Revolutionary Catechism

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar.../catechism.htm

A fantastic overview of Bakunin's thought. I agree with all of it, really - although I would favour even further decentralization of communes (that, of course, is not contradictory with what Bakunin desires). I like that he is prepared to go into significant detail in his description of the ideal anarchy, but is also aware that there would be much organic development under anarchy that cannot be planned for in advance and is beyond the imagination of any one person. In that he strikes a good balance. Overall he is very reasonable and realistic in his description of anarchism, and does not seem to me to be greatly Utopian. He does not as far as I can tell assume any radical transformation of man, but rather that humanity that has existed at all times will find its full flourishing under anarchy. That brings to mind the words of Kropotkin: "It is often said that Anarchists live in a world of dreams to come, and do not see the things which happen today. We do see them only too well, and in their true colors, and that is what makes us carry the hatchet into the forest of prejudice that besets us."

Some of my favourite parts:

"Take the most sincere democrat and put him on the throne; if he does not step down promptly, he will surely become a scoundrel."

"History shows that an uneducated multitude whose natural intelligence is suppressed and who are brutalized by the mechanical monotony of daily toil, who grope in vain for any enlightenment, constitutes a mindless mob whose blind turbulence threatens the very existence of society itself."

"Having reached the age of adulthood, the adolescent will be proclaimed autonomous and free to act as he deems best. In exchange, society will expect him to fulfill only these three obligations: that he remain free, that he live by his own labor, and that he respect the freedom of others. And, as the crimes and vices infecting present society are due to the evil organization of society, it is certain that in a society based on reason, justice, and freedom, on respect for humanity and on complete equality, the good will prevail and the evil will be a morbid exception, which will diminish more and more under the pervasive influence of an enlightened and humanized public opinion."

That's a great link. Many thanks.

Bakunin was convinced that this kind of vanguard movement was indispensable to the success of the Social Revolution; that the Revolution must simultaneously destroy the old order and take on a federalist and anarchistic direction.

This is from the editor's introduction. I think it is interesting that Bakunin also noted the importance of a revolutionary vanguard.

The Revolutionary Catechism does not attempt to picture the perfect anarchist society – the anarchist heaven. Bakunin had in mind a society in transition toward anarchism. The building of a full-fledged anarchist society is the work of future generations.

This caught my eye as well, the acknowledgement of a transitional phase within the revolution. (While this transitional phase is surely different from the transitional phase of Marxian communism, it is still interesting to note considering many anarchists who claim to be against any transitional phase).

If there is one fundamental principle of human morality, it is freedom. To respect the freedom of your fellowman is duty; to love, help, and serve him is virtue.

I find this a little idealist, holding to an absolute principle of "freedom" (in the abstract) with no basis in any material conditions. There is also no class analysis behind this principle of freedom either.

The political and economic structure of society must now be reorganized on the basis of freedom.

I agree and disagree. I would say the political and economic society must be reorganized on the basis of freedom of the proletariat from capitalist society.

It is impossible to determine a concrete, universal, and obligatory norm for the internal development and political organization of every nation. The life of each nation is subordinated to a plethora of different historical, geographical, and economic conditions, making it impossible to establish a model of organization equally valid for all. Any such attempt would be absolutely impractical.

I completely agree with Bakunin on the above and think he is absolutely correct.

Abolition of all centralized administration

I think this is one of this biggest differences between anarchism and Marxism. While Marxists don't have any problem with centralization, anarchists want a decentralized society of autonomous collectives and communes freely producing and exchanging with each other. As Bakunin says later in the piece

The basic unit of all political organization in each country must be the completely autonomous commune, constituted by the majority vote of all adults of both sexes.

Marxists seek the centralization of production and a planned economy where things would be distributed based on need.

The cooperative workers’ associations are a new fact in history. At this time we can only speculate about, but not determine, the immense development that they will doubtlessly exhibit in the new political and social conditions of the future. It is possible and even very likely that they will some day transcend the limits of towns, provinces, and even states. They may entirely reconstitute society, dividing it not into nations but into different industrial groups, organized not according to the needs of politics but to those of production.

I thought the above was interesting.

national revolutions must become international in scope. just as the European and world reaction is unified, there should no longer be isolated revolutions, but a universal, worldwide revolution.

Loving the internationalist flavor here. One thing true Marxists and anarchists have in common, for sure.

This group is dead, isn't it?

This group is dead, isn't it?

No, I've just been going through shtuff and been busy but I'm back now.