💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › rene-berthier-mikhail-bakunin-against-insurrectionism.g… captured on 2023-01-29 at 13:33:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Mikhail Bakunin against Insurrectionism
Author: René Berthier
Date: November 19, 2018
Language: en
Topics: Mikhail Bakunin, Insurrectionary
Source: Retrieved on 1st June 2021 from https://libcom.org/library/michael-bakunin-against-insurrectionism-ren-berthier
Notes: This article was originally written in french but was translated into English by https://www.reddit.com/user/burtzev

René Berthier

Mikhail Bakunin against Insurrectionism

Translator introduction

Anarchism has a history. It has changed over time, and has been

different in different places. There is a ‘mainstream’ of the movement,

a socialism that is decentralist and believes in the self-organization

of the people as workers and as citizens. Yet there has always been a

small minority of self-described ‘anarchists’, governed by emotions

rather than ideals, who look for ‘shortcuts’ to avoid the long patient

work of organization.

Throughout history anarchists have always advocated the tactic of

‘direct action’ rather than depending upon ‘saviors’. Some, however,

fail to understand what this means and imagine that it is nothing more

than militancy and violence. Of course not !

Such people delude themselves in various ways. They refuse to see that

they are a minority, usually a very small minority and award themselves

the title of being The People. This attitude is usually coupled with a

quite visible contempt for The People as they actually are.

This minority thread has run through the history of the movement, and in

recent years its believers have awarded themselves the title of an

ideology — insurrectionism. It goes without saying that this is rather

grandiose and even absurd, advocacy of a (historically futile) tactic is

supposed to be a ‘system’ of political thought.

These people like to refer to Bakunin as an example that they emulate.

The following from the Groupe Salvador-Segui of the Fédération

anarchiste challenges this. It presents a Bakunin different from the

myth, a Bakunin who learned and changed over time — a mature and

thoughtful Bakunin.

Bakunin against Insurrectionism

At the International Congress of Saint- Imier , held in September 1872

the federations of the AIT rejected the decisions of the Hague Congress

which had just taken place , and decided that the International would

continue , but on a new basis. It was a resounding success for the

federalist current ; unfortunately, this success did not last ; the

seeds of dissension , which had been previously contained, gradually

came to light, revealing that the ‘anti authoritarian’ AIT was divided

into a current that could be called revolutionary pre-syndicalist in

particular including James Guillaume, and a pre-anarchist current with

mainly Italian militants.

In explaining the reorientation followed by the movement , it is

difficult to distinguish between the repression suffered by the labor

movement after the Commune, the disappearance of the generation of the

heroic era of the AIT , the emergence of a new, more hurried and less

educated generation , and the new conditions created by the

concentration of industry , the massive appearance of machinery. We must

also consider that many militants really thought the revolution was at

hand, and to wake up the apathetic masses , we had to give them a push.

Bakunin thought that misery and despair are not enough to spark a social

revolution ; they are sufficient , he said in ‘Statism and Anarchy’ ,

“to give birth to local uprisings , but not enough to lift large masses

. For this it is necessary that an entire people has a common standard ,

[...] a general idea of its rights and a deep faith , passionate ,

religious, if you will, in those rights. Because neither writers nor

philosophers , nor their works, nor finally the socialist papers , do

not yet make make a living and powerful socialism. The latter only finds

real existence in the enlightened revolutionary instinct in the

collective will and their own organization of the working masses

themselves — and when this instinct , this will and organization are

lacking, the best books world are nothing but theories in a vacuum,

impotent dreams.”[1]

There are three inseparable elements in this dialectic of revolutionary

development : the revolutionary instinct ; the collective will ; the

organization. Bakunin summed up perfectly the anarchist point of view

and, in some ways it is more “Marxist” than many Marxists, ... The

revolutionary instinct of the masses to rise up spontaneously against an

intolerable situation is a fact we see in every human group and that

evidently applies to the working class. But revolutionary spontaneity is

only a moment of the revolutionary process . The collective will or, if

you will, the political project , and the organization through which the

struggle will be conducted and the project will be implemented , are

equally indispensable.[2] This is far from the idea that just an

insurrectionary act caused by a small minority is sufficient to awaken

the consciousness of the masses .

Bakunin had experienced several insurrections , he knew what they meant

in terms of human lives. This is why he remained cautious and anxious to

avoid sending people to the slaughterhouse. Thus we find a ‘cautious’

Bakunin corresponding little to the militaristic picture[3] : he was

extremely critical of those who lead the people into adventurist actions

and who “ imagine that they only need to be formed into small

conspiratorial centers “ leading “ with at most a few hundred workers ,

and suddenly raising a simultaneous uprising , for the masses to follow.

But first, they have never organized a simultaneous uprising “[4]. It

makes you wonder if the “ insurrectionary “ who claim Bakunin have read

him .

In fact, the Bakunin’s criticism of insurrectionism revealed in his

letter to Celsio Cerretti is addressed to supporters of Mazzini, but it

can equally well be applied to others. It still takes on Mazzini’s

followers whose companies “have had the invariable result of a bloody

and sometimes even ridiculous fiasco ,” which endlessly repeat a

“terrible succession of painful abortions.” “Every spring, they start

again, attributing all these past defeats not to inherent defects of

their system, but to some secondary circumstances, unfavorable accidents

...”[5] Mazzini never understood that “the masses begin to move only

when they are pushed by powers — both interests and principles — that

emanate from their own lives, and abstractions born outside this life

will never perform this action on them. Deceived by this constant

illusion of his life, he believed until the last moment that we could

make a revolution by a surprise coup, and that several hundred young

people spread in small groups throughout the country spontaneously and

simultaneously taking weapons , would be sufficient to arouse the

nation.”[6] It goes without saying that the criticism against Mazzini

can be extended to the anarchists.

What will happen , Bakunin asks again, if the power destroys your

organization? An uprising? That would be great, he said, “ if you could

have the hope of triumph. But can you have it ? Are you adequately

prepared , solidly organized enough for that? Do you have the certainty

to raise with you the whole of the Romagna, including the peasants? If

so, pick up the gauntlet thrown to you . But if you do not have this

confidence — I ‘m not talking about illusions , but a trust based on

positive facts — then willingly have the strength to suppress your

natural indignation , avoid a battle that must end in defeat for you.

Remember that a new defeat would be fatal not only for you but for all

of Europe.”[7]

For Bakunin the revolution was not an act of mass violence; it was the

overthrow of a political and social order providing you knew what you

wanted to put in its place : “No one can want to destroy unless having

at the least a distant vision, true or false, of the order of things

that should to him follow that which currently exists; and if this

vision is living in him, its destructive force becomes more powerful ;

the more it approaches the truth, that is to say more it conforms to the

necessary development of the current social world , the more its

destructive effects become beneficial and useful.”[8] This is an

unequivocal condemnation of insurrectionism.

In October 1873 Bakunin wrote a very moving letter to the “companions of

the Jura Federation,” announcing to them his resignation from the AIT .

“For four and a half years pretty much as we all know, despite all the

artifices of our common enemies and the infamous calumnies they have

poured out against me, you kept your esteem for me, your friendship and

your trust. You are not even intimidated by the name “Bakuninists” that

was thrown in your faces.” In his letter Bakunin rejoices that his

friends had won victory “against the ambitious intrigues of Marxists,

and in favor of freedom of the proletariat and the whole future of the

International”. This letter was written a year after the establishment

of the ‘anti-authoritarian’ International ‘. The Russian revolutionary

was tired, sick. He thought that the International no longer needed him.

“I have many reasons to act like this. Do not think that this is

primarily because of the personal dislikes with which I have been

drenched in recent years. I’m not saying that I am absolutely

insensitive; yet I still feel strong enough to resist if I thought my

further participation in your work, your struggles, could be of some use

to the triumph of the cause of the proletariat. But I do not think

that”.[9]

By birth , he said , he was only a bourgeois , and as such he couldn’t

do anything but theoretical propaganda. “Well , I have this belief that

the time for great theoretical discourse , printed or spoken , is past.

In the past nine years, within the International, more ideas were

developed than it would take to save the world , if ideas alone could

save it, and I challenge anyone to invent a new one . It is no longer

the time for ideas; it is time for facts and acts. What matters most

today is the organization of the forces of the proletariat. But this

organization must be the work of the proletariat itself.”[10]

The purpose is very clear: it is time for action, that is to say, “ the

organizational strength of the proletariat” , which must be “the work of

the proletariat itself .” Bakunin concludes his letter of October 1873

with a recommendation that the militants who will engage in terrorism or

insurgency ignored : “ 1. Hold fast to your principles of great and

broad popular freedom, without which equality and solidarity are

themselves all lies . 2. Always organize more practical, militant

international solidarity of the workers of all trades and all countries,

and remember that infinitely weak as individuals, as communities and as

individual countries you will find there is a huge , irresistible force

in this universal community. “[11]

The “victory of liberty and the International against the authoritarian

intrigue” , in the words of Bakunin , will be a Pyrrhic victory .

Especially since, interpreting these words in their own way, the Italian

activists will engage in insurrectionary attempts which will end

miserably and precipitate the collapse of the anti-authoritarian

International.

Two months later in January 1874 the Italian militants formed the

Italian Committee for the Social Revolution that will organize several

attempts at popular uprisings by small groups of activists without

contact with the proletariat, even the “people” they were supposed to

wake up from their torpor , and in total contradiction to the

injunctions of Bakunin.

Some Italian militants, among them Malatesta and Cafiero , threw

themselves between 1874 and 1877 into armed movements that failed or

ended in ridicule . Thus, on 5 April 1877 , Malatesta, Costa, Cafiero ,

and thirty armed men besieged two villages in Benevento, east of Naples,

burned the archives and distributed the money found in the office of the

tax collector.

“A small armed band, led by Cafiero and Malatesta, landed without

warning in one of the villages , announcing that the world will change,

it acts to abolish the State and property in the municipality followed

next by abolishing them completely. Welcomed by the population with the

priest at their head, the internationalists then seized the town hall,

carried the archives and property titles to the town square where they

burned them.”[12]

There were no casualties. The same scene took place in several villages

with an unenthusiastic welcome from the population. Our revolutionaries

then wandered for a few days in the countryside, numb with cold, and

were eventually arrested. At the end of their trial, members of the

Benevento expedition even suffered the indignity of being seen to be

acquitted , which shows how they were not taken seriously. Despite the

total fiasco of such insurrectionary actions , this seems to have

impressed many anarchists .

Yet five years earlier Bakunin had warned his Italian friends against

such initiatives : in a letter to Celsio Cerretti , he wrote that “it

doesn’t have to be that the revolution dishonors itself by an insane

movement and the idea of a revolutionary uprising falls into ridicule.

“[13]

On 3 December 1876, the Bulletin of the Jura Federation published a

letter from Carlo Cafiero to Malatesta in which he states : “The Italian

Federation believes that insurrectional action, intended to assert

socialist principles by deeds, is the most effective means of propaganda

. “ One can say that this letter is in some way the birth of anarchism ,

it invalidates the AIT as a class structure and sets it up as an

affinity group — which was totally against position of Bakunin. To

support their view , the Italians based themselves on certain texts that

the Russian revolutionary had written at the end of his life, but giving

them a meaning totally contrary to what he had said .

Anarchist action was defined in Le Révolté in 1880 : “The permanent

revolt in speech, in writing, by the dagger , gun , dynamite [...]

everything that is not legal is good to us. “[14] It should be noted

that this phrase , which appeared in the magazine that Kropotkin ran,

was falsely attributed to him — but we can rightly think that he

approved . It is found in an article entitled “Action “ , unsigned, of

which Carlo Cafiero was the author. Often quoted, phrase is truncated

because in the means of action recommended after dynamite the article

adds, “ Or even , sometimes , by the ballot , when it’s a matter of

voting for Blanqui and Trinquet , ineligible ...” Kropotkin will

distance himself from the attacks , again in a very subdued and

ambiguous manner , when the anarchist movement itself distanced itself.

On 14 July 1881 the anarchists met in congress in London to try to

reorganize the movement with Kropotkin presiding . This congress is

sometimes wrongly presented as a congress of the AIT . There were

thirty-one delegates representing thirteen countries , a range that will

not be seen again for a long time, but that does not mean a large body

of members. Representatives from Serbia , Turkey , Egypt mixed with

German delegates , Swiss , English, Italian, Belgian , French, Dutch ,

Spanish, Russian and American . Also present were representatives from

federations of the anti-authoritarian International , which made it

wrong to say this it was a congress of the AIT.

Two motions were passed: the first, which will never be applied,

provided for the creation of an “international information office.” The

other motion, referring to the AIT, said that it had “recognized a need

to join verbal and written propaganda with propaganda by the deed”. The

reference to the AIT was , however, distorted because to the

International “propaganda by the deed” meant the creation of workers’

societies, mutuals, cooperatives, libraries, etc. The motion proposed to

“spread the spirit of revolt” and to bring about action “on the ground

of illegality which is the only road to revolution”: “The technical and

chemical sciences have already rendered services to the revolutionary

cause and are being called to make still greater in the future, the

Congress recommends that organizations and individuals [...] give great

weight to the study and application of these sciences, as a means of

defense and attack. ”

There is something childish in such proclamations , which are

reminiscent of powerless ranting against a situation where nothing can

be changed. Yet these calls, which favored any manipulative

interpretation , would lead to the worst excesses — the worst being the

attack on a theater in Barcelona in November 1893 , which claimed 80

victims.

The heirs of the Spanish section of the AIT , when to them, interpreted

the call to “propaganda by the deed” in a perfectly “orthodox” manner ,

that is to say, in the exact sense in which the term was defined by the

AIT . Applying it to their congress of 1873, they will call for support

for strikes, creating resistance funds, to organizing events , meetings

, consumer cooperatives networks, establishing schools , libraries ,

education centers, mutualist societies and employment agencies. The fact

is that the Spanish section was the only one to retain the character of

a mass organization.

Note that the anti-worker repression in Spain was no less fierce than in

France. Unfortunately, in both countries , the destructive attacks

against the labor organizations will not come only from the state or

bosses, but from a part of the anarchist movement itself. In France ,

the anarcho-communists showed themselves as opposed any industrial

action that did not lead directly to the revolution , and in fact they

will cut themselves off from the workers’ movement.

I conclude by quoting Gaston Leval , “After tirelessly advocating

constructive methods that have remained unknown to all anarchists —

maybe there was there a few exceptions that I do not know — Bakunin ,

after the failure of the revolutionary attempts which he had taken part

and before those of the Commune, came to the conclusion that “ the hour

of revolution had passed . “ He then recommended “ propaganda by deed “

and listened to the direct realizations serving as examples . But

demagoguery and stupidity was the law in the anarchist movement; the

formula was interpreted as a recommendation of individual attacks ,

which had nothing to do with the thought of the great fighter.[15]

Leval alludes to the last letter written by Bakunin to his friend Elysee

Reclus on 15 February . 1875. In fact Bakunin wanted to say that a

revolutionary cycle had passed and a long reaction period had begun. He

meant that the revolution is not necessarily on the agenda all the time.

We are now , he says, in a downward cycle , in which “ thought, hope and

revolutionary passion absolutely can’t be found in the masses “. During

such periods , “we will fight in vain, we will do nothing”.

Conclusion

Insurrectionism like as individualism besides, are two closely related

phenomena that can be analyzed in the same way. This is, roughly, the

theory of the sausage. While anarchism is a comprehensive doctrine

encompassing reflection on society, on the revolution, a theory of

knowledge, a theory of the individual, etc., some people, in a given

situation, decide to extract from the main body of doctrine and give

emphasis to one aspect of the doctrine, naming this new find “anarchism”

and deciding that this new slice of sausage is the only way to achieve

emancipation. Added to this is undoubtedly a profound ignorance of

anarchist texts or authors or, what is worse, a deliberate attempt to

falsify them.

Absolutely nothing is found in either in Proudhon or Bakunin, that

suggests the slightest temptation to “individualism”: on the contrary,

there are very severe criticisms there. We find, however, in the one as

in the other, a complete theory of the individual that goes much further

than anything we can find in the “anarchist individualists “classics.

The same can be said for insurrectionism. A political movement that aims

to create the general conditions for the emancipation of humanity can

not hope to apply the same strategy, consistently, in all places and at

all times. It can not require all people who adhere to this doctrine to

adopt the same practices. We can’t require a person who does not work to

be part of a union strategy, for example. We know that at some point we

will have to organize to defend the revolution; we must prepare for it.

But activists who want to prioritize this type of activity can train

themselves, not by bashing the anarchists at the end of the

demonstration, but protecting anarchists events involving comrades who

have no ability to fight, the children, the elderly, etc.

Bakunin participated in four insurrections in thirty years.[16] He never

said that the uprisings were useless, no matter that he said every time

that they had no chance of success — which did not prevent him from

participating. He just said it was irresponsible, if not criminal, to

send people to the slaughter for nothing. And he said that, in any case,

the revolution will be the task of the workers gathered in their mass

organization with a common ideal, a general idea of their rights and a

pretty good idea of the social order they want to build in place of the

old order. He said that “a party that, to achieve its ends, that is

committed deliberately and systematically to the path of the revolution,

is obliged to ensure victory. “[17]

When Bakunin said that it is time for “the facts and acts,” he was

referring to “the organization of the forces of the proletariat,” which

“must be the work of the proletariat itself.”[18]

René Berthier

Translator epilogue

The Groupe Salvador Segui has presented good evidence that near the end

of his life Bakunin had renounced the irresponsibility and

conspiratorial elitism that many so-called ‘insurrectionists’ find so

attractive an example. I must confess that this essay has improved my

estimation of Bakunin. Whatever his mistakes over his revolutionary

career in the end he came to recognize the need for patient organizing

rather than conspiratorial ‘theater’. The Bakunin of the Nechayev affair

had been taught a stern lesson. Gone were the hopes of a sudden mass

explosion that required only the actions of an elite for a trigger. The

final Bakunin was much more in the democratic and populist trend of

anarchism rather than in the Blanquist-Leninist illusion of a dumb beast

who needed an “invisible dictatorship”, as he called it, to think for

them.

In any case the tactic of sneaking off into the countryside and

performing a drama expecting the population to be suddenly inspired to

rise up en masse was exactly as ridiculous as this essay says. Over time

as the world became more urbanized and communications improved the

absurdity grew. The ridiculous became even more so with time. Of the

three Italians mentioned earlier in this series only Malatesta developed

a realistic anarchist alternative. In his maturity he became very much a

gradualist. Andrea Costa reacted to the magnitude of the insurrectionist

mistake by abandoning anarchism for parliamentary socialism. Carlo

Cafiero ended his days by dying of TB in an asylum for the mentally ill

at the age of 45. He carried his illusions to the end.

In the later half of the 20^(th) century the rural foco tactic was

adopted by a variety of Marxist Leninist groups with varying degrees of

success, but the window of opportunity closed and it has been decades

since there have been any Marxist parties coming to power in this way.

The Leninists weren’t as deluded as the early anarchists. They foresaw a

protracted guerrilla war rather than a spontaneous insurrection

triggered by their example. In a few cases such as FRAC in Colombia and

the Naxalites of India the guerillas have lingered on for a half century

becoming more and more like simple organized crime rather than

revolutionaries.

The unrealistic dream had a lingering presence in Spain where rural

isolation was often even more dramatic than in the Italian Mezzogiorno,

but for all their romanticism the Spaniards never lost track of the need

for the self organization of the people — as the article mentions. The

era of Pistolerismo around 1920 wasn’t a survival of insurrectionalism

but rather a tit-for-tat battle of assignation between the forces of the

Church, government, caciques and capitalists and the unionists of the

CNT.

Later, after the formation of the FAI in 1927, the insurrectionist

tendency within that organization managed to force the undertaking of a

number of utterly quixotic ‘mini-insurrections’ which followed a

consistent pattern. A small armed group would enter a town, attack the

police station, burn the government documents, tell the population to

form committees and abolish money. The utopia never lasted longer than

the time it took the Guardia to make their way up the road.

These adventures were less farcical than those of the Italians two

generations, but they were nonetheless predictably useless. Their one

invariant effect was to fill Spain’s jails with more and more

anarchists. By a supreme irony this failure was the one and only thing

that contributed to the anarchist-inspired revolution of 1936,

admittedly by a very devious path. To understand this we have to look

back over the early years of the FAI.

The purpose behind the formation of the FAI was not so much the staging

of ‘revolutionary drama’ (or comedy) as it was to ensure that the much

larger CNT remained committed to ‘anarchist orthodoxy’. In the

beginning, before 1927, this was relatively easy. The main ‘temptation’

was from the increasingly Stalinist communists. The CNT initially

considered affiliating to the Moscow controlled ‘Red International of

Trade Unions’, but following a report from delegates sent to observe its

Congress the CNT overwhelmingly rejected affiliation, and in 1922

elected to join the anarcho-syndicalist AIT. Dissidents such as Joaquín

Maurín, once elected as General Secretary of the CNT, left the

Confederation but came to oppose Stalinism and later Trotskyism in their

own way. In 1935 they formed an anti-Stalinist communist party, the POUM

which numbered far more members than the Stalinist PCE and PSUC (the PCE

in Catalonia). The POUM, however, was quite creative in finding ways to

self-destruct. Between them and the CNT, however, it was obvious that

Stalinism suited neither Spanish conditions nor Spanish mentality.

The much more serious ‘threat’ came from those whom the FAI would

condemn as “reformists”. The ‘revolutionary exaltation’ of many of the

anarchist groups produced opposition on the part of more realistic

unionists within the CNT who wanted to concentrate more on bread and

butter issues and felt that a strong workers’ organization was more

important than ‘poetic fantasies’.

The FAI proved much more effective in packing meetings than in making

revolution. As they continued their campaign for ideological purity the

reaction of the more moderate CNTistas grew stronger. The FAI continued

their campaign of capturing position after position in the

Confederation. The matter came to a head at the acrimonious

‘Conservatorio’ CNT convention in Madrid in 1931. While the militants

‘won’ there the moderates responded with the ‘Manifesto of the Thirty’

against what they called the “Leninist-dictatorship of the FAI”.

{An excellent account of these years of factional fighting in the CNT is

Anarchism, the Republic and Civil War in Spain: 1931–1939}

The gloves were off. The FAI proceeded to depose every moderate union

official they could and to expel not just individuals but whole union

sections for their moderation. Many sections also left voluntarily. The

moderates responded by forming their own FSL (Libertarian Syndicalist

Federation). While the FSL was much smaller than the CNT it was by no

means a given that all CNTistas agreed with the stance of the FAI.

The FAI had a free hand, and they misused it to the best of their

ability with ill conceived insurrections. The one and only insurrection

of this period that had even the remotest chance of success and which

offered resistance to the state beyond comic opera was that of Asturias

in 1934. The FAI-controlled CNT offered at best lukewarm support to the

Asturians. The CNT even refused to call a strike amongst the CNT

affiliated railway workers who transported troops to Asturias. The

Asturian revolt was inspired by the FAI’s rivals amongst the Socialist

controlled UGT. On the ground anarchist unionists cooperated fully with

their UGT comrades, but not so with the national organization. Not that

the socialist controlled UGT was above treachery towards the anarchists,

but that is another story.

In the spirit of irony it should be noted that the FAI failed to rise to

the occasion at the one time when ‘insurrection’ was in the real world.

A further ironic note is that the CNTistas who cooperated with their UGT

compañeros in Asturias were generally on the ‘moderate’ wing of the CNT.

While not leaving the CNT they were as one with the dissidents who were

expelled or resigned.

The irony reached a peak in 1936. As the defeats accumulated and the

prisoners piled up the CNT began to lose membership. From a high of

800,000 in 1931 it shrank to 300,000 in early 1936. Those who remained

in the CNT grew increasingly critical of the putschist tactics of the

FAI. New elections were due in February 1936, and the CNT was under

increasing pressure to abandon its anti-electoral tradition. A left wing

‘Popular Front’ coalition was set to replace the right wing government.

Here is the supreme irony. The large number of prisoners was the most

compelling arguments in favor of a switch away from anti-electoralism

because it was believed that a Popular Front government would release

them. The prisoners were there because of the FAI’s failed

insurrections.

In the end a masterful act of face-saving was decided upon. The CNT was

to have nothing to say about the elections. The FAI ran a half-hearted

don’t vote campaign, very toned down from their usual vehemence. The

Popular Front won the election. CNT membership began to grow again.

In May 1936 at the Congress of Zaragoza the CNT engaged in a public

self-criticism of the insurrectionary fever of the preceding years. The

ultras were duly chastised. This Congress also saw the readmission of

the Treintista led syndicates of the FSL with the notable exception of

Angel Pestaña who had really and truly had enough. He went on to try and

form the ‘Syndicalist Party’, a strange hybrid of anarchism and

politics. It never gained traction.

On July 17, 1936 the Spanish army attempted a coup to remove the Popular

Front from power. It succeeded in half of Spain, but in the other half

it was defeated by a real popular insurrection. The dreams of the

insurrectionists had come true, but only because of their defeats, both

military and politically in the CNT. Needless to say this wasn’t what

the dreamers had imagined.

The Spanish Revolution had begun, a revolution that was arguably the

most radical, thoroughgoing and popular in history. The result, after 3

years of heroic struggle, was defeat, but anarchism had its brightest

moment. When a goodly portion of the Catalan population made their sad

way north to the French border in 1939 they left behind the

insurrectionist delusion, forever buried on Spanish soil.

Never again would ‘insurrectionism’, as originally conceived by the

Italian anarchists appear on the world scene. Guerilla wars would be

fought during the rest of the century, based in rural areas and led by

Leninist/Stalinist parties, but these were far from being the popular

insurrections that the 19^(th) century dreamers imagined they could

inspire.

A bit to the north, however, in France and to a lesser degree in Italy

‘insurrectionism’ began to take on a much more sinister meaning, one

divorced from the idealistic and populist dreams of its first adherents.

This new ‘insurrectionism’ that actually abandoned the idea of popular

insurrection out of arrogant contempt for ‘the masses’ is what modern

day ‘insurrectionism’ grew out of rather than the dreams of the Italians

and the Spaniards who never divorced themselves from the people. This is

as good a time as any to pause before going on with the story.

[1] “Letters to a Frenchman on the current crisis,” in 1870.

[2] There is a Bakunin text entitled “Written against Marx,” in which

the dialectic of the acquisition of political consciousness of the

working class is remarkably demonstrated.

[3] Bakunin said the same thing about striking workers, “Who knows what

every single strike represents for the suffering and sacrifices of

workers ? “(” International Revolutionary Alliance of Socialist

Democracy. “)

[4] Letter Ceretti, 13–27 March 1872.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Letter to Celso Ceretti, 13–27 March 1872.

[8] Bakunin, “Protest of the Alliance.” 1871

[9] “Letter to the companions of the Jura Federation”, first fortnight

of October, 1873.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Marianne Enckell, the Jura Federation, Canvas editor, p. 186.

[13] Letter Ceretti, 17 March 1872.

[14] Rebel, December 25, 1880, quoted by Jean Maitron.

[15] Gaston Leval, Permanent Crisis anarchism.

[16] I included, in principle, the last, that of Bologna, in which

Bakunin took part despite the warnings he had given against the

adventurist acts, which, badly prepared and badly organized, became a

farce: Bakunin had to flee disguised as a priest carrying a basket of

eggs. Tired, sick, and depressed, Bakunin explained his participation in

the uprising: “I was determined to die,” he wrote.

[17] “Statism and Anarchy”, Works, Free Field, IV, 404.

[18] “Letter to the companions of the Jura Federation,” the first half

of October, 1873.