💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › colin-parker-basic-bakunin.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:44:28. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

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

Title: Basic Bakunin
Author: Colin Parker
Date: 1993, 2004
Language: en
Topics: Mikhail Bakunin, Michael Bakunin, introductory
Source: For the South African Edition: https://zabalazabooks.net/2019/03/22/basic-bakunin/][zabalazabooks.net]] For the ACF edition: [[http://afed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/Basic-Bakunin.pdf
Notes: Extracted from the 1993 edition by Colin Parker, for Anarchist Communist Federation, UK. 2004 South African edition by Zabalaza Books, with new introduction. March 2019, second South African edition by Zabalaza Books, with 2004 South African introduction.

Colin Parker

Basic Bakunin

This pamphlet provides an excellent introduction to the ideas of Mikhail

Bakunin, the “founder” of anarchism… We do not see Bakunin as a god who

never made mistakes. Of course he was not perfect. He was a man, but a

man who gave his all for the struggle of the oppressed, a revolutionary

hero who deserves our admiration and respect. From Bakunin, we can learn

much about revolutionary activism. We can learn even more about the

ideas needed to win the age-old fight between exploiter and exploited,

between worker and peasant, on the one hand, and boss and ruler on the

other…

---

On Bakunin: Introduction to the South African Edition (2004)

by Lucien van der Walt

This pamphlet provides an excellent introduction to the ideas of Mikhail

Bakunin, the “founder” of anarchism. Two new sections have been added to

this pamhlet. On this page, we provide a short outline of the life of

Mikhail Bakunin. We have also added a discussion of Bakunin’s profound

positions on the fight against imperialism and racism, and the fight

against women’s oppression. This discussion may be found at the end of

the booklet.

We do not see Bakunin as a god who never made mistakes. Of course he was

not perfect. He was a man, but a man who gave his all for the struggle

of the oppressed, a revolutionary hero who deserves our admiration and

respect. From Bakunin, we can learn much about revolutionary activism.

We can learn even more about the ideas needed to win the age-old fight

between exploiter and exploited, between worker and peasant, on the one

hand, and boss and ruler on the other.

The greatest honor we can do his memory is to fight today and always for

human freedom and workers liberation.

The Life of Bakunin

Born in 1814 in Russia, Bakunin quickly developed a burning hatred of

oppression. In his 20s, he became involved in radical democratic

circles. At this time he developed a theory which saw freedom being

achieved through a general rising of the masses, linked to revolutions

in the colonies.

He was involved in the revolutionary rising in 1848 in Paris, France,

and the revolts of the subject peoples of Eastern Europe.

For this he was persecuted, hounded by the rich and powerful. Captured,

he was twice sentenced to death.

However, the Russian government demanded his extradition, and so he was

jailed for 6 years without trial in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Release

from jail was followed by exile in Siberia.

In 1861, Bakunin escaped. He spent the next 3 years in the fight for

Polish independence.

But at this time, he began to realize that formal national independence

– the creation of an indepedent government – was nor an adequate

guarantee for the liberation of the working and poor masses.

Instead, the fight against imperialism had to be linked to the fight for

a real socialism – socialism under the control of workers – libertarian

socialism created from below, sweeping aside the bosses’ governments and

capitalism through worker-peasant revolution.

In 1868, Bakunin joined the (First) International Workingmen’s

Association. This was a federation of workers organizations, parties and

trade unions.

Bakunin soon came to exercise a profound influence on most of the

sections, notably those in south Europe and Latin America.

Bakunin’s politics of socialism from below soon brought him into

conflict with Karl Marx, another well-known figure in the International.

Karl Marx argued that socialism had to come from above – the workers

must try to use the government to bring about socialism and must run

candidates in elections.

Bakunin disagreed. He looked forward to the replacement of the bosses’

State by free federations of free workers.

Failing to defeat Bakunin through democratic methods, the Marxist

minority resorted to a campaign of disgraceful lies and slanders. At two

unconstitutional congresses, “packed” with Marxist delegates from

non-existent organizations, Marx managed to expel Bakunin and change the

aims of the International to suit his own aims.

At the next conference – a genuine, representative conference – the

delegates overturned Marx’s decisions and rejected the charges against

Bakunin. In fact. Bakunin’s political positions were accepted.

Because Marx refused to accept this democratic, majority decision, the

International split in practice.

Worn out by a lifetime of struggle, Bakunin died prematurely in 1873.

His legacy, however, is enormous. As the “founder” of anarchism,

Bakunin’s ideas would influence generations of revolutionaries in

Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas.

His writings and ideas are as relevant today as ever. His warning that

socialism from above would degenerate into oppression and exploitation,

his profound insights on the tasks of the workers movement, his points

on the struggle against imperialism and women’s oppression – all of

these are as important and true as ever.

Additional Notes

Bakunin on Anti-Racism

Mikhail Bakunin was a lifelong opponent of national oppression and

racism. Bakunin stated that there must be a “recognition of human rights

and dignity in every man, of whatever race or colour”. For Bakunin, the

task was to fight for “the triumph of equality… political, economic, and

social equality, through the abolition of all possible privileges… for

all persons on earth, without regard to colour, nationality, or sex.”

Bakunin on Anti-Imperialism

An opponent of oppression and the centralized State, Bakunin was a

fighter against imperialism.

For Bakunin anti-colonial revolt was inevitable and desirable. Bakunin

doubted whether what he termed “imperialist Europe” could keep the

subject peoples in bondage: “Two-thirds of humanity. 800 million

Asiatics asleep in their servitude will necessarily awaken and begin to

move. But in what direction and to what end?”

Bakunin declared “strong sympathy for any national uprising against any

form of oppression,” stating that every people “has the right to be

itself… no one is entitled to impose its costume, its customs, its

languages and its laws”.

However, national liberation ought to be achieved “as much in the

economic as in the political interests of the masses”. If the

anti-colonial struggle is hi-jacked to “set up a powerful State” or if

“it is carried out without the people and must therefore depend for

success on a privileged class” it will become a retrogressive,

disastrous, counter-revolutionary movement”.

Consequently, the independence movement requires that “all faith in any

divine or human authority must be eradicated among the masses” and that

the struggle against colonialism becomes an internationalist social

revolution against the State and the class system.

In other words, the struggle against imperialism must not be sidetracked

into replacing foreign bosses with local bosses. Instead, the struggle

against imperialism must be linked to the struggle to overthrow all

bosses and create international socialism.

The vehicle of that struggle could not be the State, the “graveyard” of

humanity. The vehicle of the struggle would be workers mass action, not

confined to one country only, but spread across all borders and uniting

all workers. For Bakunin, “the homeland of the worker… is… the great

federation of the workers of the whole world, in the struggle against

bourgeois capital.”

Bakunin on Women’s Freedom

“In the eyes of the law,” Bakunin noted, “even the best educated,

talented, intelligent woman is inferior to even the most ignorant man.”

Women are not given equal opportunities with men.

For the poor under-privileged women, said Bakunin, there is the threat

of “hunger and cold”, and the threat of sexual assault and prostitution.

Even within the family, women are too often the “slaves of their

husbands”, and their children are “deprived of a decent education,”

“condemned to a brutish life of servitude and degradation.”

Instead of this, “equal rights must belong to both men and women”

(Bakunin). Women must be economically independent, “free to forge their

own way of life.”

This requires united workers struggle against the bosses. As Bakunin put

it:

Oppressed women! Your cause is indissolubly tied to the common cause of

all the exploited workers – men and women!

Parasites (bosses] of both sexes! You are doomed to disappear.

But at this time, he began to realize that formal national independence

– the creation of an independent government – was not an adequate

guarantee for the liberation of the working and poor masses.

Instead, the fight against imperialism had to be linked to the fight for

a real socialism – socialism under the control of the workers –

libertarian socialism created from below, sweeping aside the bosses’

governments and capitalism through worker-peasant revolution.

Basic Bakunin (1993)

by Colin Parker

“The star of revolution will rise high above the streets of Moscow, from

a sea of blood and fire, and turn into a lodestar to lead a liberated

humanity.”

– Mikhail Bakunin

Preface

The aim of this pamphlet is to do nothing more than present an outline

of what the author thinks are the key features of Mikhail Bakunin’s

anarchist ideas.

Bakunin was extremely influential in the 19^(th) century socialist

movement, yet his ideas for decades have been reviled, distorted or

ignored. On reading this pamphlet, it will become apparent that Bakunin

has a lot to offer and that his ideas are not at all confused (as some

writers would have us think) but make up a full coherent and well argued

body of thought. For a detailed but difficult analysis of Bakunin’s

revolutionary ideas, Richard B. Saltman’s book, “The Social and

Political Thought of Michael Bakunin” is strongly recommended. Ask your

local library to obtain a copy.

Class

Bakunin saw revolution in terms of the overthrow of one oppressing class

by another oppressed class and the destruction of political power as

expressed as the state and social hierarchy. According to Bakunin,

society is divided into two main classes which are fundamentally opposed

to each other. The oppressed class, he variously described as commoners,

the people, the masses or the workers, makes up a great majority of the

population. It is in ‘normal’ time not conscious of itself as a class,

though it has an ‘instinct’ for revolt and whilst unorganised, is full

of vitality. The numerically much smaller oppressing class, however is

conscious of its role and maintains its ascendancy by acting in a

purposeful, concerted and united manner. The basic differences between

the two classes, Bakunin maintained, rests upon the ownership and

control of property, which is disproportionately in the hands of the

minority class of capitalists. The masses, on the other hand, have

little to call their own beyond their ability to work.

Bakunin was astute enough to understand that the differences between the

two main classes are not always clear cut. He pointed out that it is not

possible to draw a hard line between the two classes, though as in most

things, the differences are most apparent at the extremes. Between these

extremes of wealth and power there is a hierarchy of social strata which

can be assessed according to the degree to which they exploit each other

or are exploited themselves. The further away a given group is from the

workers, the more likely it is to be part of the exploiting category and

the less it suffers from exploitation. Between the two major classes

there is a middle class or middle classes which are both exploiting and

exploited, depending on their position of social hierarchy.

The masses who are the most exploited form, in Bakunin’s view, the great

revolutionary class which alone can sweep away the present economic

system. Unfortunately, the fact of exploitation and its resultant

poverty are in themselves no guarantee of revolution. Extreme poverty

is, Bakunin thought, likely to lead to resignation if the people can see

no possible alternative to the existing order. Perhaps, if driven to

great depths of despair, the poor will rise up in revolt. Revolts

however tend to be local and therefore, easy to put down. In Bakunin’s

view, three conditions are necessary to bring about popular revolution.

They are:

sheer hatred for the conditions in which the masses find themselves

the belief the change is a possible alternative

a clear vision of the society that has to be made to bring about human

emancipation

Without these three factors being present, plus a united and efficient

self organisation, no liberatory revolution can possibly succeed.

Bakunin had no doubts that revolution must necessarily involve

destruction to create the basis of the new society. He stated that,

quite simply, revolution means nothing less than war, that is, the

physical destruction of people and property. Spontaneous revolutions

involve, often, the vast destruction of property. Bakunin noted that

when circumstances demanded it, the workers will destroy even their own

houses, which more often than not, do not belong to them. The negative,

destructive urge is absolutely necessary, he argued, to sweep away the

past. Destruction is closely linked with construction, since the “more

vividly the future is visualized, the more powerful is the force of

destruction.”

Given the close relationship between the concentration of wealth and

power in capitalist societies, it is not surprising that Bakunin

considered economic questions to be of paramount importance. It is in

the context of the struggle between labour and capital that Bakunin gave

great significance of strikes by workers. Strikes, he believed, have a

number of important functions in the struggle against capitalism.

Firstly they are necessary as catalysts to wrench the workers away from

their ready acceptance of capitalism, they jolt them out of their

condition of resignation. Strikes, as a form of economic and political

warfare, require unity to succeed, thus welding the workers together.

During strikes, there is a polarization between employers and workers.

This makes the latter more receptive to the revolutionary propaganda and

destroys the urge to compromise and seek deals. Bakunin thought that as

the struggle between labour and capital increases, so will the intensity

and number of strikes. The ultimate strike is the general strike. A

revolutionary general strike, in which class conscious workers are

infused with anarchist ideas will lead, thought Bakunin, to the final

explosion which will bring about anarchist society.

Bakunin’s ideas are revolutionary in a very full sense, being concerned

with the destruction of economic exploitation and social/political

domination and their replacement by a system of social organisation

which is in harmony with human nature. Bakunin offered a critique of

capitalism, in which authority and economic inequality went hand in

hand, and state socialism, (e.g. Marxism) which is one sided in its

concentration on economic factors whilst, grossly underestimating the

dangers of social authority.

State

Bakunin based his consistent and unified theory upon three

interdependent platforms, namely:

human beings are naturally social (and therefore they desire social

solidarity)

are more or less equal and,

want to be free

His anarchism is consequently concerned with the problem of creating a

society of freedom within the context of an egalitarian system of mutual

interaction. The problem with existing societies, he argued, is that

they are dominated by states that are necessarily violent, anti-social,

and artificial constructs which deny the fulfillment of humanity.

Whilst there are, in Bakunin’s view, many objectionable features within

capitalism, apart from the state, (e.g. the oppression of women, wage

slavery), it is the state which nurtures, maintains and protects the

oppressive system as a whole. The state is defined as an anti-social

machine which controls society for the benefit of an oppressing class or

elite. It is essentially an institution based upon violence and is

concerned with its maintenance of inequality through political

repression. In addition the state relies upon a permanent bureaucracy to

help carry out its aims. The bureaucratic element, incidentally, is not

simply a tool which it promotes. All states, Bakunin believed, have

internal tendencies toward self perpetuation, whether they be capitalist

or socialist and are thus to be opposed as obstacles to human freedom.

It might be objected that states are not primarily concerned with

political repression and violence and indeed that liberal democratic

states, in particular, are much interested in social welfare. Bakunin

argues that such aspects are only a disguise, and that when threatened,

all states reveal their essentially violent natures. In Britain and

Northern Ireland this repressive feature of state activity has come

increasingly to the fore, when the state has been challenged to any

significant degree, it has responded with brutal firmness.

And developments within Britain over the last couple decades tend to

substantiate another feature of the state which Bakunin drew attention

to, their tendency toward over increasing authoritarianism and

absolutism. He believed that there were strong pressures in all states

whether they are liberal, socialist, capitalist, or whatever, toward

military dictatorship but that the rate of such development will vary,

however according to factors such as demography, culture and politics.

Finally, Bakunin noted that states tend toward warfare against other

states. Since there is no internationally accepted moral code between

states, then rivalries between them will be expressed in terms of

military conflict. “So long as there’s government, there will be no

peace. There will only be more or less prolonged respites, armistices

concluded by the perpetually belligerent states; but as soon as a state

feels sufficiently strong to destroy this equilibrium to its advantage,

it will never fail to do so.”

Bourgeois Democracy

Political commentators and the media are constantly singing the praises

of the system of representative democracy in which every few years or so

the electorate is asked to put a cross on a piece of paper to determine

who will control them. This system works good insofar as the capitalist

system has found a way of gaining legitimacy through the illusion that

some how the voters are in charge of running the system. Bakunin’s

writings on the issue of representative democracy were made at the time

when it barely existed in the world. Yet he could see on the basis of a

couple of examples (the United States and Switzerland) that the widening

of the franchise does little to improve the lot of the great mass of the

population. True, as Bakunin noted, middle class politicians are

prepared to humble themselves before the electorate issuing all sorts of

promises. But this leveling of candidates before the populace disappears

the day after the election, once they are transformed into members of

the Parliament. The workers continue to go to work and the bourgeoisie

takes up once again the problems of business and political intrigue.

Today, in the United States and Western Europe, the predominant

political system is that of liberal democracy. In Britain the electoral

system is patently unfair in its distribution of parliamentary seats,

insofar as some parties with substantial support get negligible

representation. However, even where strict proportional representation

applies, the Bakuninist critique remains scathing. For the

representative system requires that only a small section of the

population concern itself directly with legislation and governing (in

Britain a majority out of 650 MP’s (Members of Parliament)).

Bakunin’s objections to representative democracy rest basically on the

fact that it is an expression of the inequality of power which exists in

society. Despite constitutions guaranteeing the rights of citizens and

equality before the law, the reality is that the capitalist class is in

permanent control. So long as the great mass of the population has to

sell its labour power in order to survive, there can not be democratic

government. So long as people are economically exploited by capitalism

and there are gross inequalities of wealth, there can not be real

democracy. As Bakunin made clear, economic facts are much stronger than

political rights. So long as there is economic privilege there will be

political domination by the rich over the poor. The result of this

relationship is that representatives of capitalism (bourgeois democracy)

“posses in fact, if not by right, the exclusive privilege of governing.”

A common fiction that is expounded in liberal democracies is that the

people rule. However the reality is that minorities necessarily do the

governing. A privileged few who have access to wealth, education and

leisure time, clearly are better equipped to govern than ordinary

working people, who generally have little free time and only a basic

education.

But as Bakunin made clear, if by some quirk, a socialist government be

elected, in real terms, things would not improve much. When people gain

power and place themselves ‘above’ society, he argued, their way of

looking at the world changes. From their exalted position of high office

the perspective on life becomes distorted and seems very different to

those on the bottom. The history of socialist representation in

parliament is primarily that of reneging on promises and becoming

absorbed into the manners, morality and attitudes of the ruling class.

Bakunin suggests that such backsliding from socialist ideas is not due

to treachery, but because participation in parliament makes

representatives see the world through a distorted mirror. A workers

parliament, engaged in the tasks of governing would, said Bakunin, end

up a chamber of “determined aristocrats, bold or timid worshipers of the

principle of authority who will also become exploiters and oppressors.”

The point that Bakunin makes time and time again in his writings is that

no one can govern for the people in their interests. Only personal and

direct control over our lives will ensure that justice and freedom will

prevail. To abdicate direct control is to deny freedom. To grant

political sovereignty to others, whether under the mantle of democracy,

republicanism, the people’s state, or whatever, is to give others

control and therefore domination over our lives.

It might be thought that the referendum, in which people directly make

laws, would be an advance upon the idea of representative democracy.

This is not the case according to Bakunin, for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, the people are not in a position to make decisions on the basis

of full knowledge of all the issues involved. Also, laws may be a

complex, abstract, and specialized nature and that in order to vote for

them in a serious way, the people need to be fully educated and have

available the time and facilities to reflect upon and discuss the

implications involved. The reality of referenda is that they are used by

full-time politicians to gain legitimacy for essentially bourgeois

issues. It is no coincidence that Switzerland, which has used the

referendum frequently, remains one of the most conservative countries in

Europe. With referenda, the people are guided by politicians, who set

the terms of the debate. Thus despite popular input, the people still

remain under bourgeois control.

Finally, Bakunin on the whole concept of the possibility of the

democratic state: For him the democratic state is a contradiction in

terms since the state is essentially about force, authority and

domination and is necessarily based upon an inequality of wealth and

power. Democracy, in the sense of self rule for all, means that no one

is ruled. If no one rules, there can be no state. If there is a state,

there can be no self rule.

Marx

Bakunin’s opposition to Marxism involves several separate but related

criticisms. Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin

believed that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily

lead to the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state

socialist).

Firstly, Bakunin opposed what he considered to be the economic

determinist element in Marx’s thought, most simply stated that “Being

determines consciousness.” Put in another way, Bakunin was against the

idea that the whole range of ‘super structural’ factors of society, its

laws, moralities, science, religion, etc. were “but the necessary after

effects of the development of economic facts.” Rather than history or

science being primarily determined by economic factors (e.g. the ‘mode

of production’), Bakunin allowed much more for the active intervention

of human beings in the realization of their destiny.

More fundamental was Bakunin’s opposition to the Marxist idea of

dictatorship of the proletariat which was, in effect, a transitional

state on the way to stateless communism. Marx and Engles, in the

Communist Manifesto of 1848, had written of the need for labour armies

under state supervision, the backwardness of the rural workers, the need

for centralized and directed economy, and for wide spread

nationalization. Later, Marx also made clear that a workers’ government

could come into being through universal franchise. Bakunin questioned

each of these propositions.

The state, whatever its basis, whether it be proletarian or bourgeois,

inevitably contains several objectionable features. States are based

upon coercion and domination. This domination would, Bakunin stated,

very soon cease to be that of the proletariat over its enemies but would

become a state over the proletariat. This would arise, Bakunin believed,

because of the impossibility of a whole class, numbering millions of

people, governing on its own behalf. Necessarily, the workers would have

to wield power by proxy by entrusting the tasks of government to a small

group of politicians.

Once the role of government was taken out of the hands of the masses, a

new class of experts, scientists and professional politicians would

arise. This new elite would, Bakunin believed, be far more secure in its

domination over the workers by means of the mystification and legitimacy

granted by the claim to acting in accordance with scientific laws (a

major claim by Marxists). Furthermore, given that the new state could

masquerade as the true expression of the people’s will. The

institutionalizing of political power gives rise to a new group of

governors with the same self seeking interests and the same cover-ups of

its dubious dealings.

Another problem posed by the statist system, that of centralized statist

government would, argued Bakunin, further strengthen the process of

domination. The state as owner, organiser, director, financier, and

distributor of labour and economy would necessarily have to act in an

authoritarian manner in its operations. As can be seen by the Soviet

system, a command economy must act with decision flowing from top to

bottom; it cannot meet the complex and various needs of individuals and,

in the final analysis, is a hopeless, inefficient giant. Marx believed

that centralism, from whatever quarter, was a move toward the final,

statist solution of revolution. Bakunin, in contrast opposed centralism

by federalism. [???]

Bakunin’s predictions as to the operation of Marxist states have been

borne out of reality. The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, talked

incessantly of proletarian dictatorship and soviet power, yet

inevitably, with or without wanting to, created a vast bureaucratic

police state.

Unions

Most of the left in Britain view the present structures of trade unions

in a positive light. This is true for members of the Labour Party, both

left and right, the Communist Party, the Militant Tendency and many

other Marxist organisations. These bodies wish to capture or retain

control of the unions, pretty much as they stand, in order to use them

for their own purposes. As a result, there are frequently bitter

conflicts and maneuverings within the unions for control. This trend is

most apparent in the C.P.S.A. where a vicious anti-communist right wing

group alternates with the Militant Tendency and its supporters for

control of the union executive and full time posts. The major exception

to this is the Socialist Workers Party which advocates rank and file

organisation, so long as the S.W.P. can control it.

Bakunin laid the foundations of the anarchist approach to union

organisation and the general tendency of non-anarchist unions to decay

into personal fiefdoms and bureaucracy over a century ago. Arguing in

the context of union organisation within the International Working Men’s

Association, he gave examples of how unions can be stolen from the

membership whose will they are supposed to be an expression of. He

identified several interrelated features which lead to the usurpation of

power by union leaders.

Firstly, he indicated a psychological factor which plays a key part.

Honest, hardworking, intelligent and well meaning militants win through

hard work the respect and admiration of their fellow members and are

elected to union office. They display self sacrifice, initiative and

ability. Unfortunately, once in positions of leadership, these people

soon imagine themselves to be indispensable and their focus of attention

centers more and more on the machinations within the various union

committees.

The one time militant thus becomes removed from the every day problems

of the rank and file members and assumes the self delusion which

afflicts all leaders, namely a sense of superiority.

Given the existence of union bureaucracies and secret debating chambers

in which leaders decide union actions and policies, a ‘governmental

aristocracy’ arises within the union structures, no matter how

democratic those structures may formally be. With the growing authority

of the union committees etc., the workers become indifferent to union

affairs, with the exception Bakunin asserts, of issues which directly

affect them e.g. dues payment, strikes etc. Unions have always had great

problems in getting subscriptions from alienated memberships, a solution

which has been found in the ‘check off’ system by which unions and

employers collaborate to remove the required sum at source, i.e. from

the pay packet.

Where workers do not directly control their union and delegate authority

to committees and full-time agents, several things happen. Firstly, so

long as union subscriptions are not too high, and back dues are not

pressed too hard for, the substituting bodies can act with virtual

impunity. This is good for the committees but brings almost to an end

the democratic life of the union. Power gravitates increasingly to the

committees and these bodies, like all governments substitute their will

for that of the membership. This in turn allows expression for personal

intrigues, vanity, ambition and self-interest. Many intra-union battles,

which are ostensibly fought on ideological grounds, are in fact merely

struggles for control by ambitious self seekers who have chosen the

union for their career structure. This careerism occasionally surfaces

in battles between rival leftists, for example where no political

reasons for conflict exist. In the past the Communist Party offered a

union career route within certain unions and such conflicts constantly

arose.

Presumably, within the Militant Tendency, which also wishes to capture

unions, the same problem exists.

Within the various union committees, which are arranged on a

hierarchical basis (mirroring capitalism), one or two individuals come

to dominate on the basis of superior intelligence or aggressiveness.

Ultimately, the unions become dominated by bosses who hold great power

in their organisations, despite the safeguards of democratic procedures

and constitutions. Over the last few decades, many such union bosses

have become national figures, especially in periods of Labour

government.

Bakunin was aware that such union degeneration was inevitable but only

arises in the absence of rank and file control, lack of opposition to

undemocratic trends and the accession to union power to those who allow

themselves to be corrupted. Those individuals who genuinely wish to

safeguard their personal integrity should, Bakunin argued, not stay in

office too long and should encourage strong rank and file opposition.

Union militants have a duty to remain faithful to their revolutionary

ideals.

Personal integrity, however, is an insufficient safeguard. Other,

institutional and organisational factors must also be brought into play.

These include regular reporting of the proposals made by the officials

and how they voted, in other words frequent and direct accountability.

Secondly, such union delegates must draw their mandates from the

membership being subject to rank and file instructions. Thirdly, Bakunin

suggests the instant recall of unsatisfactory delegates. Finally, and

most importantly, he urged the calling of mass meetings and other

expressions of grass roots activity to circumvent those leaders who

acted in undemocratic ways. Mass meetings inspire passive members to

action, creating a camaraderie which would tend to repudiate the so

called leaders.

(Ed: From this, one can conclude that Bakunin was a major inspiration

for the anarcho-syndicalist movement.)

Revolutionary Organisation

Above all else, Bakunin the revolutionary, believed in the necessity of

collective action to achieve anarchy. After his death there was a strong

tendency within the anarchist movement towards the abandonment of

organisation in favor of small group and individual activity. This

development, which culminated in individual acts of terror in the late

nineteenth century France, isolating anarchism from the very source of

the revolution, namely the workers.

Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw

organisation not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though

he thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of

decentralized federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their

energies through mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary,

Bakunin argued, to have a co-ordinated revolutionary movement for a

number of reasons. Firstly, if anarchists acted alone, without direction

they would inevitably end up moving in different directions and would,

as a result, tend to neutralize each other. Organisation is not

necessary for its own sake, but is necessary to maximize strength of the

revolutionary classes, in the face of the great resources commanded by

the capitalist state.

However, from Bakunin’s standpoint, it was the spontaneous revolt

against authority by the people which is of the greatest importance. The

nature of purely spontaneous uprisings is that they are uneven and vary

in intensity from time to time and place to place. The anarchist

revolutionary organisation must not attempt to take over and lead the

uprising but has the responsibility of clarifying goals, putting forward

revolutionary propaganda, and working out ideas in correspondence with

the revolutionary instincts of the masses. To go beyond this would

undermine the whole self-liberatory purpose of the revolution. Putchism

has no place in Bakunin’s thought.

Bakunin then, saw revolutionary organisation in terms of offering

assistance to the revolution, not as a substitute. It is in this context

that we should interpret Bakunin’s call for a “secret revolutionary

vanguard” and “invisible dictatorship” of that vanguard. The vanguard it

should be said, has nothing in common with that of the Leninist model

which seeks actual, direct leadership over the working class. Bakunin

was strongly opposed to such approaches and informed his followers that

“no member… is permitted, even in the midst of full revolution, to take

public office of any kind, nor is the (revolutionary) organisation

permitted to do so… it will at all times be on the alert, making it

impossible for authorities, governments and states to be established.”

The vanguard was, however, to influence the revolutionary movement on an

informal basis, relying on the talents of it’s members to achieve

results. Bakunin thought that it was the institutionalization of

authority, not natural inequalities, that posed a threat to the

revolution. The vanguard would act as a catalyst to the working classes’

own revolutionary activity and was expected to fully immerse itself in

the movement. Bakunin’s vanguard then, was concerned with education and

propaganda, and unlike the Leninist vanguard party, was not to be a body

separate from the class, but an active agent within it.

The other major task of the Bakuninist organisation was that it would

act as the watchdog for the working class. Then, as now, authoritarian

groupings posed as leaders of the revolution and supplied their own

members as “governments in waiting.” The anarchist vanguard has to

expose such movements in order that the revolution should not replace

one representative state by another ‘revolutionary’ one. After the

initial victory, the political revolutionaries, those advocates of

so-called workers’ governments and the dictatorship of the proletariat,

would according to Bakunin try “to squelch the popular passions. They

appeal for order, for trust in, for submission to those who, in the

course and the name of the revolution, seized and legalized their own

dictatorial powers; this is how such political revolutionaries

reconstitute the state. We on the other hand, must awaken and foment all

the dynamic passions of the people.”

Anarchy

Throughout Bakunin’s criticisms of capitalism and state socialism he

constantly argues for freedom. It is not surprising, then, to find that

in his sketches of future anarchist society that the principle of

freedom takes precedence. In a number of revolutionary programs he

outlined which he considered to be the essential features of societies

which would promote the maximum possible individual and collective

freedom. The societies envisioned in Bakunin’s programs are not Utopias,

the sense of being detailed fictional communities, free of troubles, but

rather suggest the basic minimum skeletal structures which would

guarantee freedom. The character of future anarchist societies will

vary, said Bakunin depending on a whole range of historical, cultural,

economic and geographical factors.

The basic problem was to lay down the minimum necessary conditions which

would bring about a society based upon justice and social welfare for

all and would also generate freedom. The negative, that is, destructive

features of the programs are all concerned with the abolition of those

institutions which lead to domination and exploitation. The state,

including the established church, the judiciary, state banks and

bureaucracy, the armed forces and the police are all to be swept away.

Also, all ranks, privileges, classes and the monarchy are to be

abolished.

The positive, constructive features of the new society all interlink to

promote freedom and justice. For a society to be free, Bakunin argued,

it is not sufficient to simply impose equality. No, freedom can only be

achieved and maintained through the full participation in society of a

highly educated and healthy population, free from social and economic

worries. Such an enlightened population, can then be truly free and able

to act rationally on the basis of a popularly controlled science and a

thorough knowledge of the issues involved.

Bakunin advocated complete freedom of movement, opinion, morality where

people would not be accountable to anyone for their beliefs and acts.

This must be, he argued, complete and unlimited freedom of speech, press

and assembly. Freedom, he believed, must be defended by freedom, for to

“advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being

defended is a dangerous delusion.” A truly free and enlightened society,

Bakunin said, would adequately preserve liberty. An ordered society, he

thought, stems not from suppression of ideas, which only breeds

opposition and factionalism, but from the fullest freedom for all.

This is not to say that Bakunin did not think that a society has the

right to protect itself. He firmly believed that freedom was to be found

within society, not through its destruction. Those people who acted in

ways that lessen freedom for others have no place; These include all

parasites who live off the labour of others. Work, the contribution of

one’s labour for the creation of wealth, forms the basis of political

rights in the proposed anarchist society. Those who live by exploiting

others do not deserve political rights. Others, who steal, violate

voluntary agreements within and by society, inflict bodily harm etc. can

expect to be punished by the laws which have been created by that

society. The condemned criminal, on the other hand, can escape

punishment by society by removing himself/herself from society and the

benefits it confers. Society can also expel the criminal if it so

wishes. Basically thought, Bakunin set great store on the power of

enlightened public opinion to minimize anti-social activity.

Bakunin proposed the equalization of wealth, though natural inequalities

which are reflected in different levels of skill, energy and thrift,

should, he argued, be tolerated. The purpose of equality is to allow

individuals to find full expression of their humanity within society.

Bakunin was strongly opposed to the idea of hired labour which, if

introduced into an anarchist society, would lead to the reintroduction

of inequality and wage slavery. He proposed instead collective effort

because it would, he thought, tend to be more efficient. However, so

long as individuals did not employ others, he had no objection to them

working alone.

Through the creation of associations of labour which could coordinate

worker’s activities, Bakunin proposed the setting up of an industrial

assembly in order to harmonize production with the demand for products.

Such an assembly would be necessary in the absence of the market.

Supplied with statistical information from the various voluntary

organisations which would be federated, production could be specialized

on an international basis so that those countries with inbuilt economic

advantages would produce most efficiently for the general good. Then,

according to Bakunin, waste, economic crisis and stagnation “will no

longer plague mankind; the emancipation of human labour will regenerate

the world.”

Turning to the question of the political organisation of society,

Bakunin stressed that they should all be built in such a way as to

achieve order through the realization of freedom on the basis of the

federation of voluntary organisations. In all such political bodies

power is to flow “from the base to the summit” and from “the

circumference to the center/” In other words, such organisations should

be the expressions of individual and group opinions, not directing

centers which control people.

On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of

responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all

participants, so long as they supported the system. Those individuals,

groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would

have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute

right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, or

not. Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested as the basic

political unit, the completely autonomous commune. The commune, on the

basis of universal suffrage, would elect all of its functionaries, law

makers, judges, and administrators of communal property.

The commune would decide its own affairs but, if voluntarily federated

to the next tier of administration, the provincial assembly, its

constitution must conform to the provincial assembly. Similarly, the

constitution of the province must be accepted by the participating

communes. The provincial assembly would define the rights and

obligations existing between communes and pass laws affecting the

province as a whole. The composition of the provincial assembly would be

decided on the basis of universal suffrage.

Further levels of political organisation would be the national body,

and, ultimately, the international assembly. As regards international

organisation, Bakunin proposed that there should be no permanent armed

forces, preferring instead, the creation of local citizens’ defense

militias. Disputes between nations and their provinces would be settled

by an international assembly.This assembly, if required, could wage war

against outside aggressors but should a member nation of the

international federation attack another member, then it faces expulsion

and the opposition of the federation as a whole.

Thus, from root to branch, Bakunin’s outline for anarchy is based upon

the free federation of participants in order to maximize individual and

collective well being.

Bakunin’s Relevance Today

Throughout most of this pamphlet Bakunin has been allowed to speak for

himself and any views by the writer of the pamphlet are obvious. In this

final section it might be valuable to make an assessment of Bakunin’s

ideas and actions.

With the dominance of Marxism in the world labour and revolutionary

movements in the twentieth century, it became the norm to dismiss

Bakunin as muddle-headed or irrelevant. However, during his lifetime he

was a major figure who gained much serious support. Marx was so

pressured by Bakunin and his supporters that he had to destroy the First

International by dispatching it to New York. In order that it should not

succumb to Anarchism, Marx killed it off through a bureaucratic

maneuver.

Now that Marxism has been seriously weakened following the collapse of

the USSR and the ever increasingly obvious corruption in China,

Bakunin’s ideas and revolutionary Anarchism have new possibilities. If

authoritarian, state socialism has proved to be a child devouring

monster, then libertarian communist ideas once again offer a credible

alternative.

The enduring qualities of Bakunin and his successors are many, but

serious commitment to the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the

state must rank high. Bakunin was much more of a doer than a writer, he

threw himself into actual insurrections, much to the trepidation of

European heads of state. This militant tradition was continued by

Malatesta, Makhno, Durruti, and many other anonymous militants. Those

so-called anarchists who adopt a gradualist approach are an insult to

Anarchism. Either we are revolutionaries or we degenerate into

ineffective passivism.

Bakunin forecast the dangers of statist socialism. His predictions of a

militarized, enslaved society dominated by a Marxist ruling class came

to pass in a way that even Bakunin could not have fully envisaged.

Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin outstripped even the Tsars in their arrogance

and brutality. And, after decades of reformist socialism which have

frequently formed governments, Bakunin’s evaluations have been proved

correct. In Britain we have the ultimate insult to working people in the

form of “socialist Lords”. For services to capitalism, Labour MP’s are

ultimately granted promotion to the aristocracy.

Bakunin fought for a society based upon justice, equality and freedom.

Unlike political leaders of the left he had great faith in the

spontaneous, creative and revolutionary potential of working people. His

beliefs and actions reflect this approach. So, revolutionaries can learn

much of value from his federalism, his militancy and his contempt for

the state, which, in the twentieth century, has assumed gigantic and

dangerous proportions, Bakunin has much to teach us but we too must

develop our ideas in the face of new challenges and opportunities. We

must retain the revolutionary core of his thought yet move forward. Such

is the legacy of Bakunin.

With this in mind, the Anarchist Federation is developing a

revolutionary anarchist doctrine, which whilst being ultimately based on

Bakunin’s ideas, goes much further to suit the demands of present-day

capitalism. Ecological issues, questions of imperialist domination of

the world, the massive oppression of women, the automation of industry,

computerized technology etc. are all issues that have to be tackled. We

welcome the challenge!

---