đŸ’Ÿ Archived View for library.inu.red â€ș file â€ș zoe-baker-bakunin-was-a-racist.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:58:10. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

âžĄïž Next capture (2024-07-09)

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

Title: Bakunin was a Racist
Author: Zoe Baker
Date: Oct 31, 2021
Language: en
Topics: Mikhail Bakunin, racism, anti-racism, criticism and critique
Source: Retrieved on 11/26/2021 from https://anarchopac.com/2021/10/31/bakunin-was-a-racist/

Zoe Baker

Bakunin was a Racist

Michael Bakunin was one of the early influential theorists of the

anarchist movement and played a key role in developing and spreading its

ideas. He is one of my favourite authors and I have gained a huge amount

from reading him. But this does not mean that I am uncritical of

Bakunin. I am against putting any anarchist, dead or alive, on a

pedestal and think it is important to examine both the good and the bad

aspects of what Bakunin thought. His theory contained a profound

inconsistency. He advocated a society in which all systems of domination

and exploitation were abolished and everybody was free. He was also an

antisemite. Most of the thousands of pages Bakunin wrote contain no

antisemitism. On the few occasions where he is antisemitic it is

abhorrent and should be rejected by everybody. In this essay I shall

explain how he was antisemitic and why it was wrong. Once I have done

this, I will discuss whether or not Bakunin’s critique of capitalism and

the state was fundamentally racist and then explore how historical

anarchists responded to his antisemitism.

Bakunin’s Racism

Bakunin’s antisemitism took five main forms. Firstly, on a number of

occasions Bakunin unnecessarily pointed out that somebody he did not

like was a Jew. One of Bakunin’s main political opponents in the 1^(st)

International was a Russian Jew named Nicholas Utin, who was an ally of

Marx and Engels. In August 1871 Bakunin wrote a text which was later

referred to as his Report on the Alliance. Within the text he labelled

Utin a “little Jew” who manipulated other people, especially women, on

four occasions. (Bakunin 1913, 197, 213, 265–6, 273. For English

translations see Carr 1975, 346; Bakunin 2016, 153, 158) A year later in

October 1872 Bakunin again referred to Utin as “a little Russian Jew” in

his unsent letter to the editors of La Liberté. (Bakunin 1973, 247. Also

see Bakunin 1872b, 1) Bakunin made similar remarks about other

individuals. Within Statism and Anarchy, which was published in 1873,

Bakunin complained that German workers were “confused by their leaders –

politicians, literati, and Jews” who “hate and fear revolution” and have

as a result “directed the entire worker population” into parliamentary

politics. (Bakunin 1990, 193)

On other occasions Bakunin went further. He explictly connected a

person’s Jewishness with what he thought were their negative personality

traits or incorrect political positions. In Statism and Anarchy Bakunin

wrote that,

By origin Marx is a Jew. One might say that he combines all of the

positive qualities and all of the short comings of that capable race. A

nervous man, some say to the point of cowardice, he is extremely

ambitious and vain, quarrelsome, intolerant, and absolute, like Jehovah,

the Lord God of his ancestors, and, like him, vengeful to the point of

madness. There is no lie or calumny that he would not invent and

disseminate against anyone who had the misfortune to arouse his jealousy

– or his hatred, which amounts to the same thing. And there is no

intrigue so sordid that he would hesitate to engage in it if in his

opinion (which is for the most part mistaken) it might serve to

strengthen his position and his influence or extend his power. (Bakunin

1990, 141)

Bakunin later claimed that Marx was a “hopeless statist” and advocate of

“state communism” because of “his threefold capacity as an Hegelian, a

Jew, and a German”. (Bakunin 1990, 142–3) This point was repeated

elsewhere. Bakunin remarked in his 1872 letter To the Brothers of the

Alliance in Spain that Marx “as a German and a Jew” is “an authoritarian

from head to foot”. Within the same letter Bakunin wrote that Marx’s

“vanity, in fact, has no limits, a truly Jewish vanity”. (Bakunin 1872a.

For the German version see Bakunin 1924, 117, 115)

Bakunin made similar remarks about the German state socialist Ferdinand

Lassalle. He wrote in Statism and Anarchy that “Lassalle ... was vain,

very vain, as befits a Jew.” (Bakunin 1990, 177) A few pages later he

declared that “Lassalle ... was too spoilt by wealth and its attendant

habits of elegance and refinement to find satisfaction in the popular

milieu; he was too much of a Jew to feel comfortable among the people”.

(Bakunin 1990, 180) Bakunin not only connected Lassalle’s vanity and

elitism with being Jewish but also argued, just as he had done with

Marx, that Lassalle’s Jewishness could be used to explain his political

positions. Bakunin wrote that Lassalle advocated parliamentary politics

as the means to seize state power because he was “a German, a Jew, a

scholar, and a rich man”. (Bakunin 1990, 175)

Bakunin’s antisemitism was not limited to making negative remarks about

a few Jewish individuals. Between February and March 1872 Bakunin wrote

a letter titled To the Comrades of the International Sections of the

Jura Federation. It is perhaps the most antisemitic texts he ever wrote.

Within the letter he asserted that Jewish people are,

bourgeois and exploitative from head to foot, and instinctively opposed

to any real popular emancipation ... Every Jew, however enlightened,

retains the traditional cult of authority: it is the heritage of his

race, the manifest sign of his Eastern origin ... The Jew is therefore

authoritarian by position, by tradition and by nature. This is a general

law and one which admits of very few exceptions, and these very

exceptions, when examined closely confirm the rule. (Bakunin 1872b, 4)

He continues a few paragraphs later by saying that Jewish people are

“driven by need on the one hand, and on the other by that ever restless

activity, by that passion for transactions and instinct for speculation,

as well as by that petty and vain ambition, which form the

distinguishing traits of the race.” (Ibid)

The second main form of Bakunin’s antisemitism was the belief that

Jewish people were united as a singular entity, rather than being a

broad and diverse ethnic, cultural or religious group composed of

distinct individual people acting independently of one another. Bakunin

claimed in his March 1872 letter to the Jura Federation that “the Jews

of every country are really friends only with the Jews of all countries,

independently of all differences existing in social positions, degree of

education, political opinions, and religious worship.” He continued at

length,

Above all, they are Jews, and that establishes among all the individuals

of this singular race, across all religions, political and social

differences that separates them, a union of solidarity that is mutually

indissoluble. It is a powerful chain, broadly cosmopolitan and narrowly

national at the same time, in the racial sense, interconnecting the

kings of finance, the Rothschilds, or the most scientifically exalted

intelligences, with the ignorant and superstitious Jews of Lithuania,

Hungary, Roumania, Africa and Asia. I do not think there exists a single

Jew in the world today who does not tremble with hope and pride when he

hears the sacred name of Rothschild. (Quoted in Draper 1990, 297. For

the original French see Bakunin 1872b, 3)

Sometime between October 1871 and February 1872 Bakunin wrote a note

which he titled Supporting Documents: Personal Relations with Marx. He

initially intended to include the text in a letter he was writing to

Italians he knew, but the note was never sent. It contained some of the

most antisemitic remarks Bakunin ever wrote. (Bakunin 1924, 204. Bakunin

did send a letter to Bologna in December 1871 but it has been lost and

we do not know if it contained similar racist content) Within the unsent

note Bakunin wrote,

Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially

in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile,

speculating Jews, such as Jews are everywhere: commercial or banking

agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all

shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement,

and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have

taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind

of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world,

which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of bloodsuckers, a

single gluttonous parasite, closely and intimately united not only

across national borders but across all differences of political opinion

— this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of

Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain

that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that

Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for

Rothschild. (Bakunin 1924, 208–9)

The third main form of Bakunin’s antisemitism was the belief in an

international Jewish conspiracy which played a key role in running the

world via control of commerce, banking and the media. In 1869 Bakunin

was critiqued by a German Jewish state socialist called Moses Hess in an

article which was published in the radical paper Le RĂ©veil. Bakunin

responded in October by writing a long unpublished letter titled To the

Citizen Editors of Le RĂ©veil. Bakunin’s other title for the letter was

Study of the German Jews. (Carr 1975, 369–70; Eckhart 2016, 27; Bakunin

1911, 239) Within the letter he wrote that,

I know that in speaking out my intimate thoughts on the Jews with such

frankness 1 expose myself to immense dangers. Many people share these

thoughts, but very few dare to express them publicly, for the Jewish

sect, which is much more formidable than that of the Catholic and

Protestant Jesuits, today constitutes a veritable power in Europe. It

reigns despotically in commerce and banking, and it has invaded

three-quarters of German journalism and a very considerable part of the

journalism of other countries. Then woe to him who makes the mistake of

displeasing it! (Quoted in Draper 1990, 293. For the original French see

Bakunin 1911, 243–4. This view is repeated in Bakunin 1872b, 1)

Bakunin’s friend Alexander Herzen reacted to this racist letter by

complaining to Nicholas Ogarev, “why all this talk of race and of

Jews?”. (Quoted in Carr 1975, 370)

The fourth main form of Bakunin’s antisemitism was intimately connected

to the previous one. Bakunin not only believed that an international

Jewish conspiracy played a key role in running the world. He also

believed in a specifically Jewish conspiracy against him within the

1^(st) International. The history of the 1^(st) International is very

complicated and for the purposes of this essay all you need to know is

the following. In September 1872 Bakunin was expelled from the 1^(st)

International at its Hague Congress for being a member of a secret

organisation called the Alliance. Marx and Engels were mistakenly

convinced that Bakunin was attempting to use the Alliance to take over

the 1^(st) International and become its dictator. Due to this false

belief Marx and Engels went to great lengths to guarantee Bakunin’s

expulsion from the organisation, which included them creating fake

delegates. Bakunin, in contrast, correctly thought that Marx, Engels and

their supporters were attempting to take over the 1^(st) International

and convert the General Council, which was supposed to perform only an

administrative role, into a governing body which imposed state socialist

decisions and policies on the organisation’s previously autonomous

sections. One of the ironies of history is that, a key reason for why

Marx and Engels did this is that they thought it was necessary in order

to counter Bakunin’s non-existent attempt to become dictator of the

International and impose his anarchist programme on the organisation.

(Eckhart 2016. For a less in-depth history see Berthier 2015; Graham

2015)

Bakunin expressed his belief in a Jewish conspiracy against him in both

public and private. In May 1872 the General Council issued a pamphlet

called Fictious Splits in the International which had been written by

Marx and Engels. (Marx and Engels 1988, 83–123) The pamphlet repeated a

number of inaccurate claims that had been made about Bakunin during his

time in the International. This included Hess’ October 1869 accusation

that Bakunin attempted to transfer the location of the General Council

from London, where Marx and Engels lived, to Geneva, near where Bakunin

lived, and Utin’s baseless September 1871 accusation that Bakunin was

responsible for the harmful actions of the Russian revolutionary Sergei

Nechaev. (Eckhart 2016, 29–31, 91–3) Hess had been friends with Marx and

Engels in the early 1840s, but their friendship seems to have ended by

1848. Utin, in contrast, was in close contact with Marx and Engels

during the early 1870s and suggested various corrections and additions

to the pamphlet. (McLellan 1969, 145–7, 158, 160; Eckhart 2016, 47,

202–3)

In June 1872 the Bulletin of the Jura Federation published Bakunin’s

response. He wrote that Marx’s pamphlet was “a collection, hodgepodge as

much as systematic, of all the absurd and filthy tales that the malice

(more perverse than spiritual) of the German and Russian Jews, his

friends, his agents, his followers and at the same time, his henchmen,

has peddled and propagated against us all, but especially against me,

for almost three years”. (Quoted Eckhart 2016, 212) Bakunin was correct

to think that Marx was repeating claims made by Hess and Utin but their

Jewishness was irrelevant. Bakunin framed these events as a Jewish

conspiracy against him because he was an antisemite. Engels reacted to

Bakunin’s article by writing in a letter to Theodor Cuno, “Bakunin has

issued a furious, but very weak, abusive letter” in which “he declares

that he is the victim of a conspiracy of all the European—Jews!”. (Marx

and Engels 1989, 408)

Bakunin repeated his belief in a Jewish conspiracy against him in his

October 1872 unsent letter to the editors of La Liberté. He wrote that,

Marx ... has a remarkable genius for intrigue, and unrelenting

determination; he also has a sizeable number of agents at his disposal,

hierarchically organized and acting in secret under his direct orders; a

kind of socialist and literary freemasonry in which his compatriots, the

German and other Jews, hold an important position and display zeal

worthy of a better cause. (Bakunin 1973, 246. Also see Bakunin 1872b, 1)

Bakunin was correct that Marx, Engels and their supporters conspired

against him. Where Bakunin went wrong was to frame the actions of Marx

as a specifically Jewish conspiracy. It happened to be the case that

some of Bakunin’s main political opponents within the International were

Jews – Marx, Utin, Hess and Sigismund Borkheim – but a larger number of

his opponents belonged to other ethnicities, such as the German’s Johann

Philipp Becker and Georg Eccarius. Bakunin appeared to have been aware

of this but thought they were operating under the commands of Marx and

so a Jew. Bakunin could have viewed this situation as one political

faction acting against another political faction. Due to his

antisemitism, he instead framed it as people who were specifically

Jewish conspiring against him. This was wrong and unjustifiable.

The fifth main form of Bakunin’s antisemitism was his stereotyping of

Jews as wealthy bankers. (Bakunin 1872b, 1–2) In Statism and Anarchy he

asserted that the creation of the German nation state in 1871 was,

nothing other than the ultimate realisation of the anti-popular idea of

the modern state, the sole objective of which is to organise the most

intensive exploitation of the people’s labour for the benefit of capital

concentrated in a very small number of hands. It signifies the

triumphant reign of the Yids, of a bankocracy under the powerful

protection of a fiscal, bureaucratic, and police regime which relies

mainly on military force and is therefore in essence despotic, but

cloaks itself in the parliamentary game of pseudo-constitutionalism.

(Bakunin 1990, 12)

Over a hundred pages later Bakunin noted that “the rich commercial and

industrial bourgeoisie and the Jewish financial world of Germany” both

“required extensive state centralisation in order to flourish”. (Bakunin

1990, 138) Bakunin could have made his point about the relationship

between finance capital and the state with a reference to bankers in

general. He was an antisemite and so instead referred specifically to

Jewish bankers and equated the rule of Jewish bankers with the rule of

Jews in general. This was a common form of antisemitism during the

19^(th) century because several of the largest banks in the world were

owned by Jewish families, such as Rothschild and Sons. Such racist

claims ignored that other large banks at the time were not owned by

Jewish families, such as Barings. (Ferguson 2000, xxv, 20, 260–71,

284–8) It is furthermore the case that both today and in the 19^(th)

century the majority of Jews are not bankers or members of the ruling

classes. Jewish workers do not benefit from the fact that some bankers

happen to be Jewish. This is no different to the fact that workers who

are Christians or atheists do not benefit from the fact that some

bankers happen to be Christians or atheists.

This kind of antisemitism was not a one-off occurrence. Bakunin’s most

widely read work is a pamphlet called God and the State, which was first

published in 1882 and is a long extract from his unfinished 1870–2 text

The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution. Within God and the

State Bakunin wrote that,

the Jews, in spite of that exclusive national spirit which distinguishes

them even to-day, had become in fact, long before the birth of Christ,

the most international people of the world. Some of them carried away as

captives, but many more even urged on by that mercantile passion which

constitutes one of the principal traits of their character, they had

spread through all countries, carrying everywhere the worship of their

Jehovah, to whom they remained all the more faithful the more he

abandoned them. (Bakunin 1970, 74. This view is repeated in Bakunin

1872b, 4)

In other texts Bakunin linked his antisemitic beliefs about Jewish

bankers with his critique of state socialism. Bakunin’s main critique of

state socialism was that social movements should not use the means of

seizing state power to achieve the ends of socialism because it would

not result in the abolition of all forms of class rule. The minority of

people who actually wielded state power in the name of the workers, such

as politicians or bureaucrats, would instead constitute a new ruling

class who dominated and exploited the working classes and focused on

reproducing and expanding their power, rather than abolishing it.

(Bakunin 1873, 169, 237–8, 254–5, 265–70) This argument was not

antisemitic and has been made by anarchists from Jewish backgrounds,

including Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. (Goldman 1996, 390–404;

Berkman 2003, 89–136. For their family history see Avrich and Avrich

2012, 7, 15)

Bakunin was, however, a racist and so argued that one of the groups

which would benefit from the seizure of state power by socialists were

Jewish bankers specifically. He thought that just as Jewish bankers

benefited from state centralisation under Bismarck so too would they

benefit from state centralisation under the rule of a socialist

political party. Bakunin wrote in his unsent note Personal Relations

with Marx that,

What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh!

The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralisation in the state, and

where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and

where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates

on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ...

(Bakunin 1924, 209)

This position was repeated in Bakunin’s unsent 1872 letter to La

Liberté. He wrote that Marx argued that the state should seize the means

of production and land, organise the economy and establish “a single

bank on the ruins of all existing banks”. This would result in “a

barracks regime for the proletariat, in which a standardised mass of men

and women workers would wake, sleep, work and live by rote; a regime of

privilege for the able and the clever; and for the Jews, lured by the

large-scale speculations of the national banks, a wide field for

lucrative transactions.” (Bakunin 1973, 258–9) Bakunin could have made

the argument that state socialist strategies would benefit a minority of

people who ran the national state bank. He was an antisemite and so felt

the need to refer specifically to Jewish bankers and to stereotype

Jewish people in general as a parasite which exploits people. Bakunin’s

racism was not the main reason why he opposed state socialist

strategies, but antisemitism was a component of one of the arguments he

made. I have been unable to find a single example of later anarchists

repeating Bakunin’s antisemitic argument.

Bakunin’s antisemitism was not remarkable for the 19^(th) century.

Antisemitism existed both within wider society and the socialist

movement specifically. Bakunin lived in an antisemitic society and so

expressed antisemitic views. Yet Bakunin was also raised in a

patriarchal society but unlearnt this to a significant extent and

advocated for woman’s emancipation. (Bakunin 1973, 83, 174, 176).

Bakunin was not responsible for internalising the prejudices of his

time, but he was responsible for not noticing and unlearning them. The

fact that this was possible is indicated by how many socialists were not

antisemitic and explictly opposed antisemitism. They did so despite the

fact that they too had been raised and lived within a racist social

environment. Anarchists in the Russian empire, for example, defended

Jews against pogroms on several occasions by organising mobile defence

units armed with pistols and bombs. A number of Russian anarchists were

killed whilst doing so. The armed defence of Jews was explictly

justified by Russian anarchists in 1907 on the grounds that they were

“against all racial conflicts”. (Antonioli 2009, 164)

Bakunin’s antisemitism raises two important questions:

racist? By ‘fundamentally’ I mean the primary reason or the foundational

core. Something can be significant without it being fundamental.

did they think about it?

Bakunin’s Critique of Capitalism and the State

The answer to the first question is no. Bakunin advocated the abolition

of capitalism and the state because he was committed to the view that

everybody should be free, equal and bonded together through relations of

solidarity. (Bakunin 1985, 46–8) This led Bakunin to argue that

capitalism and the state should be abolished because they are social

structures based on the economic ruling class – capitalists, landowners,

bankers etc – and the political ruling class – monarchs, politicians,

generals, high ranking bureaucrats etc – dominating and exploiting the

working classes. For example, in an 1869 article for L’ÉgalitĂ© Bakunin

critiqued capitalism for being based on “the servitude of labour – the

proletariat – under the yoke of capital, that is to say, of the

bourgeoisie”. He argued at length that,

The prosperity of the bourgeois class is incompatible with workers’

freedom and well-being, because the particular wealth of the bourgeoisie

exists and can be based only on the exploitation and servitude of labour

... for this reason, the prosperity and the human dignity of the working

masses demands the abolition of the bourgeoisie as a distinct class.

(Bakunin 2016, 43)

Bakunin then claimed that since the “power of the bourgeoisie” is

“represented and sustained by the organisation of the state”, which “is

only there to preserve every class privilege”, it follows that “all

bourgeois politics ... can have but one single purpose: to perpetuate

the domination of the bourgeoisie” and the “slavery” of “the

proletariat”. (Bakunin 2016, 43, 49, 45) This, in turn, led Bakunin to

advocate the abolition of the state. He argued in 1870 that “one should

completely abolish, both in reality and in principle, everything that

calls itself political power; because so long as political power exists,

there will be persons who dominate and persons dominated, masters and

slaves, exploiters and the exploited.” (Ibid, 63) This is not an

antisemitic argument. The exact same position was advocated by

anarchists from Jewish backgrounds, such as Goldman and Berkman, and by

anarchists who were not Jewish but opposed antisemitism and participated

in the Jewish anarchist movement, such as Rudolf Rocker. (Berkman 2003,

7–28, 70–3; Goldman 1996, 49–51, 64–77; Rocker 2005, 1–3, 9–18)

Bakunin was, however, a racist and so thought that a key group who

engaged in domination and exploitation were Jews, especially Jewish

bankers. It is important to make three points about this. Firstly,

Bakunin at no point claims that Jews are the only or main group who form

the ruling classes. Secondly, the two propositions Bakunin believed in

are logically independent of one another. The proposition that

capitalism and the state are based on the domination and exploitation of

the working classes does not entail the racist proposition that Jews as

a group engage in exploitation via banking. Thirdly, Bakunin’s

antisemitic remarks do not demonstrate that the main reason why Bakunin

advocated the abolition of capitalism and the state was his

antisemitism. If this was the case then one would expect Bakunin to have

referred specifically to Jews or Jewish bankers most of the time when he

critiqued capitalism and the state. Yet in the vast majority of cases

Bakunin does not mention Jewish people at all when critiquing these

institutions. He instead refers to the ruling classes in general.

It might be argued in response that this was a tactical calculation by

Bakunin. When writing public articles for papers such as L’ÉgalitĂ© he

chose to hide his antisemitism and refer to the ruling classes in

general but when writing in private he chose to refer specifically to

Jewish people. The problem with this argument is that the majority of

Bakunin’s unpublished or private critiques of capitalism and the state

available in English do not mention Jewish people at all. (Bakunin 1973,

64–93, 166–74) Nor did Bakunin try to hide his antisemitism through the

use of dog whistles. One of the main texts where Bakunin makes

antisemitic claims about Jewish bankers is in his book Statism and

Anarchy which was published by Bakunin himself. Within Statism and

Anarchy Bakunin connected his critique of capitalism and the state with

antisemitic claims about Jewish bankers on two occasions. (Bakunin 1990,

12, 138) In the majority of cases when critiquing capitalism and the

state he does not mention Jewish people at all and instead refers to

“the ruling classes” in general with such phrases as “the bourgeoisie”,

“the privileged and propertied classes”, “the exploiting class” and “the

governing minority”. (Bakunin 1990, 21, 23–4, 114, 136–7, 219) Bakunin

does refer to banks and bankers in general on four occasions when

critiquing capitalism and the state but in every instance this went

alongside referring to other members of the ruling classes, such as

landowners, industrialists and merchants. (Bakunin 1990, 12–3, 24, 29,

31, 138)

Given this, antisemitism was not the main reason why Bakunin advocated

the abolition of capitalism and the state. Although Bakunin critiqued

banks in an antisemitic manner, his opposition to capitalism and the

state cannot be reduced to this antisemitism. His antisemitic remarks

about banks co-existed alongside the broader argument that capitalism

and the state should be abolished because they are systems of class rule

which oppress and exploit the working classes.

Bakunin Was Self-contradictory

It is furthermore the case that Bakunin’s racism towards Jewish people

was fundamentally inconsistent with other things that he himself wrote.

Bakunin advocated universal human emancipation on several occasions. To

give one example, in 1868 Bakunin insisted that the goal of a revolution

should be “the liberty, morality, fellowship and welfare of all men

through the solidarity of all – the brotherhood of mankind”. (Bakunin

1973, 167. Also see ibid, 86; Bakunin 1985, 52, 124, 189, 200) Bakunin

not only advocated universal human emancipation but thought it could

only be achieved through all of humanity forming bonds of solidarity and

co-operation with one another. The abolition of capitalism and the state

required “the simultaneous revolutionary alliance and action of all the

peoples of the civilised world”. In order for this to be achieved “every

popular uprising ... must have a world programme, broad, deep, true, in

other words human enough to embrace the interests of the world and to

electrify the passions of the entire popular masses of Europe,

regardless of nationality.” (Bakunin 1973, 86. Also see ibid, 173)

Bakunin made a similar point in 1873. He wrote,

since we are convinced that the existence of any sort of State is

incompatible with the freedom of the proletariat, for it would not

permit of an international, fraternal union of peoples, we wish to

abolish all states ... The Slav section, while aiming at the liberation

of the Slav peoples, in no way contemplates the organisation of a

special Slav world, hostile to other races through national feeling. On

the contrary, it will strive to bring the Slav peoples into the common

family of mankind, which the International Working Men’s Association has

pledged itself to form on the basis of liberty, equality and universal

fraternity. (Bakunin 1973, 175–6)

Bakunin thought that the achievement of liberty, equality and universal

human fraternity required opposition to racism. He advocated the

“recognition of humanity, of human right and of human dignity in every

man of whatever race” or “colour”. (Bakunin 1964, 147) This commitment

to universal human emancipation in turn entailed the advocacy of the

self-determination of ethnic minorities. Bakunin thought that, “every

people and the smallest folk-unit has its own character, its own

specific mode of existence, its own way of speaking, feeling, thinking,

and acting ... Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that

which it is and therefore has a right to be itself.” (Bakunin 1964, 325)

This included groups being free to practice their religion. (Bakunin

1873, 66, 176; Eckhart 2016, 27)

Bakunin, in addition to this, opposed imperialism and colonialism. He

critiqued what he termed the gradual extermination of Native Americans,

the exploitation of India by the British Empire and the conquest of

Algeria by the French empire. (Bakunin 2016, 175–6) He advocated,

the necessity of destroying every European despotism, recognising that

each people, large or small, powerful or weak, civilised or not

civilised, has the right to decide for itself and to organise

spontaneously, from bottom to top, using complete freedom ...

independently of every type of State, imposed from top to bottom by any

authority at all, be it collective, or individual, be it foreign or

indigenous ... (Bakunin 2016, 178)

Bakunin wrote the above remarks within his March 1872 letter to the Jura

Federation. The same text where he is extremely racist towards Jewish

people. The fact that Bakunin did not view the two parts of the letter

as inconsistent with one another makes me very depressed. He was so

prejudiced that he did not realise that a commitment to universal human

emancipation and the establishment of what he called “the brotherhood of

mankind” entailed an opposition to his own racism against Jewish people.

Were historical anarchists aware of Bakunin’s antisemitism and what

did they think about it?

The extent to which historical anarchists were aware of and critiqued

Bakunin’s antisemitism is a complex topic. Several historical texts

which were written about Bakunin do not mention his racism, such as Max

Baginski and Peter Kropotkin’s articles published in 1914 as part of the

celebration of the 100-year anniversary of Bakunin’s birth. (Glassgold

2000, 69–71; Kropotkin 2014, 205–7) These two texts focus on only the

positive aspects of Bakunin – his eventful life and important role as an

anarchist revolutionary – but do not touch on his negative side –

antisemitism. I am not sure why this is the case. One obvious

explanation is that they wanted to present Bakunin to the public in the

best light possible when celebrating the 100-year anniversary of his

birth. Yet if this was the case why not talk about Bakunin’s

antisemitism on other occasions? I have been unable to find any mention

of Bakunin’s antisemitism in the writings of anarchists from Jewish

backgrounds which are available in English, such as Berkman, Goldman and

Gustav Landauer. When they do briefly mention Bakunin it is usually only

to say something positive about him, explain an idea of his, or recount

the split between anarchists and state socialists within the 1^(st)

International. (Berkman 2003, 184; Goldman 1996, 69, 74, 103, 138;

Landauer 2010, 81, 160, 175, 208) I have asked Kenyon Zimmer, who is a

historian of the Jewish anarchist movement in America, and he does not

recall Bakunin’s antisemitism being discussed in their paper the Fraye

Arbeter Shtime. A Jewish anarchist could have complained about the topic

during a conversation but since this conversation was never written down

modern people cannot learn about it.

I suspect that a significant reason for why there are so few historical

sources discussing Bakunin’s racism is that he largely expressed these

thoughts in obscure texts. Every single antisemitic remark I have quoted

in this video comes from nine sources. These are in chronological order,

RĂ©veil. Sent to Bakunin’s friends Aristide Rey and Alexander Herzen but

not published by the editor of Le Reveil. First published in 1911 in

Volume 5 of Bakunin’s collected works in French. (Bakunin 1911, 239–94)

1873 within the MĂ©moire Presented by the Jura Federation of the

International Working Men’s Association to all Federations of the

International. This version included two of the antisemitic remarks made

towards Utin. (Appendix of Guillaume 1873, 45–58. For the antisemitism

see 51–2, 57) The full text, which included all of the antisemitism, was

published in 1913 in Volume 6 of Bakunin’s collected works in French.

(Bakunin 1913, 171–280)

Personal Relations with Marx. First published in 1924 in volume 3 of

Bakunin’s collected works in German. (Bakunin 1924, 204–16)

the Jura Federation. Nettlau claimed in 1924 that it was yet to be

published. (Bakunin 1924, 204) As far as I can tell it was first

published in 1965 in Archives Bakounine Volume 2.

Bulletin of the Jura Federation. Copies of the Bulletin of the Jura

Federation were most likely not widely circulated after it ceased

publication in 1878, let alone the specific 15^(th) June 1872 issue

which included Bakunin’s text. (Miller 1976, 150) It was republished in

1924 in volume 3 of Bakunin’s collected works in German. (Bakunin 1924,

217–220)

published in 1924 in Volume 3 of Bakunin’s collected works in German

(Bakunin 1924, 108–18)

published in 1910 in Volume 4 of Bakunin’s collected works in French.

(Bakunin 1910, 339–90)

Only 1,200 copies were printed. It was reprinted in Russian in 1906,

1919 and 1922. (Shatz in introduction to Bakunin 1990, xxxv) In 1878

extracts of the book were translated into French and published in

L’Avant-garde under the title Le gouvernementalisme et l’Anarchie. This

did not include the antisemitic passages. In 1929 the first Spanish

edition of Statism and Anarchy was published. (Bakunin 1986, 1). Rocker

claimed in 1937 that the Spanish version of Statism and Anarchy was the

first time the book was translated from Russian “into any other European

language”. (Rocker 1937, 557)

written in 1871. It is a long extract from his unfinished 1870–2 text

The Knouto-Germanic Empire and the Social Revolution. It was translated

into multiple languages and was Bakunin’s most widely read work.

(Bakunin 1970, viii-ix; Bakunin 1973, 111)

Of the nine antisemitic texts I have found five were letters and two of

them were never sent to anybody. Only three antisemitic texts were

publicly available prior to Bakunin’s death in 1876: two articles in

French and one book in Russian. An additional antisemitic text, God and

the State, was published in 1882 but the majority of Bakunin’s

antisemitic texts were only made available in the early 20^(th) century

as part of the publication of Bakunin’s collected works in French,

German and Spanish. I do not know how widely read these books were and I

expect that they were largely read by a relatively small number of

massive nerds interested in Bakunin’s ideas. Even those who owned the

books may only have read parts of them and so happened to not come into

contact with the racist passages which take up a small fraction of the

thousands of pages Bakunin wrote. Any modern person whose bought a book

while late night internet shopping knows how easy it is to own books

without reading them. Perhaps the most antisemitic texts Bakunin ever

wrote – the March 1872 letter to the Jura Federation – was not, to my

knowledge, publicly available until the 1960s.

Given the above, the only antisemitic text which was definitely widely

read and available in multiple languages in the 19^(th) and early

20^(th) century was God and the State. The racism within God and the

State consisted of one significantly antisemitic paragraph which claimed

that Jewish people migrated all over the world because of their

“mercantile passion which constitutes one of the principal traits of

their character” (Bakunin 1970, 74) In other parts of the text Bakunin

does make more general critiques of Judaism as a religion, such as

describing Jehovah as a jealous God. Even though these passages were

written by an antisemite I have not noticed any obvious antisemitic

content within them. (Ibid, 69–71, 85). Nor is it antisemitic in and of

itself to critique Judaism as a religion. Anarchists from Jewish

backgrounds were often themselves very critical of Judaism as a religion

and instead identified as Yiddish speakers who shared a culture. (Zimmer

2015, 15–6, 24–8) This can be seen in the fact that the Jewish anarchist

Saul Yanovsky translated God and the State into Yiddish in 1901 and

altered the text such that Bakunin’s criticism of “Catholic and

Protestant theologians” also referred to “Jewish Theologians”. (Torres

2016, 2–4)

This is not to say that historical anarchists were unaware of Bakunin’s

antisemitism. James Guillaume was Bakunin’s friend and the main editor

of Bakunin’s collected works in French. He was definitely familiar with

Bakunin’s views on Jews but does not mention them in the biographical

sketch of Bakunin he wrote for Volume 2 of Bakunin’s collected works in

French. (Guillaume in Bakunin 2001, 22–52) Guillaume appears to have

deliberately altered a Bakunin quote such that it no longer contained

any anti-semitism. He quotes Bakunin’s remark that Marx was

authoritarian from head to foot but does not include Bakunin’s

explanation for this: Marx was a German Jew. This topic is made

confusing by the fact that Guillaume claims he is quoting an 1870

manuscript, but the passage cited is word for word identical with

Bakunin’s 1872 letter. As a result, Guillaume could be referring to a

different version of the text Bakunin wrote which contains no racism,

but this seems unlikely. (ibid, 26. For the original French see Bakunin

1907, xiv. Compare to Bakunin 1872a; Bakunin 1924, 117) I have been

unable to find a place where Guillaume acknowledges Bakunin’s racism,

but it should be kept in mind that the vast majority of his work has

never been translated into English.

Other anarchists explicitly opposed Bakunin’s antisemitism. In May 1872

Bakunin sent a letter to the Spanish anarchist Anselmo Lorenzo which

included antisemitism. Within his 1901 memoirs Lorenzo correctly argued

that Bakunin’s racism towards Jews “was contradicting our principles,

principles that impose fraternity without distinction along race or

religion and it had a distastefulness effect on me.” Max Nettlau, who

edited Bakunin’s collected works in German, similarly opposed Bakunin’s

“anti-Jewish remarks”. (Quoted Eckhart 2016, 509, notes 112 and 113. For

a description of the letter see ibid, 196) There are, in addition to

these critiques of Bakunin, several examples of anarchists rejecting

antisemitism in general. This includes Kropotkin opposing the 1905

pogroms against Jews in Russia, the Jewish anarchist Landauer

campaigning in 1913 against antisemitic conspiracy theories, and Rocker

critiquing the oppression of Jews by the Nazi’s. (Kropotkin 2014, 472–3,

481; Landauer 2010, 295–9; Rocker 1937, 249–50, 327–8) In 1938 Goldman

wrote that she considered it “highly inconsistent for socialists and

anarchists to discriminate in any shape or form against the Jews.”

(Goldman 1938)

Conclusion

Bakunin was one of the early influential theorists of the anarchist

movement, but anarchism does not consist in repeating what Bakunin

wrote. Anarchism was not created by one individual. It was collectively

constructed by the Spanish, Italian, French, Belgian and Jurassian

sections of the International. Its programme incorporated the insights

of a wide variety of individuals. Some well-known, such as Errico

Malatesta, and others whose names have largely been forgotten, such as

Jean-Louis Pindy who was the delegate of the Paris Construction Workers’

Trade Union at the 1^(st) International’s 1869 Basel Congress and a

survivor of the Paris Commune of 1871. From the 1870s onwards the

anarchist movement spread around the world and its theory and practice

was pushed in new directions by anarchists in Europe, North America,

South America, Asia, Oceania and Africa. This included a large number of

anarchists from a Jewish background. Between the beginning of the

20^(th) century and the start of WW1 in 1914 the Yiddish-speaking

anarchist movement was the largest in the United States.

Yiddish-speaking anarchists also played a key role in England’s

anarchist movement. (Zimmer 2015, 4–6, 15, 20; Rocker 2005).

A significant amount of Bakunin’s anarchist beliefs were not original to

him but common positions within the social networks he was a part of.

This included his advocacy of the collective ownership of the means of

production and land, the view that trade unions should prefigure the

future society, and the rejection of parliamentary politics as a means

to achieve emancipation. (Eckhart 2016, 12–6, 54, 106–8, 159–60; Graham

2015, 109–21) Anarchism was above all else the creation of workers

engaged in class struggle against capitalism and the state. As the group

of Russian anarchists abroad explained in 1926,

The class struggle created by the enslavement of workers and their

aspirations to liberty gave birth, in the oppression, to the idea of

anarchism: the idea of the total negation of a social system based on

the principles of classes and the State, and its replacement by a free

non-statist society of workers under self-management. So anarchism does

not derive from the abstract reflections of an intellectual or a

philosopher, but from the direct struggle of workers against capitalism,

from the needs and necessities of the workers, from their aspirations to

liberty and equality ... The outstanding anarchist thinkers, Bakunin,

Kropotkin and others, did not invent the idea of anarchism, but, having

discovered it in the masses, simply helped by the strength of their

thought and knowledge to specify and spread it.

Anarchists are not Bakuninists. We believe in the programme of anarchism

which evolves and is updated over time, rather than treating what an

individual man with a large beard happened to write in the late 19^(th)

century as scripture. Anarchists in the past shared this attitude.

Malatesta claimed in 1876 that anarchists were not “Bakuninists” because

“we do not share all the practical and theoretical ideas of Bakunin” and

“follow ideas, not men ... we reject the habit of incarnating a

principle in a man”. (Quoted in Haupt 1986, 4) Kropotkin similarly

recalled in his autobiography that during his 1872 visit to the Jura

Federation,

in conversations about anarchism, or about the attitude of the

federation, I never heard it said, ‘Bakunin had said so,’ or ‘Bakunin

thinks so,’, as if it clenched the discussion. His writings and his

sayings were not a text that one had to obey ... In all such matters, in

which intellect is the supreme judge, everyone in discussion used his

own arguments”. (Kropotkin 2014, 104)

This is a position Bakunin himself agreed with. In his 1873 letter of

resignation from the Jura Federation he wrote that “the ‘Bakuninist

label’ ... was thrown in your face” but “you always knew perfectly well,

that your tendencies, opinions and actions arose entirely consciously,

in spontaneous independence”. (Bakunin 2016, 247–8)

In conclusion, Bakunin should still be read today and there is a great

deal of insight within the thousands of pages he wrote. He should,

however, be read critically and his antisemitism was wrong,

unjustifiable and fundamentally at odds with the principles of anarchism

which seeks the abolition of all forms of domination and exploitation,

including all forms of racism. The preamble to the 1866 Statutes of the

1^(st) International declared: “this Association, and every individual

or society joining it, will acknowledge morality, justice and truth as

the basis of their conduct toward all men, without distinction of

nationality, creed, or colour”. (Berthier 2012, 165) Socialist movements

have on too many occasions not lived up to these words and it is

essential that socialists today, be they anarchist or not, ensure that

they do and oppose all systems of domination in both words and deeds.

One of the main lessons of Bakunin’s life is that somebody who thinks

they are a genuine advocate of universal human emancipation can still

have oppressive beliefs without being aware that they do. None of us are

responsible for being socialised to be prejudiced towards others but,

just like Bakunin before us, we are all responsible for noticing and

unlearning it. As the Jewish anarchist Landauer wrote in 1913 in

response to antisemitism, “socialism means action among human beings;

action that must become reality within these human beings as much as in

the outside world. When independent peoples propose to create a united

humanity, these propositions are worthless when even a single people

remains excluded and experiences injustice”. (Landaur 2010, 295)

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Antonioli, Maurizio. ed. 2009. The International Anarchist Congress

Amsterdam (1907). Edmonton: Black Cat Press.

Bakunin, Michael. 1872a. To the Brothers of the Alliance in Spain.

Bakunin, Michael. 1872b. To the Comrades of the International Sections

of the Jura Federation.

Bakunin, Michael. 1907. Oeuvres Tome II. Edited by James Guillaume.

Paris: P.V Stock.

Bakunin, Michael. 1910. Oeuvres Tome IV. Edited by James Guillaume.

Paris: P.V Stock.

Bakunin, Michael. 1911. Oeuvres Tome V. Edited by James Guillaume.

Paris: P.V Stock.

Bakunin, Michael. 1913. Oeuvres Tome VI. Edited by James Guillaume.

Paris: P.V Stock.

Bakunin. Michael. 1924. Gesammelte Werke, Band III. Edited by Max

Nettlau. Berlin: Verlag Der Syndikalist.

Bakunin, Michael. 1964. The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific

Anarchism. Edited by G.P. Maximoff. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Bakunin, Michael. 1970. God and the State (New York: Dover Publications)

Bakunin, Michael. 1973. Selected Writings. Edited by Arthur Lehning.

London: Jonathan Cape.

Bakunin, Michael. 1986. Obras Completas, Volumen 5. Madrid: Las

Ediciones de la Piqueta.

Bakunin, Michael. 1990. Statism and Anarchy. Edited by Marshall Shatz.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bakunin, Michael. 2001. Bakunin on Anarchism. Edited by Sam Dolgoff.

Montréal: Black Rose Books.

Bakunin, Michael. 2016. Selected Texts 1868–1875. Edited by A.W.

Zurbrugg. London: Anarres Editions.

Berkman, Alexander. What Is Anarchism? Oakland, CA: AK Press, 2003.

Goldman, Emma. 1996. Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader. Edited by

Alix Kates Shulman. 3^(rd) ed. New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Goldman, Emma. 1938. “On Zionism”.

Guillaume. James. 1873. Mémoire présenté par la Fédération jurassienne

de l’Association internationale des Travailleurs à toutes les

FĂ©dĂ©rations de l’Internationale. Sonvillier: Au SiĂšge du ComitĂ© FĂ©dĂ©ral

Jurassien.

Kropotkin, Peter. 2014. Direct Struggle Against Capital: A Peter

Kropotkin Anthology. Edited by Iain McKay. Oakland, CA: AK Press.

Landauer, Gustav. 2010. Revolution and Other Writings: A Political

Reader. Edited by Gabriel Kuhn. Oakland, CA: PM Press.

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1988. Collected Works, Volume 23

(London: Lawrence and Wishart).

Marx, Karl, and Frederick Engels. 1989. Collected Works, Volume 44

(London: Lawrence and Wishart).

Rocker, Rudolf. Nationalism and Culture. Los Angeles: Rocker

Publications Committee, 1937.

Rocker, Rudolf. Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory and Practice. Oakland, CA:

AK Press, 2004.

Rocker, Rudolf. The London Years. Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications,

2005.

Secondary Sources

Avrich, Paul, and Karen Avrich. Sasha and Emma: The Anarchist Odyssey of

Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of

Harvard University Press, 2012.

Berthier, René. 2015. Social-Democracy and Anarchism in the

International Workers’ Association 1864–1877. London: Anarres Editions.

Draper, Hal. 1990. Karl Marx’s Theory of Revolution Volume 4: Critique

of Other Socialisms. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Graham, Robert. We Do Not Fear Anarchy, We Invoke It: The First

International and the Origins of the Anarchist Movement. Oakland, CA: AK

Press, 2015.

Eckhart, Wolfgang. The First Socialist Schism: Bakunin VS. Marx in the

International Working Men’s Association. Oakland, CA: PM Press, 2016.

Ferguson, Niall. 2000. The House of Rothschild: The World’s Banker

1848–1998. New York: Penguin Books.

Haupt, Georges. 1986. Aspects of International Socialism 1871–1914.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Miller, Martin A. Kropotkin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.

McLellan, David. 1969. The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx. London:

Macmillan.

Torres, Anna Elena. 2016. “Any Minute Now the World’s Overflowing Its

Border”: Anarchist Modernism and Yiddish Literature. PhD Thesis, UC

Berkeley.

Zimmer, Kenyon. 2015. Immigrants Against the State: Yiddish and Italian

Anarchism in America. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.