Bakunin: A great thinker or a man of action How did Bakunin shaped anarchism in the 19th century - Essay Example

? Bakunin: A great thinker or a man of action? How did Bakunin shaped anarchism in the 19th century? Bakunin: A great thinker or a man of action? How did Bakunin shaped anarchism in the 19th century? Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin 30 May (1814 – 1876) may have been more known as a revolutionary and an activist but that is not to say that he is not a great thinker. Undeniably, Mikhail Bakunin was also a great thinker given the insights of the books (God and the State), journals (Appeal to the Slavs), pamphlets and extensive correspondents he wrote but he was more known to be a man of action. Bakunin may have the intellectual acumen to write and assert great concepts such as anarchism of which he was credited to be the father of the nihilistic variety, but he did not wrote for the intellectuals but rather for the workers and peasants (Dolgoff 1971). He sacrificed theory in favour of empirical practice that he thought to be more expedient in the pursuit and realization of the practical goals of emancipating the masses from the slavery of institutions. Despite of Bakunin’s capacity as an intellectual, he was known to be contemptuous of the theoretical revolution of Marx and prefers the direct action of the “evil instincts” of the mass that is impatient with the abstraction of ideas (Dolgoff 1971). He view intellectuals as the auxiliary arm of the bureaucracy as a privileged class in its own right and was contemptuous of scientist despite his respect for science” (Hodges 1960:269). Rather than indulging in theoretical abstractions, Bakunin puts his faith more on the revolutionary instinct of the oppressed. He himself prides himself to be unsophisticated and claims none of the mystification of the system builders, philosophers of history and social scientists which he believes are part of the structural oppression as purported by the system of the government, religion and intellectuals and therefore should be abolished for the true liberty and freedom to be realized as prescribed by the masses. To validate further that Bakunin is more of a man of action than a thinker, Karl Marx himself, Bakunin’s staunch opponent in the First International who had him expelled, had a low regard for Bakunin’s theoretical abilities (Smith 2012). Marx dismissed Bakunin’s theoretical assertion of anarcho-nihilism to be nothing but a mere derivative of Proudhon’s ideas and Utopian socialist St. Simon (Smith 2012). This is of course a partial assessment of a political rival because Bakunin himself was an intellectual who wrote several treatises about anarchy although they were not as towering as Marx’s Communist Manifesto or as extensive as Das Capital. Despite of this, Marx and Bakunin shared the same goal of emancipating the masses from the throes of oppression and injustice although they have different methods to achieve the same and were a rabid critic of each other to the point of Marx’s expulsion of Bakunin in the First International after outvoting him. Marx believes in the seizure of the political power of the state so that his proletariat would assume power to become a real government of the masses while Bakunin sees this as a reactionary means of establishing another set of oppressors. Bakunin argues that any form of government that exercises authority will invariably become oppressors and therefore will eventually become as an enemy of the people and revolution. He believes that for the “real and direct revolution” to happen, all institutions and instruments of oppression must be destroyed for real liberty and freedom to be achieved (McClellan 1979). One of the most glaring evidence of Bakunin as a man of action is his preference for Propaganda in Deed to push for his political agenda. This was evident in Bakunin’s Letters to A Frenchman (Bakunin 1870) during the Franco Prussian War where he called on for the propaganda of the deed where Bakunin mentioned “we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda” (Bakunin 1870). This direct political action are not always peaceful and legal but nevertheless underscores Bakunin’s preference for direct action over theoretical abstractions of armchair revolutionaries in achieving the goals of his anarchist revolution. Anarchy as a political ideology that was pushed forth by Bakunin can be defined in numerous ways. Its usual connotation and definition in the negative sense, is the impression of its rejection of any rule, of any government, of any state, of any authority, of society or of domination (McLaughlin 2008). It has also been defined as the ideology of “voluntary association, of decentralisation, of federalism, of freedom (McLaughlin 2008:25). Since it can be defined in numerous ways, “there is no single conception of human nature . . . [that social anarchists even disagree] even as they believe in human capacity for mutual aid, cooperation, respect, and communal relationships and individualist anarchists, who believes in the centrality of rational self-interest or even ruthless egoism” (McLaughlin 2008:25-26). Anarchy’s origin as a meaning however was not necessarily nihilistic that called for the abrogation of any institutions that reinforces exploitative relational arrangements. During the days of feudalism and monarchy, those who promoted equality, rights, and the people’s capacity to govern themselves as opposed to monarchy’s absolute right to rule by divine mandate were also called anarchists. Ironically, anarchy can even be said to have religious root even if Bakunin’s version of anarchy calls for the negation of religion and abolishment of God if He really exists. Anarchism, of which Bakunin’s form of anarchy was a derivative, was a product of religious thought of Jean Jacques Rousseau during the Renaissance period who stressed on the moral centrality of freedom (Skirda 1968). From this simple idea about the centrality of freedom originated William Goodwin’s first expression of anarchy as a political thought in his work Political Justice (Adams 2001). Godwin’s form of anarchy was not necessarily nihilistic as it is known today because it recognized the state as a “necessary evil” that would eventually diminished its significance with the increasing spread of knowledge. In the early 19th century, anarchist thought was first espoused by French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (Edwards 1969) with the publication of his revolutionary work in 1840 entitled “What is Property?” In “What is Property?” the idea of an organization without a central authority first came about. The germinal idea of which later theorists such as Bakunin and Koprokin were to later expound was also first written about an organisation that does not impose its prescription and will among individuals as they pursue their own interest (Edwards 1969). Though other thoughts in the first work about anarchy were later discarded of little importance such as Proudhon’s recognition of property and remuneration of labour, the work was already enough for later theorists to build their own theory. Among the social anarchists that followed Proudhon, the most prominent figure was Bakunin whose brand of anarchy was the most acknowledged among the many secular branches of anarchist thought. Being such, anarchy as a theory and an ideology, was not pioneered nor founded by Mikhail Bakunin although the thought is popularly associated with him. He is however considered to be the father of nihilism or the militant variety of modern anarchy that calls on the destruction of state, religion and institutions (Hodges 1960). “His revolutionary, class struggle based anarchism soon became the dominant form of anarchism in the First International. He combated the state socialism of Marx and Engels and laid the foundations for both communist-anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism” (Hodges 1960:270). For Bakunin, there are several factors that enslave the individual and among these are; religion, inequality, injustice and domination of the state all of which impedes growth and prevents emancipation. Such, these sources of slavery and unfreedom that impinges on man’s natural liberty should be removed and therefore, Bakunin’s anarchism seeks the simultaneous abolition of artificial, privileged, legal and official institutions that imposes on an individual. The ridiculous and irrational piety that enslaves man with a concept of heaven of which religion peddles to impose itself should be removed (Bakunin 1882). Such, if there is really a God and He really does exist, it would be necessary to abolish him (Bakunin 1882) to create a society that is rational and guarantees the most complete liberty for the people (Dolgoff 1971). Just like religion, the state also prevents human growth as it imposed itself on human development and even with force. Being such, the state should be viewed as an enemy because it possessed the organized authority and power to dominate the masses that stunts the flowering of human liberty. Being an enemy, it is therefore necessary to be destroyed and captured (not take it over as with Marx’s method of revolution) so that solidarity, human development, peace, intellectual improvement and happiness will flourish (Dolgoff 1971). Bakunin’s idea of the destruction and capture of the state is obviously way off from Proudhon’s original idea of anarchy in the work “What is Property?” who only espoused spontaneous sprouting of centerless organisations. This was however an idea of the anarchist Fanelli as influenced by Piscane’s doctrine who believed that government is the source of social injustice that includes slavery, poverty and corruption whom Bakunin met in Italy in 1865. Bakunin later expanded and elaborated Fanelli’s perspective in the work ““Principles and Organisation of the International Brotherhood” where Bakunin spelled out his disdain for the state which would later contribute to the development of the theoretical framework of Bakunin’s anarchy which rejects the principle of authority (Mclaughlin 2008). In Bakunin’s assertion of anarchy, he instead stressed and advocated the idea of self-management where hierarchy and advancement is not present. Work is collective rather than exploitative that is initiated through volunteerism and thoughtful discipline. For Bakunin, this is a better alternative from an authority that is predominantly and irrationally theological, political and metaphysical who always assumed that the mass cannot govern themselves and must, therefore submit to a higher authority that does not only emanate from above but asserts itself with force and coercion to impose its will upon its subjects. This imposed dependency upon the oppressive yoke of theological, metaphysical and political authority is the main culprit why human progress is impinged and why intellectual development is stunted. Its abrogation therefore, will result to the dispersion and dissemination of power to the collective which were once concentrated from above. In this condition, “the faithful and sincere realization of the will of all”(Smith 2012) becomes the true expression of liberty of everyone and only then authentic freedom is realized. This freedom, as Bakunin theorized is a result of relationships and not from alienation. This relationship or arrangement according to Bakunin is the source of oppression when its hierarchy imposes itself on its members and treats them as mere subjects. It is therefore this relationship which Bakunin rejects and not all authority because there are sorts of authority which are natural such as “being an authority” which plainly meant “an expert”. In Bakunin’s anarchy, the relationship that should be desired is that of the collective, which “is the public spirit of society grounded on equality and solidarity and the mutual respect of all its members”. This is ideal because this is devoid of exploitation or any unjust arrangement which one imposes itself over another through hierarchy or metaphysical, philosophical, legal or theological justification. If follows then that the state, system of capitalism and religion should be abrogated as agents of injustice, oppression and enemy of revolutionary ideas. For the real expression of liberty to become possible and flourished, it should be removed as a hindrance and impediment to progress and true expression of liberty. The state as previously discussed, does not only impose its will but also is an instrument for a class to rule and oppress another. It "is the organised authority, domination and power of the possessing classes over the masses" and "denotes force, authority, predominance; it presupposes inequality in fact (Smith 2012). Every state power, every government, by its nature places itself outside and over the people and inevitably subordinates them to an organisation and to aims which are foreign to and opposed to the real needs and aspirations of the people"  (Smith 2012). Equally oppressive is religion and for Bakunin’s anarchist society, atheism is an imperative because for as long as there is God, man will be perpetually a slave. So to free man and for his total liberty to be achieved, God must be negated and should not exist. The imperative of the negation of God is necessary to purge man of the irrationality of religion because the idea of God meant the abandonment of human reason and justice. Religion, as its agent, assigns reasoning and justice to irrational supernatural forces and justifies its authority that enslaves through a divine mandate. In finality, Bakunin stressed that in anarchist society, "if God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him" (Bakunin 1882). To some extent, Bakunin may have borrowed or shared some of Proudhon’s criticism against the system of capitalism that the workers makes his person and liberty available for purchase to an employer for a certain period and is perpetual depending on the contingency of the worker’s decision to remain or quit the employer, whose relationship and arrangement constitutes a transitory serfdom (Dolgoff 1971). But Bakunin expounded on this rudimentary assessment of Proudhon about capitalism and included the state in the equation of oppression as it gives the employer the right to exploit someone else’s work as guaranteed by the mandate of its laws. He incorporated aspects of socialism to his framework of anarchy by stressing the importance of organized labour based on cooperation and reciprocity that only in this condition, shall be the task of maintaining a civilized society that is free from injustice and exploitation (Shatz 1990). To empower the worker, Bakunin argued for the social organization of the workers which includes all members of the working class, to organize them into federations that would liberate them from the oppression of the bourgeois. To this end, the masses will have to involve itself in politics to struggle and prevail against the domination and injustices of the bourgeois class (Shatz 1990). This revolution involve "the free construction of popular life in accordance with popular needs . . . from below upward, by the people themselves . . . [in] a voluntary alliance of agricultural and factory worker associations, communes, provinces, and nations" (Shatz 1990:33). Its end however is not to take over the state or government which is the objective of Communist Marx. Bakunin believes that winning the political control of a state is only a mere transfer of power to a new master who will later become the oppressor and does not yield to the genuine freedom of all. Instead, Bakunin asserted that destruction of the state, of which he became known for becoming the father of nihilistic anarchy, to assure the proletariat and masses that there will be no more government, or state that will rule and make others as slaves. This destruction of the state and/or government is uncompromising for Bakunin do not entertain a revolutionary transition or process of transition in government in whatever form either by provisional governments or people assemblies because this transition will only turn the new government into a reactionary government for the power is again concentrated in the hands of few ruling individuals which had been the source of slavery and oppression before. Bakunin asserted that a revolution is only “sincere, honest and real [if its] in the hands of the masses”(Smith 2012). Thus to reiterate Bakunin, “the sole means of opposing the reactionary forces of the state" was the "organising of the revolutionary force of the people" (Shatz 1990:156) Bakunin also added concrete structure to the anarchist thought. He provided the idea of how the self-management of anarchist society can be done when the power which used to be concentrated to the few will be diffused to into the masses. It is structured as opposed to a centralized state that is presupposed by the revolutionary government of Marx when the masses seized the state. Bakunin’s anarchist society would be based on a federation of communes and worker’s councils (Ward 2004). For Bakunin’s anarchist society, the process of the mass struggle against the bourgeois would become the basis of a free society whose power emanates from the bottom upwards by the free association of worker’s federation; “firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal." The councils from bottom to top would be composed of "delegates . . . vested with plenary but accountable and removable mandates" (Smith 2012). It will be a truly popular organization that emanates from the bottom of society’s echelon. Power will start from the lowest nucleus of society escalating to the society’s upward stream through federalism which will become the political tool of socialism which is the unfettered and spontaneous organization of the anarchist mainstream life. The exploitation under the capitalist system where the work of another is exploited by another for profit would be replaced by a cooperative production which is voluntary and non-exploitative. Under such condition would people flourish thereby reaching their full potential as nurtured by a society where the modes and instruments of productions and hereditary properties are owned and operated by the people through their self managed organizations of federations and communes (Dolgoff 1971). To the modern mind, Bakunin comes across as a fizzling bomb that intends to destroy everything as a solution to any political quandary (French 1999). This may be partially right but it takes the man out of the political context that he is trying to espouse due to the oversimplification of his persona and ideology. Perhaps this oversimplification and stereotyping of anarchy is due to Bakunin’s preference to “propaganda of the deed” which could mean the use of force in asserting a political agenda. In his words, Bakunin expressed his preference for an acted propaganda by citing “we must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible form of propaganda” (Bakunin 1870). This preference for propaganda of the deeds, coupled with his anarcho-collectivism brand of anarchy which is to destroy all institutions that nurtures an oppressive relationship makes it easy to stereotype Bakunin as a pyromaniac who destroys everything as a solution to any political quandary. True, Bakunin indeed have proposed and even asserted the social movement to struggle against the bourgeois in order to emancipate them. In the process, he called on the propaganda of the deed which includes the use of deadly force and illegal means to propagate his political idea and achieve their political end. But the propaganda of the deed is not the end by itself but only as a means to sow the principles of anarchy through a potent force. Inferring to this, Bakunin may have been thought to be an unsophisticated philistine who lacks the capacity for abstraction and reasoning but in fact is farthest from the truth. He may not have the literary organization to the level of Marx that is capable of creating the Das Capital into a coherent work but that is not to say that Bakunin lacks the insight of a thinker. In fact, of all the theorizing of Marx, it was Bakunin who foresaw the flaw in Marx’s revolution of the proletariat which later proved to be true. Marx envisioned the victory and later the dictatorship of the proletariat as a fit for all solution for all the woes of society without realizing its drawback. Bakunin foresaw the weakness of Marx’s “revolutionary government” that will become as the new tyrant in replacement of the oppressive bourgeois government which they deposed because it is given with such tremendous power that is concentrated to a few groups who will also not relinquish just like the old bourgeois structure (French 1999). It was also Bakunin who foresaw the reformist tendency of Marx’s socialism in today’s present form as can be seen in China. Before Bakunin, it can be said that the anarchist thought was largely unknown before and during the early part of the 19th century and was confined only to Jean Pierre Proudhon, Peter Kropotkin and their followers. Its theory was also hazy and unclear without any coherent structure of what anarchy intends to do to achieve its end. Bakunin provided the concrete theoretical framework of his anarchist society which used to be a mere generalization in Proudhon’s first political work on anarchy. Through Bakunin, anarchy as a political ideology gained prominence to the point of rivalling Marx’s communism. From obscurantism which is only confined to the works of few individuals, suddenly anarchy thrusted itself as one of the mainstream political ideology in the 19th century. The intellectual side of Bakunin may have provided anarchy a more concrete theoretical structure to make it an ideology which in itself has order from its seeming ironic objective of removing the present order. Through Bakunin, anarchy was able to resolve the paradox of how to have a societal order when its political objective is to abolish the institutions which provides the present order of things. Through his federalist communes, anarchy’s objective of providing the people authentic liberty with a political power that emanates from below became logical. It is however, Bakunin’s tenacity, as a man of action of that gave rise to the ideology of anarchy. This was evident in the First International ( International Workingmen's Association) where Bakunin employed several tactics in his effort to win over the International and make it a vehicle to advance his anarchist agenda (Perlin 1974). Although Bakunin was not equal to the level of Marx in terms of ideological thoroughness which he himself accepts the genius of Marx in his class analysis and his critique of the capitalist system of which Marx provided the alternate economic system, he was able to contend with Marx in the First International. It can be said that Bakunin’s assertion of his anarchist thought and his critique on the flaw of Marx’s communism in the First International gave rise to anarchy as a political ideology reckon with. From being an obscure ideology, Bakunin was able to make anarchy a mainstream ideology in the International that did not only rival communism but also provided the solution of the flaw of Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat” which experiences in the post International have validated. Bakunin almost rabidly pointed to Marx, of which the latter was known to be intolerant to criticism, that Marx is just creating another set of tyrants which could be a danger to a social movement that will genuinely emancipate the people. That despite of Marx’s intention to truly empower the people by creating the vanguards of the proletariat, Bakunin was right that giving few groups of people with immense power will just make them another tyrant and even worse than the Tsar that they themselves would be also hesitant to relinquish the power that was entrusted to them. The post International experience with the Khmer Rouge and the rulers of North Korea among others proved Bakunin’s critique against communism to be true. Although outvoted and was even expelled from the First International, Bakunin’s assertion during the convention gave rise to the anarchist thought which later anarchists built their theories on. Such, it can be said that Bakunin provided the solid and concrete theoretical foundation of anarchy by providing the pathway and methodologies on how to achieve a self-managed society and also provided the mechanism to how an anarchist mainstream life would function that is free from exploitation as differentiated from Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat”. Bakunin’s tenacity and relentlessness also ensured that the anarchist thought will continue despite the efforts of Marx and his cohorts to dismiss it. Despite being expelled from the First International, Bakunin did not recoil to resignation but instead reasserted himself and created his own International at St. Imier Congress and created a revolutionary anarchist program. This furthered the idea of anarchy as an ideology that helped shape the ideology in the 19th century and beyond. It can also be said that Bakunin’s articulation of his collectivist and nihilistic anarchy gave rise to a more sophisticated and freer variety of anarchy such as Kropotkin’s Anarcho-communism which was also developed during the First International when Bakunin’s collectivist anarchy gained prominence where he rivalled Marx. This variety of anarchy shares Bakunin’s view of self managed organizations of communes but instead of the masses that would be pushing for their emancipation against the oppression of the bourgeois and its instrument of institutions, the Anarchist communism seeks to self-manage the collective use of the modes of production. It can be said that this is very similar and a derivative of Bakunin’s collectivist anarchy as it seeks to organize itself through the use of federation only that instead of using the general mass that would be seeking a social movement, the main vehicle of emancipation in this variety of anarchy are the workers. It also included the abolishment of money, in addition to the previous prescription of Bakunin’s abolishment of state, God and institutions. Instead of using money as a compensation for labour of which the anarchist thought disdain because this arrangement exploits another, the worker will instead share the resources and surplus of the self managed organizations of which it co-owns its modes of production. Another variety which sprouted from Bakunin’s collectivist anarchy was the anarcho-syndicalism which shares the feature of Anarcho-communism. In this variety of anarchy, the workers are still the major components of the revolution but instead of owning the modes of production through self governed organizations of communes, anarcho syndicalists seeks higher goals of elevating the worker so as to replace the State (Ward 2004) in a manner likened to Proudhon and Bakunin’s spontaneous organization without central authority. The increasing emphasis on the workers as a vehicle for emancipation also made Bakunin’s propaganda of the deed handy not only in propagating a certain agenda but also in achieving a certain political end. This comes in the form of general strike which the workers used against their employers during a labour debacle. While general strike was generally thought of as Marx’s idea as political tool against bourgeois capitalists, it was in fact, a political implement that was originally thought of by the nihilistic mind of Bakunin (Mclaughlin 2008). In summary, it is therefore safe to conclude that it was Bakunin who gave anarchy a political significance in the 19th century. Prior to him, anarchy, as a political idea, was only among the many thoughts that sprouted during the Renaissance period which did not have any significance. In a way, it was Bakunin who was responsible for the anarchist thought to become a viable political ideology and made it stand out among the clutter of political ideas and elevated it to the level of Marx’s communism in significance. He also concretized anarchy’s theoretical foundation from the mere generalities of Proudhon’s spontaneous associations of organizations that is devoid of a dictatorial power centre as an alternate to the present oppressive system. Bakunin shaped anarchy into a cogent and coherent political ideology with its own methodology of achieving its genuine liberty with the annihilation of the state, religion and institutions. His collectivist anarchy proved to be politically attractive as many variety of anarchy based their political expositions on Bakunin’s idea such as the worker’s assertion to own the mode of production and to even replace the state. Of course it was not achieved except during the brief period of communism in the Soviet Union but Bakunin’s idea left a legacy which many of still benefit today such as the shortened work period of mere eight hours and increased recognition of worker’s importance in a business enterprise’ pursuit for profit. Bibliography Adams, Ian (2001). Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press. Bakunin, Mikhail (1990). Bakunin, Statism and anarchy. M.Shatz (ed.) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought Bakunin, Mikhail (1882). God and the State, ISBN 0-486-22483-X  Bakuni, Mikhail (1870). Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis. Dolgoff, Sam (1971). Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism. Edited by Sam Dolgoff. New York: Vintage paperback. Edwards, Stewart (1969). Introduction to Selected Writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. Anchor Books, Doubleday & Company, Inc. French, Sean (06/21/1999). I knew those extremist theories that I rejected in my adolescence would come in handy one day. New Statesman. 128(4441):31. Hodges, Donald Clark (1960).  Controversy With Marx An Analysis of the Tensions Within Modern Socialism. American Journal of Economics & Sociology. 19(3): p259-274. Mclaughlin, Paul (2008). Anarchism and Authority : The Origins and Development of Classical Anarchism. Ashgate Publishing Group, Oxon, , GBR.  McClellan, Woodford (1979). Revolutionary Exiles : The Russians in the First International and the Paris Commune. Frank Cass Publishers, London, GBR    Perlin, Terry M (1974). Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism. Labor History. 15(1):143-146. Skirda, Alexandre (2002). Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press. Smith, Paul B. (2012). Bakunin’s expulsion from the First International. http://thecommune.co.uk/ideas/bakunins-expulsion-from-the-first-international/ [accessed April 05, 2012]. Ward, Colin (2004). Anarchism. Oxford University Press, UK.  Read More