Basic Bakunin
Republished from the (British) Anarchist Communist Federation's original
pamphlet in 1993 by P.A.C. (Paterson Anarchist Collective) Publications
"The star of revolution will rise high above the streets of
Moscow, from a sea of blood and fire, and turn into a lodestar to
lead a liberated humanity"
-Mikhail Bakunin
Preface
The aim of this pamphlet is to do nothing more than present an outline of
what the author thinks are the key features of Mikhail Bakunin's anarchist
ideas. Bakunin was extremely influential in the 19th century socialist
movement, yet his ideas for decades have been reviled, distorted or ignored.
On reading this pamphlet, it will become apparent that Bakunin has a lot to
offer and that his ideas are not at all confused (as some writers would have
us think) but make up a full coherent and well argued body of thought. For a
detailed but difficult analysis of Bakunin's revolutionary ideas, Richard B.
Saltman's book, "The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin" is
strongly recommended.
Class
Bakunin saw revolution in terms of the overthrow of one oppressing class by
another oppressed class and the destruction of political power as expressed
as the state and social hierarchy. According to Bakunin, society is divided
into two main classes which are fundamentally opposed to each other. The
oppressed class, he variously described as commoners, the people, the masses
or the workers, makes up a great majority of the population. It is in
'normal' time not conscious of itself as a class, though it has an
'instinct' for revolt and whilst unorganized, is full of vitality. The
numerically much smaller oppressing class, however is conscious of its role
and maintains its ascendancy by acting in a purposeful, concerted and united
manner. The basic differences between the two classes, Bakunin maintained,
rests upon the ownership and control of property, which is
disproportionately in the hands of the minority class of capitalists. The
masses, on the other hand, have little to call their own beyond their
ability to work.
Bakunin was astute enough to understand that the differences between the two
main classes is not always clear cut. He pointed out that it is not possible
to draw a hard line between the two classes, though as in most things, the
differences are most apparent at the extremes. Between these extremes of
wealth and power there is a hierarchy of social strata which can be assessed
according to the degree to which they exploit each other or are exploited
themselves. The further away a given group is from the workers, the more
likely it is to be part of the exploiting category and the less it suffers
from exploitation. Between the two major classes there is a middle class or
middle classes which are both exploiting and exploited, depending on their
position of social hierarchy.
The masses who are the most exploited form, in Bakunin's view, the great
revolutionary class which alone can sweep away the present economic system.
Unfortunately, the fact of exploitation and its resultant poverty are in
themselves no guarantee of revolution. Extreme poverty is, Bakunin thought,
likely to lead to resignation if the people can see no possible alternative
to the existing order. Perhaps, if driven to great depths of despair, the
poor will rise up in revolt. Revolts however tend to be local and therefore,
easy to put down. In Bakunin's view, three conditions are necessary to bring
about popular revolution.
They are:
* sheer hatred for the conditions in which the masses find themselves
* the belief the change is a possible alternative
* a clear vision of the society that has to be made to bring about human
emancipation
Without these three factors being present, plus a united and efficient self
organization, no liberatory revolution can possibly succeed.
Bakunin had no doubts that revolution must necessarily involve destruction
to create the basis of the new society. He stated that, quite simply,
revolution means nothing less than war, that is the physical destruction of
people and property. Spontaneous revolutions involve, often, the vast
destruction of property. Bakunin noted that when circumstances demanded it,
the workers will destroy even their own houses, which more often than not,
do not belong to them. The negative, destructive urge is absolutely
necessary, he argued, to sweep away the past. Destruction is closely linked
with construction, since the "more vividly the future is visualized, the
more powerful is the force of destruction."
Given the close relationship between the concentration of wealth and power
in capitalist societies, it is not surprising that Bakunin considered
economic questions to be of paramount importance. It is in the context of
the struggle between labor and capital that Bakunin gave great significance
of strikes by workers. Strikes, he believed, have a number of important
functions in the struggle against capitalism. Firstly they are necessary as
catalysts to wrench the workers away from their ready acceptance of
capitalism, they jolt them out of their condition of resignation. Strikes,
as a form of economic and political warfare, require unity to succeed, thus
welding the workers together. During strikes, there is a polarization
between employers and workers. This makes the latter more receptive to the
revolutionary propaganda and destroys the urge to compromise and seek deals.
Bakunin thought that as the struggle between labor and capital increases, so
will the intensity and number of strikes. The ultimate strike is the general
strike. A revolutionary general strike, in which class conscious workers are
infused with anarchist ideas will lead, thought Bakunin, to the final
explosion which will bring about anarchist society.
Bakunin's ideas are revolutionary in a very full sense, being concerned with
the destruction of economic exploitation and social/political domination and
their replacement by a system of social organization which is in harmony
with human nature. Bakunin offered a critique of capitalism, in which
authority and economic inequality went hand in hand, and state socialism,
(e.g. Marxism) which is one sided in its concentration on economic factors
whilst, grossly underestimating the dangers of social authority.
State
Bakunin based his consistent and unified theory upon three interdependent
platforms, namely:
* human beings are naturally social (and therefore they desire social
solidarity)
* are more or less equal and,
* want to be free
His anarchism is consequently concerned with the problem of creating a
society of freedom within the context of an egalitarian system of mutual
interaction. The problem with existing societies, he argued, is that they
are dominated by states that are necessarily violent, anti-social, and
artificial constructs which deny the fulfillment of humanity.
Whilst there are, in Bakunin's view, many objectionable features within
capitalism, apart from the state, (e.g. the oppression of women, wage
slavery), it is the state which nurtures, maintains and protects the
oppressive system as a whole. The state is defined as an anti-social machine
which controls society for the benefit of an oppressing class or elite. It
is essentially an institution based upon violence and is concerned with its
maintenance of inequality through political repression. In addition the
state relies upon a permanent bureaucracy to help carry out its aims. The
bureaucratic element, incidentally, is not simply a tool which it promotes.
All states, Bakunin believed, have internal tendencies toward self
perpetuation, whether they be capitalist or socialist and are thus to be
opposed as obstacles to human freedom.
It might be objected that states are not primarily concerned with political
repression and violence and indeed that liberal democratic states, in
particular, are much interested in social welfare. Bakunin argues that such
aspects are only a disguise, and that when threatened, all states reveal
their essentially violent natures. In Britain and Northern Ireland this
repressive feature of state activity has come increasingly to the fore, when
the state has been challenged to any significant degree, it has responded
with brutal firmness.
And developments within Britain over the last couple decades tend to
substantiate another feature of the state which Bakunin drew attention to,
their tendency toward over increasing authoritarianism and absolutism. He
believed that there were strong pressures in all states whether they are
liberal, socialist, capitalist, or whatever, toward military dictatorship
but that the rate of such development will vary, however according to
factors such as demography, culture and politics.
Finally, Bakunin noted that states tend toward warfare against other states.
Since there is no internationally accepted moral code between states, then
rivalries between them will be expressed in terms of military conflict. "So
long as there's government, there will be no peace. There will only be more
or less prolonged respites, armistices concluded by the perpetually
belligerent states; but as soon as a state feels sufficiently strong to
destroy this equilibrium to its advantage, it will never fail to do so."
Bourgeois Democracy
Political commentators and the media are constantly singing the praises of
the system of representative democracy in which every few years or so the
electorate is asked to put a cross on a piece of paper to determine who will
control them. This system works good insofar as the capitalist system has
found a way of gaining legitimacy through the illusion that some how the
voters are in charge of running the system. Bakunin's writings on the issue
are of representative democracy were made at the time when it barely existed
in the world. Yet he could see on the basis of a couple of examples (the
United States and Switzerland) that the widening of the franchise does
little to improve the lot of the great mass of the population. True, as
Bakunin noted, middle class politicians are prepared to humble themselves
before the electorate issuing all sorts of promises. But this leveling of
candidates before the populace disappears the day after the election, once
they are transformed into members of the Parliament. The workers continue to
go to work and the bourgeoisie takes up once again the problems of business
and political intrigue.
Today, in the United States and Western Europe, the predominant political
system is that of liberal democracy. In Britain the electoral system is
patently unfair in its distribution of parliamentary seats, insofar as some
parties with substantial support get negligible representation. However,
even where strict proportional representation applies, the Bakuninist
critique remains scathing. For the representative system requires that only
a small section of the population concern itself directly with legislation
and governing (in Britain a majority out of 650 MA).
Bakunin's objections to representative democracy rests basically on the fact
that it is an expression of the inequality of power which exists in society.
Despite constitutions guaranteeing the rights of citizens and equality
before the law, the reality is that the capitalist class is in permanent
control. So long as the great mass of the population has to sell its labor
power in order to survive, there can not be democratic government. So long
as people are economically exploited by capitalism and there are gross
inequalities of wealth, there can not be real democracy. As Bakunin made
clear, economic facts are much stronger than political rights. So long as
there is economic privilege there will be political domination by the rich
over the poor. The result of this relationship is that representatives of
capitalism (bourgeois democracy) posses in fact, if not by right, the
exclusive privilege of governing.
A common fiction that is expounded in liberal democracies is that the people
rule. However the reality is that minorities necessarily do the governing. A
privileged few who have access to wealth, education and leisure time,
clearly are better equipped to govern than ordinary working people, who
generally have little free time and only a basic education.
But as Bakunin made clear, if by some quirk, a socialist government be
elected, in real terms, things would not improve much. When people gain
power and place themselves 'above' society, he argued, their way of looking
at the world changes. From their exalted position of high office the
perspective on life becomes distorted and seems very different to those on
the bottom. The history of socialist representation in parliament is
primarily that of reneging on promises and becoming absorbed into the
manners, morality and attitudes of the ruling class. Bakunin suggests that
such backsliding from socialist ideas is not due to treachery, but because
participation in parliament makes representatives see the world through a
distorted mirror. A workers parliament, engaged in the tasks of governing
would, said Bakunin, end up a chamber of "determined aristocrats, bold or
timid worshipers of the principle of authority who will also become
exploiters and oppressors."
The point that Bakunin makes time and time again in his writings is that no
one can govern for the people in their interests. Only personal and direct
control over our lives will ensure that justice and freedom will prevail. To
abdicate direct control is to deny freedom. To grant political sovereignty
to others, whether under the mantle of democracy, republicanism, the
people's state, or whatever, is to give others control and therefore
domination over our lives.
It might be thought that the referendum, in which people directly make laws,
would be an advance upon the idea of representative democracy. This is not
the case according to Bakunin, for a variety of reasons. Firstly, the people
are not in a position to make decisions on the basis of full knowledge of
all the issues involved. Also, laws may be a complex, abstract, and
specialized nature and that in order to vote for them in a serious way, the
people need to be fully educated and have available the time and facilities
to reflect upon and discuss the implications involved. The reality of
referenda is that they are used by full-time politicians to gain legitimacy
for essentially bourgeois issues. It is no coincidence that Switzerland,
which has used the referendum frequently, remains one of the most
conservative countries in Europe. With referenda, the people are guided by
politicians, who set the terms of the debate. Thus despite popular input,
the people still remain under bourgeois control.
Finally, Bakunin on the whole concept of the possibility of the democratic
state: For him the democratic state is a contradiction in terms since the
state is essentially about force, authority and domination and is
necessarily based upon an inequality of wealth and power. Democracy, in the
sense of self rule for all, means that no one is ruled. If no one rules,
there can be no state. If there is a state, there can be no self rule.
Marx
Bakunin's opposition to Marxism involves several separate but related
criticisms. Though he thought Marx was a sincere revolutionary, Bakunin
believed that the application of the Marxist system would necessarily lead
to the replacement of one repression (capitalist) by another (state
socialist).
Firstly, Bakunin opposed what he considered to be the economic determinist
element in Marx's thought, most simply stated that "Being determines
consciousness." Put in another way, Bakunin was against the idea that the
whole range of 'super structural' factors of society, its laws, moralities,
science, religion, etc. were "but the necessary after effects of the
development of economic facts." Rather than history or science being
primarily determined by economic factors (e.g. the 'mode of production'),
Bakunin allowed much more for the active intervention of human beings in the
realization of their destiny.
More fundamental was Bakunin's opposition to the Marxist idea of
dictatorship of the proletariat which was, in effect, a transitional state
on the way to stateless communism. Marx and Engles, in the Communist
Manifesto of 1848, had written of the need for labor armies under state
supervision, the backwardness of the rural workers, the need for centralized
and directed economy, and for wide spread nationalization. Later, Marx also
made clear that a workers' government could come into being through
universal franchise. Bakunin questioned each of these propositions.
The state, whatever its basis, whether it be proletarian or bourgeois,
inevitably contains several objectionable features. States are based upon
coercion and domination. This domination would, Bakunin stated, very soon
cease to be that of the proletariat over its enemies but would become a
state over the proletariat. This would arise, Bakunin believed, because of
the impossibility of a whole class, numbering millions of people, governing
on its own behalf. Necessarily, the workers would have to wield power by
proxy by entrusting the tasks of government to a small group of politicians.
Once the role of government was taken out of the hands of the masses, a new
class of experts, scientists and professional politicians would arise. This
new elite would, Bakunin believed, be far more secure in its domination over
the workers by means of the mystification and legitimacy granted by the
claim to acting in accordance with scientific laws (a major claim by
Marxists). Furthermore, given that the new state could masquerade as the
true expression of the people's will. The institutionalizing of political
power gives rise to a new group of governors with the same self seeking
interests and the same cover-ups of its dubious dealings.
Another problem posed by the statist system, that of centralized statist
government would, argued Bakunin, further strengthen the process of
domination. The state as owner, organizer, director, financier, and
distributor of labor and economy would necessarily have to act in an
authoritarian manner in its operations. As can be seen by the Soviet system,
a command economy must act with decision flowing from top to bottom; it
cannot meet the complex and various needs of individuals and, in the final
analysis, is a hopeless, inefficient giant. Marx believed that centralism,
from whatever quarter, was a move toward the final, statist solution of
revolution. Bakunin, in contrast opposed centralism by federalism.
Bakunin's predictions as to the operation of Marxist states has been borne
out of reality. The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917, talked incessantly of
proletarian dictatorship and soviet power, yet inevitably, with or without
wanting to, created a vast bureaucratic police state.
Unions
Most of the left in Britain view the present structures of trade unions in a
positive light. This is true for members of the Labor Party, both left and
right, the Communist Party, the Militant Tendency and many other Marxist
organizations. These bodies wish to capture or retain control of the unions,
pretty much as they stand, in order to use them for their own purposes. As a
result, there are frequently bitter conflicts and maneuverings within the
unions for control. This trend is most apparent in the C.P.S.A. where a
vicious anti-communist right wing group alternates with the Militant
Tendency and its supporters for control of the union executive and full time
posts. The major exception to this is the Socialist Workers Party which
advocates rank and file organization, so long as the S.W.P. can control it.
Bakunin laid the foundations of the anarchist approach to union organization
and the general tendency of non-anarchist unions to decay into personal
fiefdoms and bureaucracy over a century ago. Arguing in the context of union
organization within the International Working Mens Association, he gave
examples of how unions can be stolen from the membership whose will they are
supposed to be an expression of. He identified several interrelated features
which lead to the usurpation of power by union leaders.
Firstly, he indicated a psychological factor which plays a key part. Honest,
hardworking, intelligent and well meaning militants win through hard work
the respect and admiration of their fellow members and are elected to union
office. They display self sacrifice, initiative and ability. Unfortunately,
once in positions of leadership, these people soon imagine themselves to be
indispensable and their focus of attention centers more and more on the
machinations within the various union committees.
The one time militant thus becomes removed from the every day problems of
the rank and file members and assumes the self delusion which afflicts all
leaders, namely a sense of superiority.
Given the existence of union bureaucracies and secret debating chambers in
which leaders decide union actions and policies, a 'governmental
aristocracy' arises within the union structures, no matter how democratic
those structures may formally be. With the growing authority of the union
committees etc., the workers become indifferent to union affairs, with the
exception Bakunin asserts, of issues which directly affect them e.g. dues
payment, strikes etc. Unions have always had great problems in getting
subscriptions from alienated memberships, a solution which has been found in
the 'check off' system by which unions and employers collaborate to remove
the required sum at source, i.e. from the pay packet.
Where workers do not directly control their union and delegate authority to
committees and full-time agents, several things happen. Firstly, so long as
union subscriptions are not too high, and back dues are not pressed too hard
for, the substituting bodies can act with virtual impunity. This is good for
the committees but brings almost to an end the democratic life of the union.
Power gravitates increasingly to the committees and these bodies, like all
governments substitute their will for that of the membership. This in turn
allows expression for personal intrigues, vanity, ambition and
self-interest. Many intra-union battles, which are ostensibly fought on
ideological grounds, are in fact merely struggles for control by ambitious
self seekers who have chosen the union for their career structure. This
careerism occasionally surfaces in battles between rival leftists, for
example where no political reasons for conflict exist. In the past the
Communist Party offered a union career route within certain unions and such
conflicts constantly arose.
Presumably, within the Militant Tendency, which also wishes to capture
unions, the same problem exists.
Within the various union committees, which are arranged on a hierarchical
basis (mirroring capitalism), one or two individuals come to dominate on the
basis of superior intelligence or aggressiveness. Ultimately, the unions
become dominated by bosses who hold great power in their organizations,
despite the safeguards of democratic procedures and constitutions. Over the
last few decades, many such union bosses have become national figures,
especially in periods of Labor government.
Bakunin was aware that such union degeneration was inevitable but only
arises in the absence of rank and file control, lack of opposition to
undemocratic trends and the accession to union power to those who allow
themselves to be corrupted. Those individuals who genuinely wish to
safeguard their personal integrity should, Bakunin argued, not stay in
office too long and should encourage strong rank and file opposition. Union
militants have a duty to remain faithful to their revolutionary ideals.
Personal integrity, however, is an insufficient safeguard. Other,
institutional and organizational factors must also be brought into play.
These include regular reporting to the proposals made by the officials and
how they voted, in other words frequent and direct accountability. Secondly,
such union delegates must draw their mandates from the membership being
subject to rank and file instructions. Thirdly, Bakunin suggests the instant
recall of unsatisfactory delegates. Finally, and most importantly, he urged
the calling of mass meetings and other expressions of grass roots activity
to circumvent those leaders who acted in undemocratic ways. Mass meetings
inspire passive members to action, creating a camaraderie which would tend
to repudiate the so called leaders.
(From this, one can conclude that Bakunin was a major inspiration for the
anarcho-syndicalist movement.)
Revolutionary Organization
Above all else, Bakunin the revolutionary, believed in the necessity of
collective action to achieve anarchy. After his death there was a strong
tendency within the anarchist movement towards the abandonment of
organization in favor of small group and individual activity. This
development, which culminated in individual acts of terror in the late
nineteenth century France, isolating anarchism from the very source of the
revolution, namely the workers.
Bakunin, being consistent with other aspects of his thought, saw
organization not in terms of a centralized and disciplined army (though he
thought self discipline was vital), but as the result of decentralized
federalism in which revolutionaries could channel their energies through
mutual agreement within a collective. It is necessary, Bakunin argued, to
have a coordinated revolutionary movement for a number of reasons. Firstly,
is anarchists acted alone, without direction they would inevitably end up
moving in different directions and would, as a result, tend to neutralize
each other. Organization is not necessary for its own sake, but is necessary
to maximize strength of the revolutionary classes, in the face of the great
resources commanded by the capitalist state.
However, from Bakunin's standpoint, it was the spontaneous revolt against
authority by the people which is of the greatest importance. The nature of
purely spontaneous uprisings is that they are uneven and vary in intensity
from time to time and place to place. The anarchist revolutionary
organization must not attempt to take over and lead the uprising but has the
responsibility of clarifying goals, putting forward revolutionary
propaganda, and working out ideas in correspondence with the revolutionary
instincts of the masses. To go beyond this would undermine the whole
self-liberatory purpose of the revolution. Putchism has no place in
Bakunin's thought.
Bakunin then, saw revolutionary organization in terms of offering assistance
to the revolution, not as a substitute. It is in this context that we should
interpret Bakunin's call for a "secret revolutionary vanguard" and
"invisible dictatorship" of that vanguard. The vanguard it should be said,
has nothing in common with that of the Leninist model which seeks actual,
direct leadership over the working class. Bakunin was strongly opposed to
such approaches and informed his followers that "no member... is permitted,
even in the midst of full revolution, to take public office of any kind, nor
is the (revolutionary) organization permitted to do so... it will at all
times be on the alert, making it impossible for authorities, governments and
states to be established." The vanguard was, however, to influence the
revolutionary movement on an informal basis, relying on the talents of it's
members to achieve results. Bakunin thought that it was the
institutionalization of authority, not natural inequalities, that posed a
threat to the revolution. The vanguard would act as a catalyst to the
working classes' own revolutionary activity and was expected to fully
immerse itself in the movement. Bakunin's vanguard then, was concerned with
education and propaganda, and unlike the Leninist vanguard party, was not to
be a body separate from the class, but an active agent within it.
The other major task of the Bakuninist organization was that it would act as
the watchdog for the working class. Then, as now, authoritarian groupings
posed as leaders of the revolution and supplied their own members as
"governments in waiting." The anarchist vanguard has to expose such
movements in order that the revolution should not replace one representative
state by another 'revolutionary' one. After the initial victory, the
political revolutionaries, those advocates of so-called workers' governments
and the dictatorship of the proletariat, would according to Bakunin try "to
squelch the popular passions. They appeal for order, for trust in, for
submission to those who, in the course and the name of the revolution,
seized and legalized their own dictatorial powers; this is how such
political revolutionaries reconstitute the state. We on the other hand, must
awaken and foment all the dynamic passions of the people."
Anarchy
Throughout Bakunin's criticisms of capitalism and state socialism he
constantly argues for freedom. It is not surprising, then, to find that in
his sketches of future anarchist society that the principle of freedom takes
precedence. In a number of revolutionary programs he outlined which he
considered to be the essential features of societies which would promote the
maximum possible individual and collective freedom. The societies envisioned
in Bakunin's programs are not Utopias, the sense of being detailed fictional
communities, free of troubles, but rather suggest the basic minimum skeletal
structures which would guarantee freedom. The character of future anarchist
societies will vary, said Bakunin depending on a whole range of historical,
cultural, economic and geographical factors.
The basic problem was to lay down the minimum necessary conditions which
would bring about a society based upon justice and social welfare for all
and would also generate freedom. The negative, that is, destructive features
of the programs are all concerned with the abolition of those institutions
which lead to domination and exploitation. The state, including the
established church, the judiciary, state banks and bureaucracy, the armed
forces and the police are all to be swept away. Also, all ranks, privileges,
classes and the monarchy are to be abolished.
The positive, constructive features of the new society all interlink to
promote freedom and justice. For a society to be free, Bakunin argued, it is
not sufficient to simply impose equality. No, freedom can only be achieved
and maintained through the full participation in society of a highly
educated and healthy population, free from social and economic worries. Such
an enlightened population, can then be truly free and able to act rationally
on the basis of a popularly controlled science and a thorough knowledge of
the issues involved.
Bakunin advocated complete freedom of movement, opinion, morality where
people would not be accountable to anyone for their beliefs and acts. This
must be, he argued, complete and unlimited freedom of speech, press and
assembly. Freedom, he believed, must be defended by freedom, for to
"advocate the restriction of freedom on the pretext that it is being
defended is a dangerous delusion." A truly free and enlightened society,
Bakunin said, would adequately preserve liberty. An ordered society, he
thought, stems not from suppression of ideas, which only breeds opposition
and factionalism, but from the fullest freedom for all.
This is not to say that Bakunin did not think that a society has the right
to protect itself. He firmly believed that freedom was to be found within
society, not through its destruction. Those people who acted in ways that
lessen freedom for others have no place; These include all parasites who
live off the labor of others. Work, the contribution of one's labor for the
creation of wealth, forms the basis of political rights in the proposed
anarchist society. Those who live by exploiting others do not deserve
political rights. Others, who steal, violate voluntary agreements within and
by society, inflict bodily harm etc. can expect to be punished by the laws
which have been created by that society. The condemned criminal, on the
other hand, can escape punishment by society by removing himself/herself
from society and the benefits it confers. Society can also expel the
criminal if it so wishes. Basically thought, Bakunin set great store on the
power of enlightened public opinion to minimize anti-social activity.
Bakunin proposed the equalization of wealth, though natural inequalities
which are reflected in different levels of skill, energy and thrift, should
he argued be tolerated. The purpose of equality is to allow individuals to
find full expression of their humanity within society. Bakunin was strongly
opposed to the idea of hired labor which if introduced into an anarchist
society, would lead to the reintroduction of inequality and wage slavery. He
proposed instead collective effort because it would, he thought, tend to be
more efficient. However, so long as individuals did not employ others, he
had no objection to them working alone.
Through the creation of associations of labor which could coordinate
worker's activities, Bakunin proposed the setting up of an industrial
assembly in order to harmonize production with the demand for products. Such
an assembly would be necessary in the absence of the market. Supplied with
statistical information from the various voluntary organization who would be
federated, production could be specialized on an international basis so that
those countries with inbuilt economic advantages would produce most
efficiently for the general good. Then, according to Bakunin, waste,
economic crisis and stagnation "will no longer plague mankind; the
emancipation of human labor will regenerate the world."
Turning to the question of the political organization of society, Bakunin
stressed that they should all be built in such a way as to achieve order
through the realization of freedom on the basis of the federation of
voluntary organizations. In all such political bodies power is to flow "from
the base to the summit" and from "the circumference to the center/" In other
words, such organizations should be the expressions of individual and group
opinions, not directing centers which control people.
On the basis of federalism, Bakunin proposed a multi-tier system of
responsibility for decision making which would be binding on all
participants, so long as they supported the system. Those individuals,
groups or political institutions which made up the total structure would
have the right to secede. Each participating unit would have an absolute
right to self-determination, to associate with the larger bodies, or not.
Starting at the local level, Bakunin suggested as the basic political unit,
the completely autonomous commune. The commune, on the basis of universal
suffrage, would elect all of its functionaries, law makers, judges, and
administrators of communal property.
The commune would decide its own affairs but, if voluntarily federated to
the next tier of administration, the provincial assembly, its constitution
must conform to the provincial assembly. Similarly, the constitution of the
province must be accepted by the participating communes. The provincial
assembly would define the rights and obligations existing between communes
and pass laws affecting the province as a whole. The composition of the
provincial assembly would be decided on the basis of universal suffrage.
Further levels of political organization would be the national body, and,
ultimately, the international assembly. As regards international
organization, Bakunin proposed that there should be no permanent armed
forces, preferring instead, the creation of local citizens' defense
militias. Disputes between nations and their provinces would be settled by
an international assembly. This assembly, if required, could wage war
against outside aggressors but should a member nation of the international
federation attack another member, then it faces expulsion and the opposition
of the federation as a whole.
Thus, from root to branch, Bakunin's outline for anarchy is based upon the
free federation of participants in order to maximize individual and
collective well being.
(
geocities.com/CapitolHill)