Marx vs Bakunin

Chapter summary of the book – Marx vs Bakunin – “The Ideas of Karl Marx” – Alan Woods

—

The conflict between Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin within the First International reflects fundamental differences between Marxism and anarchism. While Marx advocated for the centralization of the political struggle and the creation of a workers’ party as a tool for seizing power, Bakunin rejected political action and proposed the immediate destruction of the state and capitalist institutions, adopting an approach that proved disorganized and destructive.

Bakunin joined the International Workingmen’s Association (IWA) in 1868 and quickly sought to form an anarchist faction within the organization, known as the International Alliance of Socialist Democracy. His goal was to undermine Marx’s leadership in the General Council, based in London, and impose his anarchist ideas on the International.

He became known for conducting intrigues against the General Council and disregarding the democratic rules of the organization. He tried to discredit Marx, accusing him of authoritarianism and centralism, though ironically he governed his own faction, the Alliance, in a dictatorial manner with an “iron rod.” On several occasions, Bakunin employed national prejudices and even anti-Semitic arguments to attack Marx, such as comparing him to Bismarck and associating him with “pan-Germanism.”

One of the most serious cases was Bakunin’s association with Sergei Nechayev, a Russian revolutionary known for his extremism. Nechayev was responsible for the murder of a student and the creation of a fictitious committee claiming to represent the revolution in Russia. Bakunin supported these activities by providing false documents and covering Nechayev’s actions, which damaged the credibility of the IWA.

Bakunin frequently promoted insurrections without proper planning. One example was his participation in Lyon, where he proclaimed the abolition of the state and the creation of a “Revolutionary Federation of the Commune.” However, due to negligence in security, state forces quickly regained control, resulting in the revolt’s failure.

He was also known for introducing proposals without practical basis, such as the immediate abolition of the right of inheritance—a measure that Marx considered utopian and disconnected from the concrete reality of the proletariat and the petite bourgeoisie. His approach often caused confusion and disorganization in the IWA congresses.

Regarding inheritance, Marx argued that revolutionary transformations could not be decreed from above nor driven merely by the subjective will of revolutionary groups. For him, changes like the abolition of inheritance could only occur when society was materially prepared—that is, when the economic base (the mode of production) allowed for a reorganization of social relations. In the case of inheritance, Marx observed that the small peasantry and the petite bourgeoisie still had immediate material interests tied to private property and the transmission of that property. Immediately abolishing inheritance would alienate these sectors, which could be strategic allies of the working class during the socialist transition.

Marx was aware that, in France, many small peasants owned land and depended on transferring their assets to ensure family subsistence. Proposing the immediate abolition of inheritance would not only ignore this fact but also push these small landowners towards the bourgeoisie, hindering the formation of a broader revolutionary alliance.

Bakunin advocated for complete abstinence from formal politics, which Marx saw as leaving the working class in the hands of bourgeois parties. For Marx, this rejection of political organization was a grave error, as it prevented the proletariat from achieving the political independence necessary for the revolution.

At the Hague Congress (1872), after years of conflict and intrigue, Bakunin and his main follower, James Guillaume, were expelled from the International. This decision represented an open declaration of war against Bakuninism, which Engels described as a sect undermined by personal ambition and disloyal methods. The General Council’s patience with the constant intrigues and slanders had finally run out.

Marx’s decisions in dealing with Bakunin were strategic and fundamental for preserving the IWA’s integrity and revolutionary direction. Marx understood that the success of the socialist struggle depended on disciplined political organization and centralized efforts. Bakunin’s adventurous and disorganized approach posed a risk to the unity and objectives of the International, justifying his expulsion.

Moreover, Marx refuted the accusations of authoritarianism by demonstrating that centralism was not an undemocratic imposition but a historical necessity to ensure the proletariat’s victory. The legacy of this dispute highlights the importance of organizational discipline and ideological clarity in the revolutionary movement.

Thus, Marx’s victory over Bakunin consolidated Marxism as the hegemonic current within socialism, while anarchism, with its practical and theoretical flaws, remained confined to isolated circles without significant practical influence on the major revolutionary events of the 20th century.