A review of a pamphlet on the lessons of the First International written by Mark Leier whose excellent biography of Bakunin is recommended.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
This pamphlet is by the author of the best biography of Bakunin, Bakunin: The Creative Passion<\/em>, Mark Leier and covers the Marx-Bakunin conflict in the First International.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It shares a cover picture with Wolfgang Eckhardt\u2019s The First Socialist Schism: Bakunin vs. Marx in the International Working Men\u2019s Association<\/em> [Oakland: PM Press, 2016], which raises the question whether this pamphlet is a (short) response to that work. It does not read that way, but the thought does cross the mind. Unlike that book, it does not attempt to go into the details of that conflict between the syndicalist and social-democratic tendencies within the International (personified, for better or for worse, in Bakunin and Marx). Instead, it aims to learn from history rather than repeat it<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this, it achieves its aim. There is very little to disagree with in the pamphlet. Yes, people can and should play different roles in the movement and this should be recognised (\u201chelpers, organisers, rebels, educators,\u201d following Bill Moyer and George Lakey). Yes, Marx and Bakunin had much in common both in terms of politics and life and, yes, those who are closest often fight the most, often over the most minor of differences. Yes, Bakunin was a grand synthesiser while Marx often wrote impressive works of scholarship. Yes, the writings of both can be read with great benefit by today\u2019s radicals \u2013 although, obviously, I would suggest Bakunin\u2019s contribution was greater (in-so-far he correctly predicted the failures of Marxism and pointed to an alternative, more fruitful if harder, path for the labour movement).<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, I must protest at this comment by Leier:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIn contrast [to Bakunin], Marx was a careful scholar who took his research very seriously, chasing down evidence, refining arguments, anticipating and defeating criticism, and writing with exactitude.\u201d (18)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n This is mentioned just before stating that Marx\u2019s book against Proudhon, The Poverty of Philosophy<\/em>, was \u201cclever and pointed\u201d whose title was \u201citself a jab at Proudhon\u2019s ill-digested Hegelianism.\u201d (19\u201320) In fact, Marx\u2019s book is the work of a hack who was more than happy to selectively quote and invent notions (and quotes!) , all the better to mock Proudhon \u2013 see my \u201cThe Poverty of (Marx\u2019s) Philosophy\u201d (Anarcho-Syndicalist Review<\/em> 70) for just a few examples of Marx\u2019s dishonesty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Proudhon was not the only person which Marx abused this way. In Capital<\/em>, Marx\u2019s most studious and academic work, he quotes John Stuart Mill on whether \u201cit is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day\u2019s toil of any human being\u201d before smugly commenting in a footnote that \u201cMill should have said, \u2018of any human being not fed by other people\u2019s labour\u2019, for there is no doubt that machinery has greatly increased the number of distinguished idlers.\u201d (Capital<\/em> [London: Penguin Books, 1976] I: 492) Yet Mill makes this precise point:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cit is questionable if all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day\u2019s toil of any human being. They have enabled a greater population to live the same life of drudgery and imprisonment, and an increased number of manufacturers and others to make fortunes. They have increased the comforts of the middle classes.\u201d (Principles of Political Economy<\/em> [Boston: C.C. Little & J. Brown, 1848] II: 317)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The selective quoting of Mill is minor, nowhere near what Marx inflicted upon Proudhon but it does point to problems portraying of him as a serious scholar. Such a claim should not be made without caveats. Even his best books were driven by political concerns \u2013 not least undermining those whom he viewed as threats to his influence. So The Poverty of Philosophy<\/em> was more than a \u201ctawdry treatment of someone who had done much for the movement and much to shape Marx\u2019s own thinking\u201d or \u201cferociously refuting error.\u201d (20) Marx attacked Proudhon not because of the alleged stupidity of his ideas but precisely because<\/em> of their intellectual strengths and corresponding influence in the labour movement (for if he were the moron Marx portrays him to be, he would have had no need to put pen to paper\u2026)<\/p>\n\n\n\n I mention this not to attack Leier, who is after all repeating a commonplace. It takes time to compare and contrast The Poverty of Philosophy<\/em> with Proudhon\u2019s System of Economic Contradictions<\/em>, time few people have. It does not help that the second volume of Proudhon\u2019s work is untranslated and Marx rarely references the quotes he extracts (or appears to extract). Moreover, it pioneered the preferred method of attack by Marxists on anarchists, so we must be aware of the technique in order to counter attacks today (particularly as these generally regurgitate those by Marx and Engels).<\/p>\n\n\n\n So where does that leave us? Leier\u2019s pamphlet is worth reading, a timely reminder that we all have roles to play, that all thinkers can contribute to the task of human liberation. However, I feel that in his understandable desire to build bridges and remind all socialists of what we should have in common, he had unwittily contributed to certain myths which make that task harder. Marxist arrogance \u2013 to perhaps over generalise \u2013 has always been a hindrance to unity. The sooner they realise he was as flawed as the rest of us, the better. Then he can join with the likes of Proudhon and Bakunin as those whose works have contributed to understanding and overcoming capitalism and, as such, can be read fruitfully by modern radicals \u2013 but always critically and without excluding the others. In other words, as anarchists treat the likes of Bakunin, Proudhon and Kropotkin \u2013 for we would never proclaim ourselves as Kropotkinists, Bakuinists or Proudhonists!<\/p>\n\n\n\n So Marx\u2019s analysis of capitalism is still useful (as long as we remember that both capitalism and economics has changed since 1867) even if his vision of social change (parties, electioneering, centralised State, etc.) has simply proven anarchist critiques to be prescient. Still, anarchists have long been resigned to the fact that being proven correct matters little in \u201crevolutionary\u201d politics\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, Leier is right to note that many Marxists \u2013 such as Paul Mattick, Anton Pannekoek, amongst others \u2013 have drawn libertarian conclusions from Marx (although, he fails to note that Maurice Brinton \u2013 like Cornelius Castoriadis \u2013 ended by rejecting the label). However, it is also right to note that these people have always been in a distinct minority<\/em> within Marxism, which surely suggests something in terms of the nature of Marxism?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Returning to Leier\u2019s pamphlet, it is definitely worth reading and has important points relevant for today\u2019s movement \u2013 even if I have reservations about a few minor parts of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Divide and Conquer or Divide and Subdivide? How Not to Refight the First International<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Mark Leier<\/p>\n\n\n\n PM Press<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2017<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A review of a pamphlet on the lessons of the First International written by Mark Leier whose excellent biography of Bakunin is recommended.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,36,39,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-246","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anarchisthistory","category-karl-marx","category-michael-bakunin","category-review"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=246"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":247,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/246\/revisions\/247"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=246"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=246"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=246"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n