Bakunin on Marx

[Question?]

Living for very nearly thirty years, almost exclusively among German workers, refugees like himself and surrounded by more or less intelligent friends and disciples belonging by birth and relationship to the bourgeois world, Marx naturally has managed to form a Communist school, or a sort of little Communist Church, composed of fervent adepts and spread all over Germany. This Church, restricted though it may be on the score of numbers, is skillfully organised, and thanks to its numerous connections with working-class organizations in all the principal places in Germany, it has already become a power. Karl Marx naturally enjoys an almost supreme authority in this Church, and to do him justice, it must be admitted that he knows how to govern this little army of fanatical adherents in such way as always to enhance his prestige and power over the imagination of the workers of Germany.


Let us see now what unites them. It is the out and out cult of the State. I have no need to prove it in the case of Bismarck, the proofs are there. From head to foot he is a State's man and nothing but a State's man. But neither do I believe that I shall have need of too great efforts to prove that it is the same with Marx. He loves government to such a degree that he even wanted to institute one in the International Workingmen's Association; and he worships power so much that he wanted to impose and still means to-day to impose his dictatorship on us. It seems to me that that is sufficient to characterize his personal attitude. But his Socialist and political program is a very faithful expression of it. The supreme objective of all his efforts, as is proclaimed to us by the fundamental statutes of his party in Germany, is the establishment of the great People's State (Volksstaat)


Is there any proof behind Bakunin's words?
How does the marxist theory point to dictatorship?
Why would Bakunin call Marx an Authoritarian?

[Killer Enigma]

Is there any proof behind Bakunin's words?
What do you mean? Is there any proof that he said them? Is that what you are asking?


How does the marxist theory point to dictatorship?
From Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm):

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."


Why would Bakunin call Marx an Authoritarian?
From Engels' On Authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm):

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"

[Marsella]

Even Marx was wary of his followers or 'church.'

'All I know is that I am not a Marxist.'

And its important to remember that they were in an ideological struggle of a sorts. If you have a look at Engels' 'On Authority' it clearly shows his straw man abilities.

Marx certainly was a 'prominent' figure when he wanted to be. Personality conflicts really shouldn't be involved in politics.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:50 pm
Even Marx was wary of his followers or 'church.'

'All I know is that I am not a Marxist.'

And its important to remember that they were in an ideological struggle of a sorts. If you have a look at Engels' 'On Authority' it clearly shows his straw man abilities.

Marx certainly was a 'prominent' figure when he wanted to be. Personality conflicts really shouldn't be involved in politics.
Very little of your post was discernible in terms of content. Are you sure your usage of "straw man" was not a Freudian slip?

[Question?]

Is there any proof behind this line here
But neither do I believe that I shall have need of too great efforts to prove that it is the same with Marx. He loves government to such a degree that he even wanted to institute one in the International Workingmen's Association; and he worships power so much that he wanted to impose and still means to-day to impose his dictatorship on us.


"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

Why did Marx feel that there must be a dictatorship of the proletariat in the period of revolutionary transformation?



"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"

Is there an alternative route other than revolution to create socialism that would not be an authoritarian act

Is not the majority needed to create revolution, if so, how would revolution be authoritarian?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:57 pm
Why did Marx feel that there must be a dictatorship of the proletariat in the period of revolutionary transformation?
I suspect that Killer Enigma is being somewhat deliberately obtuse here. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship as we understand the term but merely the rule of the proletariat. Compare to today's dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

As for why Marx felt that the state would persist in a revolutionary transition phase, the answer is that Marxists understand the state to be the product of class conflict. As long as there are classes there is a state. The bourgeoisie will not suddenly vanish after revolution and so a revolutionary state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) will continue to exist.

[Question?]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+November 16, 2007 09:06 pm--> (ComradeOm @ November 16, 2007 09:06 pm)
[email protected] 16, 2007 08:57 pm
Why did Marx feel that there must be a dictatorship of the proletariat in the period of revolutionary transformation?
I suspect that Killer Enigma is being somewhat deliberately obtuse here. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a dictatorship as we understand the term but merely the rule of the proletariat. Compare to today's dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

As for why Marx felt that the state would persist in a revolutionary transition phase, the answer is that Marxists understand the state to be the product of class conflict. As long as there are classes there is a state. The bourgeoisie will not suddenly vanish after revolution and so a revolutionary state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) will continue to exist. [/b]
How will the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" get rid of the bourgeoisie?

If the state is the product of class conflict, why not get rid of it?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:50 pm
Even Marx was wary of his followers or 'church.'

'All I know is that I am not a Marxist.'

And its important to remember that they were in an ideological struggle of a sorts. If you have a look at Engels' 'On Authority' it clearly shows his straw man abilities.

Marx certainly was a 'prominent' figure when he wanted to be. Personality conflicts really shouldn't be involved in politics.
That quote was in response of lassallist social democrats calling themselves "marxists".

[Question?]

'All I know is that I am not a Marxist.'

Who said this?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:10 pm
How will the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" get rid of the bourgeoisie?
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72774

Marxists.org Definition--Scroll down. (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/e.htm)

I hope these are helpful.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Question?+November 16, 2007 04:19 pm--> (Question? @ November 16, 2007 04:19 pm)
'All I know is that I am not a Marxist.'

Who said this? [/b]
Karl Marx


As Marmot Said...
That quote was in response of lassallist social democrats calling themselves "marxists".

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 17, 2007 06:41 am--> (Marmot @ November 17, 2007 06:41 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 08:50 pm
Even Marx was wary of his followers or 'church.'

'All I know is that I am not a Marxist.'

And its important to remember that they were in an ideological struggle of a sorts. If you have a look at Engels' 'On Authority' it clearly shows his straw man abilities.

Marx certainly was a 'prominent' figure when he wanted to be. Personality conflicts really shouldn't be involved in politics.
That quote was in response of lassallist social democrats calling themselves "marxists". [/b]

If the state is the product of class conflict, why not get rid of it?

Well, the state is a result of class conflict, and the state will only exist when classes exist, when classes need to use a means to ensure the conditions of their survival.

One thing that all Communists support, is to get rid of the bourgeoisie state. Although, in my opinion, Leninist variants argue for central power (which usually means Party control), control of armed forces, police etc; all of which are bourgeoisie state elements. They essentially justify this by arguing they need to 'defend the revolution from counter-revolution.'

I somewhat agree with the Marxist analysis. Anarchists tend to argue that the state will always serve an oppressive means - that is indeed right.

Essentially, there is a lot of conflict about what actually is a state. The Paris Commune in Marx's eyes was certainly a state; Bakunin disagreed somewhat, arguing it contained the negation of the state or words to that effect.

Here is what I think the correct usage of the term dictatorship of the proletariat is:


The proletariat, when it seizes power should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the CLASS, not of a PARTY or of a clique - dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy.
Luxemburg


Of late, the social democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: dictatorship of the proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Engels.


…universal suffrage was to serve the people…as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly.
Marx.

And most famously:


If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire you will find that I declare that the next attempt of the French Revolution will be no longer, as before, to transfer the bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it, and this is the preliminary condition for every real people’s revolution on the Continent

So it is not a dictatorship in any meaning of the modern usage of the word.


How will the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" get rid of the bourgeoisie?

The very act of rising to the level of 'dictatorship of the proletariat' ensures the elimination of bourgeoisie conditions, providing that 'dictatorship of the proletariat' prevails.


That quote was in response of lassallist social democrats calling themselves "marxists".

Your point being?

[black magick hustla]

That he didn't say that because he disliked the fact that people called themselves "marxists". He said that because social democrats were calling themselves marxists.

I am not justifying dogmatism at all, but that quote gets always misinterpreted.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 08:39 pm
The supreme objective of all his efforts, as is proclaimed to us by the fundamental statutes of his party in Germany, is the establishment of the great People's State (Volksstaat). [Bakunin]

There are no proofs of this. Infact, we find that Volksstaat was a foggy cornerstone for Lassale's programme, one not so much liked by Marx.

[Marsella]

That he didn't say that because he disliked the fact that people called themselves "marxists". He said that because social democrats were calling themselves marxists.

Well, I agree on your argument of why he said 'All I know is that I am not a Marxist.'

But then again, I am sure he would have found it disconcerting that people were naming their ideological opinions after him, regardless if he said it. I know I would! :lol: Communists I think is a more appropriate name.


I am not justifying dogmatism at all, but that quote gets always misinterpreted.

I think that the modern usage of the quote is that 'Marx didn't support what 20th century Marxists did - Marx himself wasn't a Marxist!.' Which is an impossible argument, although it may have validity - not in the context of this quote.

[RedStarOverChina]

Back when Bakunin's reputation was in ruins, Engels actually stepped up and said, and I'm paraphrasing, "doesn't matter whatt happens, Bakunin is our friend."

Overall, Bakunin and Marx acted in similar ways, and the later rivalry was simply childish squabbles..

Contrary to what some anarchists may believe, Bakunin was no more "libertarian" than Marx was. Even though Bakunin claims that Marx and the First International were "authoritarian", he busted his humps trying to join the club and tried to attain the leadership position even though he deemed it "autoritarian".

Then during the 1848 revolution, Bakunin and a small band of anarchists occupied a small town in Switzerland. In his speech to the town folks, he openly declared that whoever refuses to accept his authority will be shot.

And his criticism against Marx's "dictatorship pf the proletariat" is just another (perhaps intentional) misunderstanding of the phrase.

[Killer Enigma]

RedStarOverChina, I end up watching your avatar for 5 minutes every time I see it. Where is it from?

[Bilan]

I actually read a fantastic article on this recently.

It can be found here. (http://www.connexions.org/RedMenace/Docs/RM3-BakuninvsMarx.htm)

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 16, 2007 07:45 pm
RedStarOverChina, I end up watching your avatar for 5 minutes every time I see it. Where is it from?
It's probably from one of my friend but I dont recall from where or whom exactly.

Here's a bigger version if you want.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d62/RedStarOverChina/McDonaldgetsowned.gif

[Nusocialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 10:21 pm
Back when Bakunin's reputation was in ruins, Engels actually stepped up and said, and I'm paraphrasing, "doesn't matter whatt happens, Bakunin is our friend."

Overall, Bakunin and Marx acted in similar ways, and the later rivalry was simply childish squabbles..

Contrary to what some anarchists may believe, Bakunin was no more "libertarian" than Marx was. Even though Bakunin claims that Marx and the First International were "authoritarian", he busted his humps trying to join the club and tried to attain the leadership position even though he deemed it "autoritarian".

Then during the 1848 revolution, Bakunin and a small band of anarchists occupied a small town in Switzerland. In his speech to the town folks, he openly declared that whoever refuses to accept his authority will be shot.

And his criticism against Marx's "dictatorship pf the proletariat" is just another (perhaps intentional) misunderstanding of the phrase.
I really think you need to learn some facts. For a start the international came after 1848 and Bakunin was not a full anarchist in 1848.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+November 20, 2007 07:27 am--> (Nusocialist @ November 20, 2007 07:27 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 10:21 pm
Back when Bakunin's reputation was in ruins, Engels actually stepped up and said, and I'm paraphrasing, "doesn't matter whatt happens, Bakunin is our friend."

Overall, Bakunin and Marx acted in similar ways, and the later rivalry was simply childish squabbles..

Contrary to what some anarchists may believe, Bakunin was no more "libertarian" than Marx was. Even though Bakunin claims that Marx and the First International were "authoritarian", he busted his humps trying to join the club and tried to attain the leadership position even though he deemed it "autoritarian".

Then during the 1848 revolution, Bakunin and a small band of anarchists occupied a small town in Switzerland. In his speech to the town folks, he openly declared that whoever refuses to accept his authority will be shot.

And his criticism against Marx's "dictatorship pf the proletariat" is just another (perhaps intentional) misunderstanding of the phrase.
I really think you need to learn some facts. For a start the international came after 1848 and Bakunin was not a full anarchist in 1848. [/b]
Eh, I'm aware of that.

Bakunin and his small band of anarchists attempted to "merge" with the First International on "equal terms", meaning that despite the fact that the International was like 1000 times larger than Bakunin's organization, Bakunin wanted to be come the leader of the International after the merger, thus enjoying the same respect enjoyed by Marx. Of course, Marx and Engels refused.