{"id":438,"date":"2026-10-01T06:59:33","date_gmt":"2026-10-01T06:59:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/?p=438"},"modified":"2026-10-01T06:59:33","modified_gmt":"2026-10-01T06:59:33","slug":"the-revolutionary-ideas-of-michael-bakunin-1814-1876","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/the-revolutionary-ideas-of-michael-bakunin-1814-1876\/","title":{"rendered":"The Revolutionary Ideas of Michael Bakunin (1814 \u2013 1876)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A talk given in Glasgow to mark the 150th<\/sup> anniversary of Bakunin’s death. As usual, this write-up reflects what I wanted to say rather than what was actually said but it is close enough.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Revolutionary Ideas of Michael Bakunin (1814 \u2013 1876)<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The meeting was advertised as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

This year marks the 150th<\/sup> anniversary of the death of Michael Bakunin, a key anarchist thinker and activist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Born into the Russian aristocracy, he rejected his roots and became revolutionary, taking to the barricades during the 1848 Revolutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imprisoned by the Tsar before escaping from exile in Siberia, Bakunin joined the International Workers\u2019 Association and played a key role in the development of revolutionary anarchism (as both a theory and as a movement) as well as being Marx\u2019s most prescient critic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Join Iain McKay (An Anarchist FAQ<\/em>) while he explores Bakunin\u2019s life and ideas, showing their relevance to radicals today.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Michael Bakunin (1814-1876)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin was born into the Russian aristocracy, he rejected his background and became a republican (1840s). He took an active part in the 1848 Revolutions as a Slav Nationalist. Captured and sentenced to death, he was sent to Russia and imprisoned \u2013 at times, chained to a wall in solitary. Suffering from scurvy, his teeth fell out and eventually replaced by wooden ones. After an appeal to the Tsar by his mother, he was exiled to Siberia, escaping in 1861.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After his return to Western Europe, he became an anarchist in the mid-1860s, forming the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy<\/em> in 1868 and joined the International Workers Association <\/em>the following year. During this period, he wrote a few pamphlets and books \u2013 Letters to a Frenchman on the current crisis<\/em> (1871), The Political Theology of Mazini and the International <\/em>(1872) and Statism and Anarchy<\/em> (1873). He penned numerous articles in \u00c9galit\u00e9<\/em> but was a letter writer extraordinaire<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Conventional Wisdom<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin is often portrayed as an advocate of \u201cpan-destruction\u201d and terrorism. This is based on Catechism of a Revolutionary <\/em>and Principles of Revolution<\/em> \u2013 sadly, there is no actual evidence Bakunin wrote these. Marx and Engels seem to be the first to assert this, yet Bakunin’s letter to Nechaev (June 1870) shows the truth of the matter, namely that these works were by Nechaev, but Bakunin. This has been known since the 1960s but this has not stopped the claim being repeated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics often combine pre-anarchist writings with anarchist ones, suggesting a consistency which is lacking. Marxists are particularly bad at this (for example, Hal Draper) and so present a distorted account of his anarchist ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often passages are quoted without concern for context. For example, many writings were not known for decades after his death and became available with the publication of his \u0152uvres<\/em> between 1895 and 1913. This has not stopped certain quotes being used as drivers for ideas within the movement which arose after his death (for example, propaganda by the deed). So cherry picking is rampant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, there appears to be no career damage for being wrong about Bakunin (or anarchism for that matter).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before Anarchism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

No one is born an anarchist and Bakunin is no exception. He first became a Young Hegelian and during the 1848 Revolution advocated Pan-Slavism and Republicanism. He was an active participant in the revolution, taking part in the Prague and Dresden uprisings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arrested and sentenced to death, he was eventually repatriated to Russian where he was imprisoned by the Tsar for 6 years, of which three years were in solitary confinement in the Peter and Paul Fortress, followed by three years in Shlisselburg.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He was transferred to Siberia in 1857 after an appeal by his mother to the Tsar. He escaped from Siberia in 1861 and returned to Western Europe. The failure of the 1863 Polish Uprising saw the start of his move to socialism for he recognised its failure was due to its narrow nationalist position \u2013 the peasants were not interested in hoisting Polish aristocrats into power over them. Bakunin drew the conclusion that any movement for change had to address the social question to gain popular support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Italy, Switzerland and the International<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

He moved to Italy in 1864 and became an anarchist around 1868. He helped organise the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy<\/em>, leaving the League of Peace and Freedom<\/em> for the International Workers’ Association<\/em> in which he successfully spread his ideas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It must be stressed that the International was not \u201cfounded\u201d by Marx nor was it \u201cMarx\u2019s International\u201d (as many claim). Rather, Marx bumped into a German comrade who invited him along to the founding conference which had been the work of British and French trade unionists. Neither did Marx own it, it was a democratic organisation and, as a member, Bakunin had the right to expound his ideas like Marx.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin championed \u201ccollectivist\u201d ideas within the International. He did not invent these, they had already arisen within it but he helped develop them into a coherent revolutionary theory. Its basic position was that the International should be focused \u201c[o]n the terrain of economic struggle, daily practice of labour exploited by capital<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mutualists and Collectivists<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The two key tendencies within the International were mutualism and collectivism. The later gained their name by its adherents supporting the Resolution on Collective Ownership passed at the International’s 1868 Congress.It must be stressed that this resolution reflected Proudhon\u2019s General Idea of the Revolution<\/em> (1851) in its terminology:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cmachines and collective force\u2026 must in the future only benefit the workers\u2026 contracted out not to capitalists, as today, but to workers companies, on a double contract; one… guaranteeing to society… the other guaranteeing the natural rights of every member of the worker Association with respect to his colleagues.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So both mutualists and collectivists were agreed on the need for collective ownership of industry. These debates were between mutualists over extending collective ownership to land as noted by Belgium Internationalist C\u00e9sar de Paepe <\/em>(1841-1890):\u201cI am just as much a mutualist as Tolain\u2026 but I do not see that the collective ownership of land is opposed to the mutualist program”. In this, he was right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collectivists could be considered as mutualists who saw unions as Proudhon\u2019s \u201cagricultural and industrial combination\u201d and in so doing prefigured syndicalism. As French Internationalist Eug\u00e8ne Varlin <\/em>(1839-1871) argued:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cUnless you want to reduce everything to a centralising and authoritarian state… the workers themselves must have the free disposal of their instruments of labour… trade associations (resistance, solidarity, union)… are the natural elements of the social construction of the future; it is they who can easily become producer associations\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was repeated at Congresses of the International with Jean-Louis Pindy(1840-1917) arguing for \u201cresistance societies\u2026 to prepare for the future and to ensure as far as possible the present” for the “grouping of different trade unions by town and by country… forms the commune of the future… Government is replaced by the councils of the assembled trades unions\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collectivism, or Revolutionary Anarchism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin built upon these ideas and in the process played a key role in developing collectivism, or revolutionary anarchism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It stressed that Direct Action not Political Action was needed \u2013 \u201cat first as its sole basis the exclusively economic struggle of labour against capital\u2026 only a single path\u2026 emancipation through practice<\/em>\u2026 the struggle of the workers in solidarity against the bosses. It is trades unions, organisation and the federation of resistance funds<\/em>.\u201d In other words, social change \u201cby the development and organisation, not of the political but of the social (and, by consequence, anti-political) power of the working masses as much in the towns as in the countryside\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This meant that unions were considered as a means to both fight and replace capitalism: \u201c<\/em>The organisation of trade sections, their federation\u2026 and their representation by Chambers of Labour\u2026 uniting practice with theory\u2026 carry the living seeds of the new social order<\/em> that is to replace the bourgeois world. They create not only the ideas but the very facts of the future.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

General Strike as seen a means to start the revolution for as \u201cstrikes spread from one place to another, they come close to turning into a general strike” which “can result only in a great cataclysm which forces society to shed its old skin.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Collectivism was, as Bakunin put it, \u201cProudhonism widely developed and pushed right to these, its final consequences\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The First International<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

So within the International arose two tendencies associated \u2013 somewhat misleadingly \u2013 with two people, Micheal Bakunin and Karl Marx.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin advocated Direct Action, Unions <\/em>and Workers Councils<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWorkers, no longer count on anyone but yourselves\u2026 Abstain from all participation in bourgeois radicalism and organise outside of it the forces of the proletariat. The basis of that organisation is entirely given: the workshops and the federation of the workshops\u2026 instruments of struggle against the bourgeoisie\u2026 The creation of Chambers of Labour\u2026 the liquidation of the State and of bourgeois society.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx advocated Political Action<\/em>, Parties and Parliament<\/em> as later summarised by Engels<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn every struggle of class against class, the next end fought for is political power; the ruling class defends its political supremacy\u2026 its safe majority in the Legislature; the inferior class fights for, first a share, then the whole of that power\u2026 to change existing laws in conformity with their own interests and requirements\u2026 the working class of Great Britain\u2026 fought ardently\u2026 for the People’s Charter, which was to give it that political power.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These came to be known as syndicalism and social democracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anarchism and Marxism<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin correctly predicted that Social Democratic tactics would produce reformism as \u201cworker deputies, transferred into bourgeois surroundings and an atmosphere of entirely bourgeois political ideas, ceasing in fact to be workers by becoming Statesmen, will become bourgeois\u2026 For men do not make situations, on the contrary it is situations that make men\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Marxists did manage to seize power, the problem was that the State equals minority<\/em> rule, not people power:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cNo state, however democratic\u2026 can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organisation and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward… because every state… is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals, who imagine that they know what the people need and want better than do the people themselves\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The State \u201chas always been the patrimony of some privileged class” and “becomes the patrimony of the bureaucratic class\u201d. This would be State capitalism, not socialism, as \u201cthe State” would be “the sole proprietor… all workers, both in industry and on the land, would become [its] employees.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It should also be noted that Bakunin was well aware that at the time the proletariat was a minority (and a small one at that) of the working classes so any “dictatorship of the proletariat” implied minority rule over the majority of peasants and artisans. Not that the proletariat as a class could rule in a State \u2013 due to its centralised structure, in practice it would be the rule of a few party leaders.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

History proved these predictions correct \u2013 social democracy became reformist (indeed, counter-revolutionary in the German Revolution) while the Bolsheviks created a new class system based on the State bureaucracy in Russia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, it must be stressed that Bakunin’s opposition to the \u201cworkers\u2019 State\u201d had nothing to do with defending a revolution for he recognised that \u201cto defend the revolution… form a communal militia” and “federate\u2026 for common defence.\u201d Likewise, he did not think a socialist society could be created in all its aspects the day after a successful insurrection \u2013 that was simply the beginning which would allow social transformation to proceed unfettered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

National Liberation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Another important aspect of Bakunin’s ideas is National Liberation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Originally a pan-Slavist, he continued to favour national liberation for \u201c<\/strong>[e]very nation, like very individual, is of necessity what it is, and has an unquestionable right to be itself\u201d. As such, \u201cwe recognise no kind of historical or political right. For us, Poland exists only where the people want to be Polish and recognise themselves as such: it will cease to exist where that same people, no longer wishing to belong to the Polish Federation, freely chooses to join another national group\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This meant that every nation or national group within a nation had a right to autonomy and independence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/strong>What is a principle is the respect which everyone should have for natural facts, real or social. Nationality, like individuality, is one of those facts\u2026 To violate it is to commit a crime\u2026 that is why I feel myself always sincerely the patriot of all oppressed fatherlands.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the national question and the social question were interwoven:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201c<\/strong>The International does not destroy nationalities, nations; it embraces them all, without suppressing any. It cannot do otherwise, because its fundamental principle is the widest freedom. The International is not waging war on natural homelands; it is waging it only upon political homelands, on States; and it must wage this war: because, since it seriously desires the full and definitive emancipation of the proletariat, it must necessarily strive for the abolition of all classes\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the failure of the Polish Uprising in 1863 had shown, a national movement had to address social questions in order to be successful, in other words turning national liberation into human liberation from all oppressions, including those of a native ruling class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you compare what Bakunin argued to the views of Marx and Engels, it soon becomes clear that Bakunin invented Lenin\u2019s \u201cMarxist\u201d solution to the National Question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The role of Anarchists<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Also of note are Bakunin’s ideas on the role of anarchists within social movements and the revolution. Unlike some anarchists and syndicalists, he recognised the need for a specific anarchist grouping:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cthe Alliance is the necessary complement to the International… But the International and the Alliance, while tending towards the same final goal, simultaneously pursue different objectives \u2013 One has the mission of uniting the working masses… the other… has the mission of giving these masses a truly revolutionary direction. The programmes of both, while not in any way opposed, differ in the very degree of their respective development\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It aims to influence the struggle (what was later termed the \u201cleadership of ideas\u201d) by its members arguing their ideas within mass organisations. So \u201c<\/strong>it influences the people exclusively through the natural, personal influence of its members, who have not the slightest power… and… try… to direct the spontaneous revolutionary movement of the people towards… the organisation of popular liberty… by organisation among the people themselves…\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So it was a case of the role<\/em> of revolutionaries rather than the rule<\/em> of revolutionaries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The groups Bakunin created were secret often by necessity although perhaps these are better termed \u201cprivate\u201d for he once noted how the Alliance \u201c<\/strong>had regular weekly open meetings and everyone was urged to participate in the discussions\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin in the International<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

For Marxists, Bakunin is the bogeyman of the International and often personally blamed for its demise (they fail to note the Federalist International outlived Marx’s by a number of year). However, Marxist historian Paul Thomas admitted in Karl Marx and the Anarchists<\/em> that \u201cthe International was to prove capable of expanding its membership only at the behest of the Bakuninists\u2026 Wherever the International was spreading, it was doing so under the mantle of Bakuninism.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, Bakunin played a key role in replacing Mazzinism with Socialism in Italy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cApart from the Mazzinian system, which is that of the Republic-State, there is only one: that of the Republic-Commune, the Republic-Federation, the socialist and frankly popular Republic, that of ANARCHY. This is the politics of the social revolution, which seeks the abolition of the Sate and the economic and fully free organisation of the people, an organisation from the bottom up by means of federation\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ironically, Engels called an anonymous polemic by Bakunin against Mazzini \u201can excellent production\u201d that he \u201cwould undersign in all its parts\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Social Revolution<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Unlike Proudhon, Bakunin was a revolutionary. He saw revolution as involving both political and economic change:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“As a political organisation, it is the absolutely free spontaneous federation of communes and workers\u2019 associations; as a social organisation, it is the collective appropriation of capital and land by workers\u2019 associations\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would be a mass movement and  the revolution \u201ceverywhere must be created by the people, and supreme control must always belong to the people organised into a free federation of agricultural and industrial associations… organised from the bottom upwards by means of revolutionary delegation\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unlike the caricature of being an advocate of violence, he repeatedly stressed that \u201cSocialism will wage an inexorable war on \u2018social positions\u2019, not on men” and it is “these positions” that must be “destroyed and smashed” rather than men for “their present power does not reside in themselves\u2026 but in their wealth and in the support of the State\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Needless to say, he did not think the ruling class would simply disappear and so a people in revolution would be \u201cfreed from all centralising government and all tutelage, and consequently called upon to form a new organisation by federating amongst themselves for defence\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Paris Commune<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The single most significant event of Bakunin’s anarchist period was the Paris Commune of 1871. This revolt has had a significant impact \u2013 at least in rhetoric \u2013 upon Marxism which is ironic given its clearly Proudhonian nature. This can be seen from comparing Marx’s reporting on it to Proudhon’s writings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Marx recounted how it was a municipal council in which \u201ceach delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif<\/em> (formal instructions) of his constituents\u201d. The Commune “was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time” while the “unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organised by Communal Constitution\u201d Economically, \u201cit wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labour, into mere instruments of free and associated labour.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proudhon had previously argued that the \u201cchoice of talents, the imperative mandate, and permanent revocability are… the inevitable program of all democracy\u201d. It “is up to the National Assembly, through organisation of its committees, to exercise executive power, just the way it exercises legislative power\u201d. \u201cIn the federative system”, he argued, “central authority… has a quite restricted part\u2026 concerning federal services\u2026 subordinate and entrusted to an Assembly\u2026 of delegates\u201d. Economically, it was a case of \u201cdemocratically organised workers\u2019 associations” being the “core of that vast federation of companies and societies woven into the common cloth of the democratic and social Republic” and “property restored to its proper limits\u2026 free disposition of the fruits of labour\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Little wonder Bakunin considered that \u201cRevolutionary socialism has just attempted its first demonstration, both splendid and practical, in the Paris Commune.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Free Association of Equals<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin aimed for the free association of equals, the freedom for all within free association, the \u201cfreedom which consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers which are found in the form of latent capabilities in every individual\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humanity was a social animal and \u201cman in isolation can have no awareness of his liberty. Being free for man means being acknowledged, considered and treated as such by another man. Liberty is therefore a feature not of isolation but of interaction, not of exclusion but rather of connection\u201d. Hence how we associate matters \u2013 depending on its structure, an organisation can be free or authoritarian. He was a firm advocate of women’s liberation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEqual rights must belong to both men and women\u2026 Oppressed Women! Your cause is indissolubly tied to the common cause of all the exploited workers \u2013 men and women!\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin saw that freedom needs equality and so socialism: \u201cThe future social organisation must be made solely from the bottom upwards, by the free association or federation of workers, firstly in their unions, then in the communes, regions, nations and finally in a great federation, international and universal\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After Bakunin<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin died in 1876 but he saw the rise of the Federalist International (1872-1877). This was initially successful, with the majority of the International involved. However, it made the mistake Bakunin warned of, becoming effectively an anarchist federation rather than a union movement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then came the rise of Social-Democracy and eclipse of anarchism, partly a product of anarchist mistakes but also partly a natural development \u2013 but Marx made it appear \u201crevolutionary\u201d when it was the path to reformism. This process was reversed somewhat by the rise of syndicalism in response to its reformism, a return to the Federalist International (as the French syndicalists noted).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kropotkin, who became the most famous anarchist after Bakunin’s death, championed \u201cBakuninist\u201d ideas in 1877-82 and then from 1889 onwards. This was a return to syndicalism, a return of \u201cBakuninism\u201d for Kropotkin recognised the need for dual organising \u2013 for labour and specific (anarchist) organisations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusions<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bakunin, then, laid the foundations of revolutionary anarchism, both as an idea and as a movement. In his resignation letter to the Jura Federation he gave some advice which is worth recounting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHold fast to this principle of great and broad popular freedom, without which equality and solidarity themselves would be nothing but lies\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhat matters most today is the organisation of the forces of the proletariat\u2026 Organise even more the practical, militant, international solidarity amongst workers of all trades and of all countries, and remember that, infinitely weak as isolated individuals, localities, or countries, you will find immense and irresistible strength in this universal collectivity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When anarchists have followed this advice, they have grown. When they have ignored it, they have become irrelevant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Likewise, he was proven correct in his critique of Marxism. The socialist State \u201cconcentrating in their own hands all… production… under the direct command of state engineers” did “form a new privileged scientific and political class.\u201d Social Democracy quickly generated in reformism, albeit masked by revolutionary rhetoric much at odds with its practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As noted, problems arose within the movement when anarchists after his death deviated from his ideas. This is not to say he always right nor that he cannot be improved upon, simply that we need to build and develop these ideas. as Kropotkin and others did<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We need to learn from the past, not repeat it \u2013 are we ready for the challenge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further Reading\u2026<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

There are various collections of Bakunin’s writings available: The Political Philosophy of Bakunin<\/em> (1953), Bakunin on Anarchism <\/em>(1971, 1980), Micheal Bakunin: Selected Writings<\/em> (1973), The Basic Bakunin: Writings 1869-1871<\/em> (1994) and Selected Texts 1868-1875<\/em> (2016). The anthology No Gods, No Masters<\/em>, edited by Daniel Gu\u00e9rin, as a good selection of his writings. Also of note is the pamphlet Marxism, Freedom and the State<\/em> (1984).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The biography Bakunin: The Creative Passion<\/em> (2006) by Mark Leier is an excellent account of Bakunin’s life and ideas, as is Bakunin: The Philosophy of Freedom<\/em> (1993) by Brian Morris. Also of note is Richard B. Saltman’s The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin<\/em> (1983).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A talk given in Glasgow to mark the 150th anniversary of Bakunin’s death. As usual, this write-up reflects what I wanted to say rather than what was actually said but it is close enough.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,5,39],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-anarchisthistory","category-anarchists","category-michael-bakunin"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438","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=438"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":439,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions\/439"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/anarchistfaq.org\/anarcho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}