A-Infos (en) Putting the record straight on Mikhail Bakunin

[Platformist Anarchism <platform@geocities.com>]

________________________________________________
     A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
           http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________

Bakunin continually moves between the mass action of 
the proletariat and action of organised 
revolutionary minorities. Neither of these two 
aspects of the struggle against capitalism can be 
separated:

Putting the record straight on Mikhail Bakunin
(LCR 1976) - translated from French

On the eve of the centenary of Bakunin, the return 
of all the gross stupidities which have been said 
about Bakunin requires a considerable work. Without 
hesitation whatsoever, the prize for falsification 
goes to Jacques Duclos, the former head of the PCF, 
who has devoted a huge book of several hundred pages 
to the relationship between Marx and Bakunin, which 
is a masterpiece of fiction. Now is the time to 
compile a catalogue of falsifications that surround 
Bakunin. For if Duclos holds - with Marx himself - 
the sad privilege of the thought of Bakunin, the 
anarchists are unrivalled in being his greatest 
unconscious falsifiers. Of the things in common that 
the two leaders of the First International have, the 
foremost is perhaps that their thought has been 
misrepresented in an identical way by their own 
disciples. We wish here to follow the development of 
this misrepresentation of Bakunin's positions. 
Later, we will explain what we think to be his true 
theory of revolutionary action.

Bakunin continually moves between the mass action of 
the proletariat and action of organised 
revolutionary minorities. Neither of these two 
aspects of the struggle against capitalism can be 
separated: however, the libertarian movement after 
the death of Bakunin divided into two tendencies 
which emphasised one of the two points while 
neglecting the other. The same phenomenon can be 
found in the Marxist movement with the reformist 
social democrats in Germany and the radical and 
Jacobin social democrats in Russia.

In the anarchist movement, one current advocates the 
development of mass organisation, exclusively acting 
within the structures of the working class, and 
arrives at a state of a-politicism completely 
foreign to the ideas of Bakunin; another current 
refuses the very principle of organisation as this 
is seen as the beginnings of bureaucracy: they 
favour the setting up of affinity groups within 
which individual revolutionary initiative and the 
action of example will facilitate the passage 
without transition to an ideal communist society. 
where everyone will produce according to their 
his/her ability and will consume according to 
his/her need: joyful work and taking from the common 
store.

The first current advocated the action of the mass 
of workers within a structured organisation, 
collectivisation of the means of production and the 
organisation of these into a coherent whole, 
preparation of the workers for social 
transformation.

The second current completely refused authority and 
the discipline of organisation; tactically this is 
seen as temporisation with capital. This current 
defines itself in an essentially negative way: 
against authority, hierarchy, power and legal 
action. Its political programme is based in the 
concept of communal autonomy, directly inspired by 
Kropotkin, in particular 'The Conquest of Bread'. 
This current triumphed in the Congress of the CNT at 
Saragossa in 1936, whose resolutions expressed 
misunderstanding of the economic mechanisms of 
society, scorn for economic and social reality. The 
Congress developed in its final report "The 
confederal concept of libertarian communism", 
founded on the model of organisational plans of the 
future society which flourished in socialist 
literature of the 19th century. The foundation of 
the future society is the free commune. Each commune 
is free to do what it wishes. Those which refuse to 
be integrated outside the agreements of 
"conviviencia collective" with industrial society 
could "choose other modes of communal life, like for 
example, those of naturists and nudists, or they 
would have the right to have an autonomous 
administration outside the general agreements"

In today's parlance, one could say that the 
followers of Bakunin can be divided in one "right 
wing deviation" which is traditional anarcho-
syndicalism, and one "leftist deviation" which is 
anarchism. The first one emphasises mass action, 
economic organisation and methodology. The second 
one hangs on to the objectives. "the programme" 
quite independent of immediate reality. And each of 
these currents claims for itself - by the way very 
frequently - Bakunin.

We have distinguished four principal 
misrepresentations of Bakunin's thought:

SPONTANEISM: From time to time, Bakunin seems to 
sing the praises of spontaneity of the masses; at 
other times he affirms the necessity of mass 
political direction. In general anarchists have 
clung to the first aspect of his thought, and 
completely abandoned the second. In reality, Bakunin 
said that what the masses lacked in order to 
emancipate themselves was organisation and science, 
"precisely the two things which constitute now, and 
have always constituted the power of governments" 
(Protest of the Alliance). "At the time of great 
political and economic crisis when the instinct of 
the masses, greatly inflamed, opens out to all the 
happy inspiration, where these herds of slave-men 
manipulated, crushed, but never resigned, rebel 
against the yoke, but feel themselves to be 
disoriented and powerless because they are 
completely disorganised, ten, twenty or thirty men, 
well-intentioned and well-organised amongst 
themselves, and who know where they're going and 
what they want, can easily carry with them a 
hundred, two hundred, three hundred or even more" 
(Oeurres 6, 90).

Later on, he says, similarly, that in order that the 
minority of IWMA can carry with it the majority, it 
is necessary that each member should be well versed 
in the principles of the International.

"It is only on this condition," he says "that in 
times of peace and calm will he be able to 
effectively fulfil the mission of propagandist and 
missionary, and in times of struggle, that of a 
revolutionary leader."

The instrument for the development of Bakunin's 
ideas was the Alliance of Socialist Democracy. Its 
mission was to select revolutionary cadres to guide 
mass organisations, or to create them where they 
didn't already exist. It was an ideologically 
coherent grouping.

"It is a secret society, formed in the heart of the 
International, to give it a revolutionary 
organisation, and to transform it and all the 
popular masses outside it, into a force sufficiently 
organised to annihilate political, clerical, 
bourgeois reaction, to destroy all religious, 
political, judicial institutions of states."

It is difficult to see spontaneism here. Bakunin 
only said that if the revolutionary minority must 
act within the masses it must not substitute itself 
for the masses.

In the last analysis, it is always the masses 
themselves that must act on their own account. 
Revolutionary militants must push workers towards 
organisation, and when circumstances demand it, they 
must not hesitate to take the lead. This idea 
contrasts singularly with what anarchism 
subsequently became

Thus, in 1905, when the Russian anarchist Voline was 
pressed by the insurgent Russian workers to take on 
the presidency of the soviet. of St Petersburg, he 
refused because "he wasn't a worker" and in order 
not to embrace authority. Finally, the presidency 
fell to Trotsky, after Nossar, the first President, 
was arrested.

Mass action and minority revolutionary action are 
inseparable, according to Bakunin. But the action of 
revolutionary minorities only has sense when it is 
linked to mass working class organisation. If they 
are isolated from the organised working class, 
revolutionaries are condemned to failure.

"Socialism . . only has a real existence in 
enlightened revolutionary impulse, in the collective 
will and in the working class's own mass 
organisations-and when this impulse, this will, this 
organisation, falls short, the best books in the 
world are nothing but theories in a vacuum, impotent 
dreams."

APOLITICISM: Anarchism has been presented as an 
apolitical, abstentionist movement by playing with 
words and giving them a different meaning to that 
which the Bakuninists gave them.

Political action, at the time, meant parliamentary 
action. So to be anti-parliamentarian meant to be 
anti-political. As the marxists at this moment in 
time could not conceive of any other political 
action for the proletariat than parliamentary 
action, the denial of the electoral mystification 
was understood as opposition to every form of 
political action.

The Bakuninists replied to the. accusation of 
abstentionism by pointing out that the term was 
ambiguous and that it never meant political 
indifference, but a rejection of bougeois politics 
in favour of a "politics of work".

Abstention is a radical questioning of the political 
rules of the bourgeoisie's game.

"The International does not reject politics 
generally. It will certainly be forced to involve 
itself insofar as it will be forced to struggle 
against the bourgeois class. It only rejects 
bourgeois politics."

Bakunin condemned suffrage as an instrument of 
proletarian emancipation. He denies the use of 
putting up candidates. But he didn't elevate 
abstentionism to the level of an absolute principal. 
He recognised a degree of interest in local 
elections.

He even advised Gambuzzi's parliamentary 
intervention.

Nowhere in Bakunin will you find hysterical, vicious 
condemnations that became dear to anarchists after 
his death. Elections are not condemned for moral 
reasons, but because they risk prolonging the 
bourgeoisie's game. On this point, Bakunin proved to 
be right over and above the Marxists, right up to 
Lenin.

Anti-parliamentarianism was so unfamiliar to 
Marxists that from the start of the Russian 
Revolution, the Bolsheviks - at least at the 
beginning - passed as Bakuninists in the European 
workers' movement.

THE REFUSAL OF AUTHORITY: The Bakuninists called 
themselves "anti-authoritarians". The confusion that 
arose as a result of the use of this word has been 
bitterly taken up since Bakunin's death. 
Authoritarian in the language of the time meant 
bureaucratic. The anti-authoritarians were simply 
anti-bureaucratic in opposition to the Marxist 
tendency.

The question then was not one of morals or 
character, and attitude to authority influenced by 
temperament. It was a political standpoint. Anti-
authoritarian means "democratic". This last word 
existed at the time but with a different meaning.

Less than a century after the French Revolution, it 
described the political practices of the 
bourgeoisie. It was the Bourgeoisie who were 
"democrats".

When it was applied to the working class movement, 
the word 'democrat' was accompanied by 'social' or 
'socialist', as in 'social democrat. The worker who 
was a. 'democrat' was either a 'social-democrat' or 
anti authoritarian.

Later democracy and proletariat were associated in 
the expression 'workers democracy'.

The anti-authoritarian tendency of the International 
was in favour of workers democracy, the tendency 
qualified a authoritarian was accused of 
bureaucratic centralisation.

But Bakunin was far from being opposed to all 
authority. His tendency allowed power if it came 
directly from the proletariat, and was controlled by 
it. He opposed the revolutionary government of the 
Jacobin type with insurrectionary proletarian power 
through the organisation of the working class.

Strictly speaking, this is not a form of political 
power but of social power.

After Bakunin's death, anarchists rejected the very 
idea of power. They only referred to the writings 
that were critical of power, and to a sort of 
metaphysical anti-authoritarianism. They abandoned 
the method of analysis which came from real facts. 
They abandoned this as far as the foundation of 
Bakuninist theory based on materialism and 
historical analysis. And with it they abandoned the 
field of struggle of the working class in favour of 
a particular form of radicalised liberalism.

THE CLASS MOVEMENT: Bakunin's political strategy did 
not depart from his theory of the relations between 
the classes. This should be established once and for 
all.

When the proletariat was weak, he advised against 
indiscriminate struggle against all the fractions of 
the bourgeoisie.

>From the point of view of working class struggle, 
not all political regimes are equivalent. It is not 
a matter of indifference whether the struggle is 
against the dictatorial regime of Bismarck or the 
Tsar, or against that of a parliamentary democracy.

"The most imperfect of republics is a thousand times 
better than the most enlightened monarchy."

In 1870, Bakunin recommended using the patriotic 
reaction of the French proletariat and turning it 
into revolutionary war. In his 'Letters to a 
Frenchman' he makes a remarkable analysis of the 
relationships between different fractions of the 
bourgeoisie and the working class, and develops some 
months in advance and prophetically, what were to be 
the Paris and provincial Communes.

A thorough reading of Bakunin shows that his entire 
work consisted of constant enquiry, the 
relationships which could exist between the 
fractions which make up the dominane class and their 
opposition with the proletariat. His strategy for 
the workers movement is intimately linked with his 
analysis of these relationships.

In no case can it be separated from the historical 
moment in which these relationships take place. In 
other words, not every time is ripe for revolution, 
and a detailed understanding of the relationship of 
forces between the bourgeoisie and the working class 
permits one at the same time not to miss suitable 
occasions and to avoid making tragic mistakes.

Bakunin's successors thought, on one hand, that 
there existed between the bourgeoisie and the 
proletariat a sort of immutable and constant 
relationship; on the other hand, that the 
relationship between the classes could not in any 
way enter into the scheme of things to determine 
revolutionary action. In the first case, they 
adopted a certain number of basic principles that 
were considered essential, and they gave themselves 
the objective of putting them into practice at some 
time or another in the future, whatever the 
circumstances of the moment.

Thus, the report of the Saragossa Conference already 
mentioned could have been written at any period. It 
stands absolutely outside time.

On the eve of the Spanish Civil War, the military 
problems for example, and agitation in the heart of 
the army, are dealt with one phrase: "Thousands of 
workers have been through the barracks, and are 
familiar with modern revolutionary warfare."

In the second case, they thought that the 
relationships of power between the classes were 
unimportant as the proletariat must act 
spontaneously. It is not related to any social 
determinism, but on the contrary to the hazards of 
exemplary action. The whole problem lies then in 
creating the right detonator.

The history of the anarchist movement is full of 
these sensational actions, which were useless and 
bloody. In the hope of encouraging the revolution, 
they attacked the town hall by the dozen: they made 
speeches, they proclaimed - very often in an 
atmosphere of complete indifference - about 
libertarian communism. They burnt local archives 
whilst waiting for the police to arrive.

Attentism or voluntarism, in either case the 
reference made to Bakunin is insulting. Very often, 
the libertarian movement has replaced the scientific 
method of analysis of relations between classes with 
magical incantations. The scientific and 
sociological nature of Bakuninist analysis of social 
relations and political action was completely 
rejected by the libertarian movement.

The intellectual failure of the libertarian movement 
can be seen in the accusations of 'marxism' made 
about every attempt to introduce the slightest 
notion of scientific method in political analysis.

For example Malatesta said: "Today, I find that 
Bakunin was in political economy and in the 
interpretation of history, too Marxist. I find that 
his philosophy debated without any possibility of 
resolution, the contradiction between his mechanical 
conception of the universe and his faith in the 
effectiveness of free will over the destinies of man 
and the universe."

The "mechanical conception of the universe", that is 
in Malatesta's mind, is the dialectical method which 
makes of the social world a moving whole, about 
which one can determine general laws of evolution. 
"The effectiveness of free will" is voluntarist 
revolutionary action. The problem can therefore be 
reduced to the relationship of mass action on 
society and the action of revolutionary minorities.

Malatesta is incapable of understanding the 
relationship of interdependence which exists between 
the human race and environment, between the social 
determinism of the human race and its capacity to 
transform the environment.

The individual cannot be separated from the 
environment in which he/she lives. Even though the 
individual is largely determined by environment, 
he/she can act upon it and modify it, provided the 
trouble is taken to understand the laws or 
evolution.

CONCLUSION The action of the working class must be 
the synthesis of the understanding of the "mechanics 
of the universe" - the mechanics of society - and 
"the effectiveness of free will" - conscious 
revolutionary action. There lies the foundation of 
Bakunin's theory of revolutionary action.

Two Bakunins do not exist - one which is 
libertarian, anti-authoritarian and who glorifies 
the spontaneous action of the masses; the other one 
'marxist', authoritarian, who advocates the 
organisation of the vanguard.

There is only one Bakunin, who applies to different 
times in diverse circumstances principles of action 
which flow from a lucid understanding of the 
dialectic between the masses and the advanced 
revolutionary minorities

Original introduction

The following text is a translation from the French. 
It comes from Solidarite Ouvriere, the monthly paper 
of the Alliance Syndicaliste Revolutionnaire et 
Anarcho-syndicaliste. We have many criticisms of 
syndicalism, and this includes its anarcho-
syndicalist variant.

However, the ASRAS, in its reassessment of the 
libertarian movement, its commitment to 
revolutionary class politics and to a materialist 
dialectic, represents one of the more worthwhile and 
progressive libertarian groups in France, along with 
the Organisation Cominuniste Libertaire and the 
Collectif pour un Union des Travailleurs Communiste 
Libertaire.

Future issues of LCR will contain critiques of 
anarcho-syndicalism.

Originally published in

Libertarian Communist Review

No. 2 1976
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
       International Anarchist Web Page
   http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter.html

International Class Struggle anarchist discussion list,
    contact platform@geocities.com for details

     ****** A-Infos News Service *****
  News about and of interest to anarchists

Subscribe -> email MAJORDOMO@TAO.CA
             with the message SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS
Info      -> http://www.ainfos.ca/
Reproduce -> please include this section