bakunin's controversy with marx
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
1/17
Bakuain s Controversy With Marx
n nalysisof theTensionsW ithinModern Socialism
By DON ALD CLARK HODGES
THE DIFFERENCES between Mao and Khrushchev, the Chinese system of
communes and the Russian system of collectives, the levelling tendency of
the Chinese revolution and the stratifying tendency of Soviet society, are
due in large part to the different stages in the development of socialism
represented by each. Yet they are also evidence of a con tinuing struggle
within the socialist world between the forces of political realism and the
tendency to revolutionary messianism, a struggle which can be traced to
Bakunin's controversy w ith M arx.
During the initial stages of the Russian and Chinese revolutions, revolu-
tionary messianism seemed to many to herald a genuine break with the
class societies of the past. The passion for destruction was at its he igh t,
leading to a genuine levelling of social distinctions and economic privi-
leges. In add ition to socialization of the means of production , the dis-
tinction between wages and salaries was well-nigh abolished. In New
China, the intelligentsia is expected to register voluntarily for physical
labor in State-sponsored projects, with serious repercussions for those who
do not. The campaigns against w hite collarism in China are reminis-
cent of the efforts of the early Soviet regime to establish a common wage
standard for both intellectual and manual workers. It h noteworthy that
the chief critics of individualism and privilege in the communist world
today are the Chinese and not the Russians. W hile Khrushchev has been
willing to make concessions to Tito and to adopt a more liberal policy
toward the West, the Chinese Commimists have been intransigent in
their opposition to Titoism and to any soft-pedalling in the struggle for
communism.
The levelling tendency within socialism, like the belief in the revolution-
ary potential of economically backward countries and the revolutionary role
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
2/17
260 The merican Journal of conomicsand Sociology
he suspected that Marx, too, had shown a momentary weakness and defec-
tion to Bakuninism, in defending the policies of the Paris Commune dur-
ing the civil war in France . Revolutionary struggles of this kind have
invariably led to a renascence of Bakuninist doctrines within the socialist
movement, while post-revolutionary construction has tended to realism
rather than idealism and, ultimately, to a liberal revision of Marx. The
struggle against right-wing deviations and Marxist revisionism, which has
spread from China to the Soviet sphere, is an indication that China is still
in the throes of her revolution, and that left-wing policies with a Bakunin-
ist slant are what presently distinguish her from the rest of the socialist
world.
During the early days of the Russian revolution the Bolsheviks were
also criticized for their levelling tendencies by the older, better established,
and more conservative Social Democratic leadersh ip. Those were the days
in which syndicalists and leaders of the American I.W .W ., such as Big
Bill Hajrwood, W illiam Z . Foster, and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, went
over to the Communists. These latter day followers of Bakunin were ready
and willing to join forces with the revolutionary wing of socialism because
of its policy of direct action and its intention of realizing the classless
society during their lifetime. History would seem to repeat itself in the
current slogans of the Chinese Communists and their policy of Com -
munism N ow . Once again, well-intentioned individuals, whose sympa-
thies are with the workers, have gone over to communism in the vain hope
of its issuing in a messianic age.
Lenin openly recognized the doctrinal similarity between Daniel De
Leon's variant of Marxism, which was strongly affected by Bakuninism,
and his own. It is difficult to know w hether M ao also recognizes his kin-
ship w ith Bakunin. Of course, Lenin and Mao subordinated Bakun in's
doctrines to their own variant of Marxism, so that one looks in vain to the
communist world for the type of free labor movement and workers' con-
trol of industry envisaged by Bakunin. Syndicalist opposition to the State,
to the leadership of intellectuals in the labor movement, and to socialism
imposed from above was quickly crushed by both Lenin and Mao. N on e-
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
3/17
Bakunin s Controversy With Marx
261
theory of historical materialism is that it became the model for all subse-
quent attempts to purify M arxian sociology or to rid it of non-pro le-
tarian modes of thought. Historical materialism was originally designed
as a proletarian sociology, a sociology concerned with problems of special
interest to the proletariat, so that efforts to purify it were motivated
primarily by social and political considerations.
The sociological significance of Bakunin's struggle with Marx on the
issue of apoUtism, or whether the proletariat should participate in politics,
is that it questioned for the first time the Marxian claim to represent the
interests and perspective of the wage earner. M arx had lumped toge ther
in a single class all the employees of capital, so that the term pro leta riat
was almost as amorphous as the bourgeois concept of the peop le. It
was Bakunin's merit to have foreseen the disintegration of the proletariat
into two hostile classes, a decomposition similar to that of th e people (o r
third estate) in to bourgeoisie and proletariat. Yet it remained for Baku-
nin's successors to analyze in detail the Marxian concept of the proletariat
and to question the Marxian belief in a future classless society.
Politically, Bakunin's controversy with Marx was waged over the ques-
tion of apolitism: It is this poin t which mainly divides the Socialists or
revolutionary coUectivists from the authoritarian Com munists, wrote Ba-
kunina statement of their differences which also agrees with Engels'
accoimt of the controversy.^ How ever both B akunin and M arx recog-
nized that their differences were not merely strategical but theoretical
and, despite the similarity of their ultimate goals, that they were divided
by a class issue as well. Thu s Bakunin regarded M arx and his followers
as bourgeo is socialists, a bourgeois socialist being formally defined as a
revolutionary who accepts the principle that political revolution must pre-
cede social and economic revolution.^ The partisans of pro letarian State
dictatorship belong in this category, according to Bakunin. Althou gh the
mortal enemies of capitalism, they would replace it by the dictatorship of
social scientists and wotJd-be bureaucrats. Anticipating M ichels' iro n
law of oligarchy, Bakunin wro te of the political leaders of the pro letaria t:
obeying the iron law, according to which the social position of a given
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
4/17
262 The Am erican Journal of
conomics
and Sociology
ven turer and intrig uer, and his followers as riff raff. * It is note-
worthy that these terms were usually applied by Marx to the unreliable
and declasse elements within the lumpen-proletariat. The latter, consist-
ing of the refuse of all classes, was an altogether unreliable ally of the
proletariat, according to M arx . Moreover, he considered Bakuninism a
variety of sectarian socialism, a sect being defined as a gro up rem ote
from every real activity, from politics, strikes, trade unions, in a word,
from every collective movement. (T he sects were regarded as character-
istic of the infancy rather than of the maturity of the labor movement.)
Th is characterization was obviously unfair to Bakunin. Nonethe less it is
true that Bakunin was a declasse revolutionary, a conspirator and rabble-
rouser, and that he represented the interests of the migrant laborer and
unsettled working class stratum. Indeed, this accounts in large part for
his greater popularity in the less industrialized and Latin-speaking coun-
tries. According to Bakun in: In Italy there prevails the wretchedly poor
proletariat, about which Messrs, Marx and Engels, and following them
the whole German Social Democratic school, speak with such deep disdain.
Surely this is a mistake, since it is in this proletariat, and only in this, not
in the bourgeois rank of the working class, that the whole reason and
strength of the future Social Revolution lie. ^
The first major attempt to revise Marxian sociology was not the revi-
sionism of the rig ht begun by Edw ard Bernstein, but the revisionism of
the left dating from Bakunin's controversy with M arx. Althoug h in the
forefront of their controversy was the question of apolidsm, the answers
to this question revealed a schism within the ranks of the proletariat that
was more than a disagreement over strategy and tactics. The answers to
this question followed from their different conceptions of the proletariat,
which became the basis for their different theories of historical materialism.
T o answer yes with M arx implied that the proletariat could capture
the State with the correct strategy, whereas to answer n o with Bakunin
meant tha t the State could not be seized by the proletariat by any means. As
a matter of fact, both were correct. The issue between M arx and Bakunin
was fundamentally over the question of the meaning of exploitation and
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
5/17
Bakunin s Controversy With Marx
263
It was Bakunin's lasting contribution to have discovered within Marx's
concept of the proletariat the germs of a new type of exploitation based
not upon material property or capital, but upon intellectual power and
bureaucratic capacity.'^ Bakunin perceived, however vaguely, that M arx 's
goal of proletarian emancipation did not necessarily imply the abolition
of exploitation, and that the victory of the proletariat, in Marx's sense,
would mean something different from the liquidation of classes.
The basis of Bakxinin's criticism was taken in part from Marx himself
from his analysis of exploitation in the first volume of Capital. Bakunin
intuited, without taking the trouble to analyze the reasons for his misgiv-
ings,that the labor theory of value cotild be used to justify the exploitation
of a proletariat of manual wage earners by a salariat of professional and
administrative employees. Consequently, he felt that M arx's concept of
the proletariat had to be revised in order to make it consistent with the
socialist goal of abolishing exploitation. To Bakunin belongs the credit
of being the first to analyze the Marxian concept of the proletariat into its
elements: a proletariat, in the strict sense of a class of wage earners or
manual laborers; and a salariat of white collar employees, who are paid
salaries instead of wages and who manipulate persons and symbols instead
of things.
The Bakuninist controversy has underlined the theoretical confusion
resulting from M arx 's failure to clarify the distinction between a alary
and a vfzsp^
i.e.
remuneration for intellectual and administrative labor as
distin(Ji:om that for manual or drudge labor. M arx's great error was to
argue that the abolition of capital is identical with the abolition of the
wages system. However, under so-called socialism, in which bourgeois
property is either abolished or in process of liquidation, the fundamental
distinction is between a class of wage laborers and a class of salaried
employees.
Possessing neither intellectual nor institutional command over the means
of production, the manual workers, as Bakunin foresaw, are as much at the
mercy of salaried employees under socialism as they once were dependent
upon the accumulated power of capital.^ Justification for wage-salary dif-
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
6/17
264 The Am erican Journal of
conomics
and Sociology
would seem to suppo rt Bakunin's theory rather than Marx's.^o Indeed,
the course of recent history is living testimony of the continued signifi-
cance of Bakunin's contribution to contemporary social and political
analysis.
II
T H E Q U E S T I O N
is the extent to which Marx and Bakunin can be said to
represent faithfully the interests of salary and wage earners. Paradoxi-
cally, the class issue underlined by the Bakuninist controversy originated
in a clash between men both of whom may be regarded as declasse. T he
theore tical differences with in scientific socialism have been the produc t
for the most part of controversies over philosophical, political and eco-
nomic theories that have been generally beyond tiie comprehension of the
class of wage earners. T he theoreticians of scientific socialism have
been intellectuals, not proletarians.
Marx and Bakunin were continually in debt and were not self-support-
ing. It was Engels who kept Marx's household going by supporting it
from the profits of the Manchester spinning firm of which he was a part-
ner. At the same time, H erzen and other Russian emigres, like the P rin-
cess Obolensky, made it possible for Bakunin to devote his entire time and
energies to revolutionary activities. Thus the main protagonists of the
Bakuninist controversy were neither wage earners nor members of the
salariat, but were the proteges respectively of the German bourgeoisie and
Russian nobility.
Karl Kautsky sheds some light upon the origins of Scientific socialism
and the conditions leading up to the Bakuninist controvgrsf'in an article
for the Neue Zeit the theoretical organ of the German Social-Democratic
party.
Socialism and the class struggle [he wrote] arise side by side and not one
out of the other . . . Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the
basis of profound scientific knowledge . . . The vehicles of science are
not the proletariat but the bourgeois intelligentsia: It was out of the heads
of the members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it
was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed pro-
letarians who, in their turn, introduced it into the proletarian class strug-
gle . . . Thus socialist consciousness is something introduced into the
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
7/17
Bakunin s Controversy With Marx 265
interests of thewage earners. Kautsky and Lenin,aswell asMarxhim-
self, took for granted that the interests of manual laborers are best
understood
by a
revolutionary vanguard, which
is for, but not of, the
proletariat. On the other hand, Bakunin and his followers have been
skeptical not only of the Marxist claim, but even of their own claim to
represent faithfully
the
interests
of
manual laborers.
In
a
noteworthy passage, Bakunin wro te: Revolutionary Socialists
believe that there is much more of practical reason and intelligence in
the instinctive aspirations
and
real needs
of the
masses
of
people than
in
the profound minds
of all
these learned doctors
and
self-appointed
tutors of humanity, who,having before them the sorry examples of so
many abortive attempts
to
make humanity happy, still intend
to
keep
on
working
in the
same direction.''^^
jt
seems
to
have been Bakunin's
self-
appointed tasktodefend thewage earners againsttheradical intelligentsia,
in
the
suspicion that
the
gift
of
authoritative socialism
was a
Trojan
horse masquerading
the
would-be rule
of a new
bureaucratic class
of
social
scientistsand managerial and political office holders. Indeed, his Polish
follower, Waclaw Machajski,
has
become known
for his
criticism
of
nineteenth century socialism
as the
ideology
of the
underprivileged,
mal-
content, adventurous, declasse, lower middle class salaried employees.^^
A similar thesisis frequently urged todayin theeffort toexplain fascism
or national socialism;
but it has
seldom been applied
to
Marxism.
Cer-
tainly
the
Marxists cannot
be
accused
of
betraying their
own
group,
the
radical intelligentsia. Yet the charge most frequently advanced against
Bakunin
and his
followers
is
that they were anti-intellectual.
Ill
U N L I K E B A K U N I N , MARX seems to have considered himself an excep-
tion
to his own
theory, that
it is not the
consciousness
of men
that
determines their being,
but, on the
contrary, their social being that deter-
mines the ir consciousness. ^* Certainly,he was notskepticalof hisability
to represent faithfully
the
perspective
of the
wage earner without himself
being one.
It is
difficult
to
reconcile Marx's theory with
his
conception
of
the socialist intelligentsia, which is supposedly representativeof the inter-
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
8/17
266
The merican Journal of Econom ics and Sociology
thought from being fully representative of the interests of the wage earn-
ers and to learn what in fact was the principal motivation behind his
dedication to socialism. The extent to which Bakunin's thought is repre-
sentative of the wage earners' interests may also be learned in part by an
inquiry into his personal mo tivations. Besides, the contrast in M arx 's and
Bakunin's social origins may be expected to shed light upon their theoreti-
cal differences.
The contrast in family and social background is striking. M arx was a
German Jew by descent, the son of a middle class lawyer who had em-
braced Christianity; Bakunin, a Russian nobleman, born to an estate of
five hundred souls, the third of eleven children. Th ere is an obvious
connection between Marx's social origin and his tremendous need to
asserthimself It has been suggested that in an anti-Semitic environment
the converted Jew suffers doubly: H e is treated as a Jew, without having
the moral support and consolation of knowing that he is one of God's
chosen people. ^^ Indeed, Marx 's violent polemics against his fellow
socialists and his inability to stand opposition, which he interpreted as
either obtuseness or infidelity to the revolutionary cause, suggest that he
needed to compensate for the lack of personal recognition commensurate
with his superior talents. Th is quality does not seem to have been a pa rt
of Bakunin's make-up, who was also supremely talented both as a writer
and an original thinker, but who was generous toward his personal
enemies, quick to recognize their theoretical and practical contributions
to the socialist movement, and without jealousy toward his rivals. Such
differences in character and upbringing are especially significant because
they help to explain the motivation of intellectuals in turning to authori-
tarian and libertarian forms of socialism.
It is noteworthy that Bakunin thought of Marx as vain and morose,
whereas M arx called Bakunin a sentimental idealist. ^* Yet no t M arx
but Bakunin was the apostle of pan-destruction. Unlike M arx, who seems
to have suffered from a brooding sense of personal and social insecurity,^^
Bakunin felt the contempt for social status that makes a man try to com-
pensate for his advantages, not for his disadvantages. Beginning higher
than Marx he could allow himself to sink much lower without an affront
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
9/17
Bakunin s Controversy With Marx 267
should have adopted the life of a working-man and, sharing a life of toil
with my brethren, should have participated equally with them in the
organization of the forces of the proletariat. ^^ And elsewhere, he
writes that a man likehimself with a bourgeois or aristocratic origin, can
become a sincere or genuine socialist only wh en he has broken
all ties
binding him to the privileged world and has renounced all its advan-
tages. ^ W ithou t personal bitterness toward any, he could indulge in
that impersonal hatred for persons and symbols of authority which
made him eminently suited to become the Father of Terrorism . Un -
doubtedly his long imprisonment and Siberian exile had much to do with
his apostleship of Satan. But his desire for com pensation was no t
repressed nor did it take a personal form as it did with Marx.
IV
ALTHOUGH THEIR SOCIAL BACKGROUNDS and the clash of personalities
have been of main interest to the biographers of Marx and Bakunin, the
cultural influences upon each are vastly more important for understanding
their theoretical differences. Yet most studies of th e cultural forces
which have shaped their thought are academic in keeping within the
formal boundaries of particular disciplines. Th us Lenin stressed the
impact of German philosophy, French socialism, and English political
economy upon Marx's social philosophy, while the anarcho-syndicalist
Kenafick argues that Bakuninism is distinguished from Marxism by its
particular blend of Proudhonian anarchism and Comtean positivism.^^
The interdisciplinary and specifically cultural interpretations of Marx and
Bakunin are mostly superficial interpretations found in general works on
cultural history. By far the best attemp t to understand M arx as the child
of a particular age is Bar2un's
D arwin, M arx, Wagner. ^^
However, it
falls into the error of underestimating the influence of older traditions,
notably the biblical messianic heritage, upon Marx's thought.
M arx criticized the Utopian socialists for basing their concern for
the interests of the wage earners upon sentimental grounds, viz., the con-
sideration tha t they are the most suffering class. ^^ In his desire to
change the world, his concern was less philanthropic than revolutionary.
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
10/17
268 The American Journal of Econom ics and Sociology
revolutionary in search of suppo rt from the most revolutionary class.
M arx was before all else a revolutionary, Engels said at M arx's grave,
a revolutionary not only in practice, but in political theory, economics,
history, and philosophy.2* T o the question of a news reporter: W ha t is
your idea of hap piness? he replied: T o struggle.''^^ W hile Bakunin
was an apostle of Satanic rebellion against tyranny, Marx likened himself
to Prometheus.2
Marx's heroic posture, his Faustian defiance and struggle against the
philistinism of the bourgeois world^^ mark him as a typical romantic.
However, his romanticism was balanced by a harsh realism. H e supported
the most revolutionary class only because he believed in an historical
guarantee of victory. M arx sought to ride the wave of the future to
eminence as the intellectual leader and organizer of the new class by
consciously identifying himself with its avant-ga rde. Th ere is no
reason for gainsaying his profound indignation at the exploitation of the
wage earners and his tremendous intellectual labors on their behalf Yet
he considered himself not so much the champion or tutor of the oppressed
as the morta l enemy of capitalism.
Bakunin was also in the depths of his soul a romantic, for whom the
proletariat was the means of universal upheaval.^s However, he differed
from M arx in his belief that the drudge peo ple are the end as well as
the means of world revolution, and in his Slavic conception of the
greater revolutionary role of the moral instincts as compared to Western
scientific intelligence. H e was far from being the theoretical equal of
Marx, although what he lacked in German thoroughness he partly made
up for by the most remarkable insights into human nature and society.
He was astute enough to recognize immediately the significance of Marx's
painstaking work of research that went into the composition of Capital
W ith Capital as his stepping stone he was able to adapt Marxism to the
revolutionary needs of the peasantry as well as the wage earners, and to
underline their opposition to the intelligentsia.
It is a grave mistake to interpret Bakunin's revolutionary theory of di-
rect action and his contempt for rational theory as a token of theoretical
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
11/17
Bakunin s Controversy With Marx
269
not theory to which Bakunin was opposed, but abstract and involved specu-
lations about man and society. Regarding the accusation tha t Bakunin was
guilty of anti-intellectualism, it is true that he had misgivings that (if
scientific socialism were to become the starting-point for social upheaval)
the revolutionary movement would fall into the hands of scientists and
specialists, who would in turn constitute themselves into a new privileged
class. 2 Altho ugh against intellectuals, whom he feared as the auxiliary
arm of the political bureaucracy and as a privileged class in its own right,
he had no lack of respect for intelligence. His contempt was not for
science but for scientists.
V
As CONTEMPORARIES and eager students of Hegel and every new current
in the intellectual life of the Continent, Marx and Bakunin were subject to
similar cultural influences. Despite their efforts neither succeeded in shak-
ing off entirely their biblical heritage . Indeed , their social philosophies
reveal three distinct and opposing strains of thought: a Jewish, moralistic,
messianic orientation; a liberal, scientific and humanistic one; and a
revolutionary, romantic influence. These competing modes of thought cor-
responded to their several leading roles. Besides cham pioning the under-
do g, their task was to enlighten th e proletariat and to organize the forces
of social revo lution . The ir efforts on behalf of the wage earners testify to
the influence upon them of the Old Testament tradition of moral
righteousness and resistance to oppression. Their task of liberating men
from religious absurdities, political mystification, and the role of unreason
in economics reflected the realism and materialism of the Enlightenment.
Finally, their struggle to abolish capitalism and to introduce a socialist
new orde r by revolutionary means shows the influence of Rom anticism.
Both Marx and Bakunin fought a war on each of these different al-
thoug h related fronts. The abolition of exp loitation , the refutation of
metaphysics, and the liquidation of the bourgeoisie were believed by
each to be merely different sides of a single strugg le to achieve socialism .
But this end was no less ambiguous than the process of achieving it.
Indeed, their respective goals were determined by the relative weight each
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
12/17
270 The merican Journal of
conomics
and Sociology
Realpolitik also point to a Jacobin influence. Equally Jacobin was his
critique of Utopian socialism as sentimental idealism, his concern for the
proletariat as the most revolutionary rather than as the most suffering
class, and his strategy for acquiring undisputed leadership of the Inter-
national. Th e proletariat was to be the means of revolution rather than
the end, while science was to be the guide . Th us the liberal, scientific
and humanistic orientation in Marx was also given precedence over the
immediate needs of the wage earners.
Like M arx , Bakunin sacrificed theory to practice, and scientific social-
ism to the practical aims of the International. How ever, he had a
much more radical interpretation of the relation of theory to practice than
Marx, in believing that science should also be subordinated to the im-
mediate and everyday struggle of the workers. A t the same time , he
was the sworn enemy of Jacobinism or revolution by decrees. Bakunin's
glorification of the evil instincts, his impatience with revolutionary
ideas, and his apostleship of destruction indicate that he was less depen-
dent than Marx upon theoretical work as a preliminary to revolution, and
that he had greater faith in the revolutionary instincts of the oppressed .
It is true that there is a utilitarian strain in Bakunin's concept of terrorism
which likens it to Jacobinism. How ever, his desire to tu rn the tables ,
to reverse the roles of the exploiters and exploited that the first might
be last and the last might be first is not Jacobin bu t biblical in inspiration.
Like Proudhon, Bakunin was an avowed Satanist, the end of Satanism
being rebellion against heavenly tyranny and its earthly representative, the
State. 2 Precisely because Satan is doomed to everlasting defeat, the end
of Satanism is anarchy and pan-destruction. Of course, Bakunin was
optimistic about the possibility of social revolution, so his Satanism was
compromised by his revolutionary romanticism. The poin t, however, is*
that by means of Satanism he was able to avoid the temptations of
Jacobinism.
In marked contrast to Satanism, the essence of Jacobinism is the political
revolution, not the destruction of the State but the capture of political
power and the foundation thereon of a new social order. Its essence, ac-
cording to Len in, is the transfer of power to the revolutionary oppressed
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
13/17
Bakunin s Con troversy With Marx
271
rejection of a conspiratorial revolution from above show that he was less
of a revolutionary than a rebel and less concerned with the creation of a
new order than with the negation of an old one.
VI
THE DIFFERENT AND COMPETING PERSPECTIVES within the framework of
Marxian sociology help to explain the different interpretations of his-
torical materialism as well as the fundamental differences between the
several socialist movements. Contrary to the apostles of orthodoxy, each
of the major forms of socialism is revisionistic in representing a one-
sided approach to the body of Marxian sociology. T he question of the ir
comparative orthodoxy is an insoluble one precisely because of this one-
sidedness. It is true that M arx assigned different weights or values to
different traditions and combinations of influence, and that Jacobinism
was of foremost im portance in determining the general tenor of his
thought. However, his Jacobinism was balanced by liberal and biblical
tendencies in a way in which Bolshevism is not.
Revolutionary syndicalism, whose roots go back to Marx as well as to
Bakunin, is closest in spirit to the prophetic element in Marxism . It is a
peculiar combination of the Satanic and Promethean, since its major con-
cern for the lot of the exploited and oppressed is buttressed by a fierce
desire for action in the romantic tradition. Of the different sides of
Marxism, it underlines the Jewish moralistic, messianic doctrines, such
as the Marxian theories of surplus value and exploitation, the class war,
the revolutionary role of the proletariat, and the prophecy of an imminent
cataclysm in which the forces of good defeat forever the powers of evil.
The fact that revolutionary syndicalism
is
the principal heir of the First
International, whose leading figures were Marx and Bakunin, is explained
by the revision which Marxism underwent under the influence of
Bakunin.
Social Democracy or democratic socialism
is
the successor to the liberal
tradition of the Enlightenment and differs from revolutionary syndicalism
in giving precedence to the scientific ingredient in Marxism at the ex-
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
14/17
272
The merican Journal of
conomics
and Sociology
its leaders. Th e differences between De Leon and K autsky, Kautsky and
Bernstein, Bernstein and Luxemburg were too great to have been toler-
ated by any other tradition of Marxism . It is noteworthy that the recent
statement of principles adopted by the Socialist International at Frank-
furt-on-Main continues to stress this liberal heritage of socialism.^
Bolshevism is professedly Jacobin, according to Lenin's own statement,
so that it gives precedence to revolutionary romanticism and the realistic
elements within Marxism at the expense of both liberal and messianic
tendencies. It underlines those doctrines of Marx which reflect the in-
fluence of romanticism, such as the doctrines of the revolutionary van-
guard, proletarian dictatorship, and the strategy and tactics of the socialist
revolution. Science and scholarship are subordinated to the requirements of
practice, so that even history is rewritten with a regard for practical re-
sults.
O n the other hand , science is the principal guide to revolution so
that it, too, is given precedence over the Jewish, moralistic and messianic
tendencies within Marxism.
Unlike democratic socialism, Bolshevism has proclaimed a war against
heresy both within the Third International and its offshoot, the Trotskyist
Fourth In terna tiona l. The Jacobinism of the Bolsheviks has led to official
terrorism, purges, and the subordination of the demands of the wage
earners to specifically political goals. Democratic socialists have shown
somewhat greater concern for the immediate interests of the wage earners.
On the other hand, they, too, tend to use the proletariat as a lever for their
own political purposes. Indeed, the leadership of bo th Social Democracy
and Bolshevism has been dominated by an intelligentsia of salaried em-
ployees concerned with reforms from above rather than from below. Th us
it might have been expected that they would represent primarily the in-
terests of the salariat rather than those of the proletariat.
VII
B A K U N I N I S M
has been far from rivalling Marxism in the claims of its
successors to orthodoxy . Nonetheless th e same set of perspectives has
been influential in shaping different aspects of this trad ition. From
Bakunin's revision of Marxism three different social movements have
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
15/17
Bakunin s Controversy With Marx 273
Revolutionary syndicalism claims to be both Marxian and socialist.
However, the dominant traditions within Marxism, as represented by
both Social Democracy and Bolshevism, have become increasingly recog-
nized as representing the interests primarily of the salaried or new m id-
dle class. The same cannot be said of revolutionary syndicalism o r
trade unionism, which is a movement from below initiated by the wage
earners. The leading principles of revolutionary syndicalism, such as
the supremacy of the trade unions, apolitism, and the general strike, are
not M arxian but Bakunian. Th e intellectual ligh ts of the movement
have especially emphasized the conflict of interests, indeed, the class con-
flict between the two m ain segments of the so-called working class, the
brain and manual workers.
From Bakunin to Machajski, Pelloutier, Sorel, Michels, and, more re-
cently, Camus, revolutionary syndicalists have attacked the dominant forms
of socialism for betraying the interests of the wage earners. Although the
intellectuals of syndicalism have not always been wage earners themselves,
neither have they constituted the leadership of the trade imions. Instead,
they have served trade unionism, for the most part, from the sidelines
without any vested interest in the movement.
Bakunin was also the father of nihilism or the militant variety of
anarchism. W hereas revolutionary syndicalism is obviously inspired by
the Jewish messianic cult of the oppressed, anarchism goes back through
Stirner and Proudhon to Godwin, who was just as obviously a child of the
Enlightenm ent. Indeed , the extreme individualism and libertarianism of
the leading anarchists before Bakunin testify to the prominent place of
liberalism within anarchist thought. Bakunin's federalism and libertarian-
ism, his critique of the socialist W elfare State, his opposition to the
increasing tendency of the modern bureaucratic State to extend the limits
of its authority, point definitely to his inclusion within the anarchist tradi-
tion. Bdcunin's liberal tendencies were saturated by his feelings for the
oppressed, so that they were considerably more radical than the liberal
strains within Marxism.
Yet it is a mistake to conceive of the main issue between Marx and
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
16/17
274
The Am erican fournal of conomics and Sociology
drawn attention, namely, that between the earlier wreckers and incendiar-
ies,
following in the footsteps of Nechayev, and the later fastidious
assassins, of which Kaliayev is one of the best examples.^ In genera l,
nihilism is a kind of inverted Jacobinism. Certainly, it is not representa-
tive of the perspective of the salariat, but neither is it a mass movement
like trade unionism.
The third movement which fell under Bakunin's influence was Bol-
shevism. Although the Bolsheviks went directly to M arx for their science
of society, their revolutionary strategy and theory of soviet power were
derived for the most part from Bakunin. Contrary to most ofl&cial inter-
pretations of Marxism-Leninism, Lenin was independently influenced by
the Russian Jacobin, Tkachev, from whom he got his ideas of the pro-
letarian elite, professional revolutionaries, and the secret conspiratorial
society. It is noteworthy that Tkachev, a major exponent and interpreter
of Bakunin's ideas, was criticized by Engels for his conception of the revo-
lutionary role of the peasantry^' also a Leninist idea. The influence of
Nechayev's revolutionary Machiavellianism upo n Bolshevism has also
been increasingly recognized by scholars.* Th us between M arx and
Lenin were at least three revolutionary figures of consequence who helped
to mold Lenin's thought.
The Bakuninist controversy still lives in the opposition between mili-
tant anarchism and syndicalism, on one side, and the reigning forms of
socialism on the other. The struggle within the so-called proletariat o r
successor to the bourgeoisie, as Bakunin originally prophesied, becomes
inaeasingly a struggle between brain and manual workers, white collar
and denim , salary and wage earners. Th us the issue between M arx and
Bakunin over the question of apolitism underlines one of the major
social struggles of oiir time, usually but superficially depicted as the rise
to pow er of a new middle class. Yet Bakunin's influence upon trade
unionism has been grossly underrated, while scholars have been devoting
too much energy to investigating his effect upon Bolshevism. It is true
that through Bolshevism Bakuninism has had a determining influence
upo n political events. How ever, Bakunin was closer in spirit to bo th
militant anarchism and trade unionism, which means that his revolu-
-
7/24/2019 Bakunin's Controversy With Marx
17/17