Bakunin, Marx and the state - Barry Biddulph

The following has been taken from the Commune website and was the introduction to a joint meeting they did with the Communist Workers Organisation (CWO/ICT) at the Sheffield Anarchist Bookfair. Audio of the meeting can be found here.

Submitted by klas batalo on May 20, 2013

The Commune introduction to a meeting on Anarchism, Marxism and the State, at the Sheffield Anarchist Bookfair 11th May 2013, by Barry Biddulph.

In the 1870′s, Bakunin in Marxism and the State, argued that the divide between Marxists and Anarchists was this: Marxists stood for the Peoples State (workers state) and Anarchists aimed for the destruction of the state. This was not a direct polemic with the views of Marx in the 1870′s. It was an indirect attack on Marx as the pope of German Social Democracy. Therefore, when Lassalle advocated the people’s state this reflected the views of Marx.

Bakunin went all the way back to 1848, and the Communist Manifesto, where we find the following state socialist position: “the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e. the proletariat organised as a ruling class”. (1) But this was described as outdated by Marx in 1872, “One thing especially was proved by the commune, that the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purpose”. (2)

We have to remember the historical context of 1848. This was at the beginning of modern industrial capitalism and the working class. Industrial Capitalism had not rolled out across Europe, let alone the world. Marx developed his understanding of the nature of capitalism and class struggle as history moved on. State socialism to an extent reflected the development of class struggle at the time. The Chartists demanded the democratisation of the state with annual parliaments.

Bakunin criticised Marx for being too optimistic about the spread and development of capitalism. He did have a point. In 1848 Marx did tend to see capitalism rolling reactionary, backward elements flat. But as we now know backward, reactionary forces embraced capitalism faced with revolt from below and modernised from the top down using the state. National unification in Germany in the 19th century took on a reactionary form under Bismark. Later, Marx’s views became more open-ended, or more multilinear, rather than unilinear.

The point is, Marx generalised from class struggle and developed his understanding of capitalism. Bakunin, although lacking a developed social theory, did have an insight in 1848 that revolution could not be advanced through the state. Later Marx studied events in France and in, The EighteenthBrumaire of Louis Bonaparte, noted the growing power of the State which in specific circumstances could rise above classes. But it was the Paris Commune in 1871 which drove the point home. It was a proletarian revolution against the state itself. The state might have predated capitalism, but it embodied the power of capital over labour. The alternative was the self-government of the producers.

In the 1870′s Marx wrote a critique of Social Democracy’s Gotha programme. He made the mistake of keeping the criticism of the leaders of Social Democracy private, not making it public until 1890. Marx rubbished Lassalle’s concept of the people’s state. But he did step back from the clarity and boldness of his writing on the Paris Commune. There are some ambiguous statements. For example, the democratic republic is not the final aim, but the site of the final struggle. This echoes the notes of Marx on Bakunin and the State, that the over throw of the old society is on the basis of the old society. Not the basis of the old state, but the clarity is not there.

Lenin in his, State and Revolution in 1917, did take up the theme of smashing the state, but added that the capitalist state would be replaced by a workers state, a political regime which would represent the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. In this he followed Plekhanov rather than Marx. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat became a government, not the social domination of society by the working class. The State and Revolution had no influence on Bolshevism before or after 1917. Following the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks rooted themselves in government and the State, rather than the Soviets and mass organisations from below. In so far as the state was damaged in 1917, they reconstructed it around their party.

The lesson of the Russian Revolution for Victor Serge, who had been an Anarchist and a Bolshevik, was that Bolshevism lacked the spirit of liberty. This echoed the views of Lenin’s left critics within the Bolshevik party that the Bolshevik government lacked confidence in the creativity and initiative of the masses. In this sense, we can agree with the sentiments of Bakunin when he wrote: “liberty can only be created by liberty, by an insurrection of all the people and the voluntary organisation of the workers from below upward”. (3)

1 Marx and Engels, 1848 , The Communist Manifesto, Introduction by David Harvey, 2008 , Pluto press, p63/4

2 ibid p86

3 Mark Leier, 2006, Bakunin, Seven Stories Press, New York, p 318



10 years 11 months ago

In reply to by

Submitted by Spikymike on May 21, 2013

Thanks for posting this on libcom - I managed to listen to most of the recording although I couldn't replay it a second time for some reason?

As someone who has long argued on this site, as with my involvement in the old UK Wildcat and Subversion groups, that the old divisions between anarchist and marxist tendencies amongst genuine communists outside of the traditional left are largely outdated, it was heartening to see the Sheffileld Anarchist Bookfair hosting this particular discussion and the two participant groups - something which unfortunately hasn't been possible with the equivalent Manchester bookfair.

The two communist tendencies certainly have much in common, even if today I would say that that might include both weaknesses and strengths. The more established organised groups within these tendencies show few signs of moving on beyond the particular historical associations by which they differentiate themselves - their branding as it were within the ideological marketplace, but at least there seems to be a recognition that none of those groups have all the answers and that we need to build on what we may have in common whilst discussing and hopefully learning something from our differences. Those groups do perhaps share a common assumption that they, either separately or together, are the basis of some future organised revolutionary movement and that it is down to their efforts to somehow 'raise the consciousness' of the working class, which is at least questionable. Are all these groups, whether marxist or anarchist now anti-state then - perhaps in theory, but only the practice of a revolutionary situation will really tell whether that is the case.


10 years 11 months ago

In reply to by

Submitted by Spikymike on May 23, 2013

Did manage to replay that recording (and some others from the Sheffield bookfair) and nothing to add to my comments above except, given references in other recordings to Bakunin, that specifically on a positive marxist assesment of Marx and Bakunin's writings on the state I have previously recomended people read this:

though I wouldn't recomend everything written by this group.