Log in

View Full Version : Engels Versus Bakunin - the two traditions



peaccenicked
14th March 2002, 10:44
''Versus The Anarchists
Bakunin, who up to 1868 had intrigued against the International, joined it after he had suffered a fiasco at the Berne Peace Congress and at once began to conspire within it against the General Council. Bakunin has a peculiar theory of his own, a medley of Proudhonism and communism, the chief point of which is, in the first place, that he does not regard capital -- and therefore the class antagonism between capitalists and wage-workers which has arisen through social development -- but the state as the main evil to be abolished. While the great mass of the Social-Democratic workers hold our view that the state power is nothing more than the organisation with which the ruling classes -- landlords and capitalists -- have provided themselves in order to protect their social privileges, Bakunin maintains that it is the state which has created capital, therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself. We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself. The difference is an essential one: Without a previous social revolution the abolition of the state is nonsense; the abolition of capital is precisely the social revolution and involves a change in the whole mode of production. Now then, inasmuch as to Bakunin the state is the main evil, nothing must be done which can maintain the existence of the state, that is, of any state, whether it be a republic, a monarchy or anything else. Hence complete abstention from all politics. To commit a political act, and especially to take part in an election, would be a betrayel of principle. The thing to do is to carry on propaganda, heap abuse upon the state; organise, and when ALL the workers are won over, that is, the majority, depose the authorities, abolish the state and replace it by the organisation of the International. This great act, with which the millennium begins, is called social liquidation.

All this sounds extremely radical, and is so simple that it can be learnt by heart in five minutes; that is why this theory of Bakunin's has speedily found favor in Italy and Spain among young lawyers, doctors and other doctrinaires. But the mass of workers will never allow itself to be persuaded that the public affairs of their own countries are not also their own affairs, they are by nature political and whoever tries to make out to them that they should leave politics alone will in the end be left alone. To preach to the workers that they should in all circumstances abstain from politics is to drive them into the arms of the priests or the bourgeois republicans.

Now, as the International, according to Bakunin, was not formed for political struggle but in order that it may at once replace the old state organisation as soon as social liquidation takes place, it follows that it must come as near as possible to the Bakuninist ideal of the society of the future. In this society there will above all be no authority, for authority=state=an absolute evil. (Indeed, how these people propose to run a factory, operate a railway or steer a ship without having in the last resort one deciding will, without single management, they of course do not tell us.) The authority of the majority over the minority also ceases. Every individual and every community is autonomous; but as to how a society, even of only two people, is possible unless each gives up some of his autonomy, Bakunin only maintains silence." unauthored from net

El Che
14th March 2002, 14:29
Nice peice peace. but unauthored? where did u get this from?

"the chief point of which is, in the first place, that he does not regard capital -- and therefore the class antagonism between capitalists and wage-workers which has arisen through social development -- but the state as the main evil to be abolished."

this to me is the sadness of the anarchist movement. There obcession with power, and with its suposed evilness, blinds them to the more important issue of labor struggle. They divide the left, the dispend much needed effort on the secondary issue of "the state". Further more they misunderstand marxism, because if they wish an equalitarian society they such see that only through marxism, socialism can this goal be achived. The abolition of "the state" means among other things, the law of the jungle. Fertile grounds for capitalism if you ask me. Indeed capitalist heaven, when it comes to capitalism I daresay the state is more a friend with the little protection it provides[workers] than an enemy.

"therefore, the state is the chief evil, it is above all the state which must be done away with and then capitalism will go to blazes of itself"

Now see if they would have studied there Marx correctly they would know capital is nothing more then the equivent form in commodity trade. This means that even if the abolition of "the state" (something anarchists fail to prove viable) would in fact bring with the abolition of capital (something anarchists fail to prove in any way shame or form), this would in no way abolish capitalism. There can exist capital without money. Furthermore it is in the nature of capitalism that a new general equivalent in commodity trade would arrise. Anarchists would deliver us to the lions. Some how these basic considerations do not factor in there power obcessed minds...

"We, on the contrary, say: Do away with capital, the concentration of all means of production in the hands of the few, and the state will fall of itself."

I really dont follow the author on this point. what state is he refering to? how does the end of capitalism mean the end of state? Untill this is cleared up, I must say the author, who ever he may be is wrong on this point. Rather elementry mistake too.

vox
14th March 2002, 16:32
Here's the source of peacenicked's copy and pasted piece:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senat...71/engels1.html (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/1071/engels1.html)

vox

peaccenicked
14th March 2002, 21:09
Well the title is self explanatory what is all the fuss about. Engels wrote it. It seems quite obvious.
I see vox still has his prediliction for digging people up over small things like posting an article to stimulate debate.
When will the people on this site wake up to his bullying tactics.
El Che.
Engels is referring to the Workers state?
"Engels wrote to Bebel criticizing the same draft of the Gotha Programme which Marx criticized in his famous letter to Bracke. Referring specially to the question of the state, Engels said:

"The free people's state has been transferred into the free state. Taken in its grammatical sense, a free state is one where the state is free in relation to its citizens, hence a state with a despotic government. The whole talk about the state should be dropped, especially since the Commune, which was no longer a state in the proper sense of the word. The 'people's state' has been thrown in our faces by the anarchists to the point of disgust, although already Marx's book against Proudhon and later the Communist Manifesto say plainly that with the introduction of the socialist order of society the state dissolves of itself [sich auflost] and disappears. As the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a 'free people's state'; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose replacing the state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well take the place of the French word commune."

(pp.321-22 of the German original)"

El Che
14th March 2002, 22:38
Yes well you can not say the state will disapear, if you just say it like then I fail to see how you could not be in error. This because I can not invision society without state if you will pardon my lack of utopianism. U must say that a particular kind of state i.e the one you are refering to, will disapear, solve its self or whatever. Like that it makes sense. But thats all I`ll grant too, for I consider the bisness of futuristic prediction tricky...

(Edited by El Che at 10:41 pm on Mar. 14, 2002)

peaccenicked
15th March 2002, 13:59
While there is a State there is no freedom.
This our goal -freedom.
Here is Engels again I hope this clarifies things for you.
"The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight."

(Herr Eugen Duhring's Revolution in Science [Anti-Duhring.

El Che
15th March 2002, 23:15
So the state exists only to protect the interests of the rulling class? And when there are no more classes, there is no more state? Things run them selves do they? soceity organises its self? governs its self without goverment? Im sorry but I dont think its that simple.

TheDerminator
16th March 2002, 19:21
Yep, I agree with El Che, the national State would no longer exist, but in a complex world U are always going require international global organisation. The logisitics are only going to become greater and greater, thus the idea that we will only require decentralised administration seems to me a bit unrealistic. All our experience tells us that oganisational development only increases as societies develop in history. Does not mean that they have to be ineffective bureaucracies. I mean News International is a huge bureaucracy, but it is not ineffective, and if the BORGS can make large scale industrial organisation effective so can socialist democraatic organisation.
May the Force with U!
derminated

peaccenicked
16th March 2002, 19:22
'The governmnt of persons is replaced by the administration of things'
In other words the social relationship between man and man Known as the State ceases to exist.
Man reaches consensus on production as the conduct of production reaches a higher level than ever before, as
human needs fufilled abolishes alienated consciousness


(Edited by peaccenicked at 12:45 pm on Mar. 17, 2002)

TheDerminator
16th March 2002, 20:06
peaccenicked,
Fairdinkums, as long as U were not saying centralisation would be abolished and I don't think you were.

May the Force with U!

derminated