected]
Oh , I have no doubt that Bakunin was a real anarchist. That's the problem.

Marx disagrees with you however:


Marx
Anarchy, then, is the great war-horse of their master Bakunin, who has taken nothing from the socialist systems except a set of slogans. All socialists see anarchy as the following programme: once the aim of the proletarian movement, i.e., abolition of classes, is attained, the power of the State, which serves to keep the great majority of producers in bondage to a very small exploiter minority, disappears, and the functions of government become simple administrative functions. Bakunin's organization draws an entirely different picture. It proclaims anarchy in proletarian ranks as the most infallible means of breaking the powerful concentration of social and political forces in the hands of the exploiters. Under this pretext, it asks the International, at a time when the old world is seeking a way of crushing it, to replace its organization with anarchy. The international police want nothing better...


what of marx?

Seriously, what of him? I thought we were discussing Bakunin.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 12:51 am
Anyone else agree?
I do agree, however what happned should have been predicted by all Leftists not just Bakunin considering Marx did say;

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state."-Karl Marx.

So to some degree, it should have been known that the events of the 20th century would happen.

[The Author]

Originally posted by Leo Uilleann+ Nov. 3, 2006, 05:09 pm--> (Leo Uilleann @ Nov. 3, 2006, 05:09 pm)Marx disagrees with you however:

Marx
Anarchy, then, is the great war-horse of their master Bakunin, who has taken nothing from the socialist systems except a set of slogans. All socialists see anarchy as the following programme: once the aim of the proletarian movement, i.e., abolition of classes, is attained, the power of the State, which serves to keep the great majority of producers in bondage to a very small exploiter minority, disappears, and the functions of government become simple administrative functions. Bakunin's organization draws an entirely different picture. It proclaims anarchy in proletarian ranks as the most infallible means of breaking the powerful concentration of social and political forces in the hands of the exploiters. Under this pretext, it asks the International, at a time when the old world is seeking a way of crushing it, to replace its organization with anarchy. The international police want nothing better...
[/b]

I see no contradiction between what RavenBlade is saying and what Marx is saying. That quote you cited essentially outlines the bankruptcy of Anarchism as a social ideology- an ideology entirely ignorant of practical, objective material conditions.

[Leo]

I see no contradiction between what RavenBlade is saying and what Marx is saying.

Marx outlines the difference between Bakunin and real anarchists, and you see no contradiction between this and Ravenblade saying Bakunin is a real anarchist? Wow, that must've been hard.

[The Author]

Originally posted by RavenBlade+ November 3, 2006, 07:32 pm--> (RavenBlade @ November 3, 2006, 07:32 pm)Where did you take that quote of Marx from?[/b]

He quoted Marx in Fictitious Splits in the International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/03/fictitious-splits.htm)


Leo [email protected] November 3, 2006, 06:50 pm
Marx outlines the difference between Bakunin and real anarchists, and you see no contradiction between this and Ravenblade saying Bakunin is a real anarchist? Wow, that must've been hard.

Read that pamphlet again. The whole point of Marx's argument is that the International had been hijacked by Anarchist tendencies led by Bakunin- Anarchist tendencies that sought "independence" from the organization of the International to serve their own interests; the opportunists complained that the International was "authoritarian" in its strategy and tactics (ring any bells?) and taking steps to make the International renounce its theoretical position to allow the opportunist trends carte blanche to run their own independent organizations and cause a split in the International. Based on the conditions prevailing at the time: the fall of the Paris Commune, the reaction across Europe against the workers and the members of the International, to perform such opportunist acts would mean to liquidate the entire organization of the International Workingmen's Association in the face of reaction and cause a major defeat for the cause of the proletariat. Marx pointed out how it was common for Anarchists and the other opportunists to resort to more subliminal methods of "leading" the working class movement after practical experience debunked their outmoded and reactionary ideas; methods such as denouncing organizations for their "authoritarianism," abuse of power, leadership remaining in office for an extended period of time, and demanding a sacrifice of organization for sectarianism and spontaneity, and autonomism.

You have invented an entirely different meaning behind what Marx said and misquoted him.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 03, 2006 09:07 am

I have always looked to Michael Bakunin as being the true revolutionary genious of the 20th century and not the other guy.

I always looked to Michael Bakunin as an anti-semitic, opportunist, elisitist, fake anarchist nutcase.

How about reading a little about real anarchists?
that is kinda exaggerated


sure he was an anti-semite, but keep in mind he gave up his aristocratic status and his security for the sake of revolution. i doubt there are more than a handful revolutionaries that committed themselves to change to the extent of bakunin.

he may have very weird notions of anachism--like his idea of a "secret vanguard" leading the revolution. however, i dont think he was really an opportunist, because he basically throwed his life to shit.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Did you know Bakunin was a drunk, a Prince, an agent of the Czar and a huge anti-semite???

[Cryotank Screams]

Did you know Bakunin was a drunk

What does that have to do with anything?

a Prince
I believe that has already been discussed, and actually I just heard he was born in to aristocratic family, not royalty, your thinking of Kropotkin, and at any rate, both of them renounced that and took the life of revolutionary.

an agent of the Czar
Proof?

huge anti-semite
Again, that has already been discussed.

[Marx Lenin Stalin]

Did you ever read Marx?? Do you even know who Marx is??

Marx ALREADY ESTABLISHED that Bakunin was an agent of the Czar over 100 years ago!!!

Are you really that dumb?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 09, 2006 09:12 pm
Did you ever read Marx?? Do you even know who Marx is??

Marx ALREADY ESTABLISHED that Bakunin was an agent of the Czar over 100 years ago!!!

Are you really that dumb?
Did I ask for mindless short rant, followed by a personal insult? No, I did not, I asked for proof, and yes, I have read Marx, yes I know who Marx was, and I also know that could very well be just Marx trying to get back at his rival, so again I ask for some tangible proof, if you can't provide said information, kindly, shut the hell up.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Marx Lenin [email protected] 10, 2006 01:12 am
Did you ever read Marx?? Do you even know who Marx is??

Marx ALREADY ESTABLISHED that Bakunin was an agent of the Czar over 100 years ago!!!

Are you really that dumb?
Do you have anything useful to add to any conversation? I know in your future ideal society anyone who disagrees with you will simply get shot making things nice and simple but until then you will have to discuss things with those who disagree with you. Behaving like a toddler won't convince anybody.