What do you think?
Rate this book
Marxism, Freedom and the State
Collection of extracts from Bakunin's works written between 1867 and 1872, including his controversy with Marx and the nature and characteristics of the State.
Foreword
Life of Bakunin
1 Introductory
2 Marxist ideology
3 State and Marxism
4 Internationalism and the state
5 Social revolution and the state
6 Political action and the workers
Appendix
Foreword
Life of Bakunin
1 Introductory
2 Marxist ideology
3 State and Marxism
4 Internationalism and the state
5 Social revolution and the state
6 Political action and the workers
Appendix
63 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1950
26 people are currently reading
649 people want to read
About the author
Mikhail Bakunin
260 books564 followersRussian anarchist and political theorist Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin, imprisoned and later exiled to Siberia for his considered revolutionary activities, escaped to London in 1861, opposed Communism of Karl Marx.
People often called Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Баку́нин), a philosopher, the father of collectivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail...
People often called Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin (Russian: Михаи́л Алекса́ндрович Баку́нин), a philosopher, the father of collectivism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 27, 2019
Bakunin's viewpoints are at the very least worthy of serious consideration and development today, if only on the merit that his interpretations and predictions as to the direction Marxism and Communism were taking, turned out to be true. His ideas regarding justice, social progress and the meaning of liberty and equality are increasingly valid. This is not say that his viewpoints and practices are free of faults, but to take the true anarchist approach and build upon his better perspectives while revising others.
October 3, 2020
This essay is Mikhail Bakunin's, one of the great anarchist thinkers, critique of Marxism. Written in the 1870s after he and Marx had already begun to clash, it is polemical but Bakunin admits that he believes Marx to be a great thinker and a dedicated revolutionary.
Bakunin claims that anarchists agree with Marxists on the most basic level- on their desired outcome. However, they are key differences that he explains with great detail and talent.
Bakunin critiques the economic determinism of historical materialism, the "stage-ist" conception of history which flows out from that, Marx's focus on the industrial working class at the expense of the peasantry, and more. The most fundamental disagreement, however, centers around the state. Marxists want to *capture* the state and use it to implement socialism. Bakunin decries the state as an inherently corrupting and authoritarian entity that must be destroyed *during* any revolution worth it's name.
To his credit, a great many of Bakunin's criticisms are appealing and, to me, rang true. No one can reign innocently, and the state- whether it is called the peoples state or not- does require coercion and domination. I felt many of his predictions were realized in the Soviet Union. This work only served to strengthen my already existing sympathies with anarchism.
I am currently reading China Mieville's "October" and it was interesting how many of Bakunin's points Lenin seemed to embody in April and May 1917: the rejection of the need for a bourgeois revolution to precede a socialist one, the importance of the peasantry, etc. It makes much more sense now that, in April 1917, Lenin was accused of wanting to sit on Bakunin's throne.
Of course, it is worth noting that, despite their furious disagreements, both Marx and Bakunin claimed the Paris Commune as a model for the kind of government they hoped to see.
A good read for anyone interested in this kind of thing.
"The supreme end of history... Can be summed up in the words: it is the triumph of humanity, it is the conquest and accomplishment of the full freedom and full development, material, intellectual and moral, of every individual, by the absolutely free and spontaneous organisation of economic and social solidarity as completely as possible between all human beings living on the earth."
Bakunin claims that anarchists agree with Marxists on the most basic level- on their desired outcome. However, they are key differences that he explains with great detail and talent.
Bakunin critiques the economic determinism of historical materialism, the "stage-ist" conception of history which flows out from that, Marx's focus on the industrial working class at the expense of the peasantry, and more. The most fundamental disagreement, however, centers around the state. Marxists want to *capture* the state and use it to implement socialism. Bakunin decries the state as an inherently corrupting and authoritarian entity that must be destroyed *during* any revolution worth it's name.
To his credit, a great many of Bakunin's criticisms are appealing and, to me, rang true. No one can reign innocently, and the state- whether it is called the peoples state or not- does require coercion and domination. I felt many of his predictions were realized in the Soviet Union. This work only served to strengthen my already existing sympathies with anarchism.
I am currently reading China Mieville's "October" and it was interesting how many of Bakunin's points Lenin seemed to embody in April and May 1917: the rejection of the need for a bourgeois revolution to precede a socialist one, the importance of the peasantry, etc. It makes much more sense now that, in April 1917, Lenin was accused of wanting to sit on Bakunin's throne.
Of course, it is worth noting that, despite their furious disagreements, both Marx and Bakunin claimed the Paris Commune as a model for the kind of government they hoped to see.
A good read for anyone interested in this kind of thing.
"The supreme end of history... Can be summed up in the words: it is the triumph of humanity, it is the conquest and accomplishment of the full freedom and full development, material, intellectual and moral, of every individual, by the absolutely free and spontaneous organisation of economic and social solidarity as completely as possible between all human beings living on the earth."
September 5, 2021
Mikhail Bakunin was a revolutionary anarchist, a sworn enemy of all forms of State and State organisations. He believed that that the people can only be happy and free when, organised from below by means of its own autonomous and completely free associations, without the supervision of any guardians, it will create its own life.
This book needed a good edit and a simple spell checking would have found errors such as these:
The emancipation of the toilers cart be the work only of the toilers themselves
...a new consolidation of the esrablished power of the boutgeois
I know what is meant, but I think Bakunin's work is worthy of an editor.
A couple of excellent observations about political leaders.
"Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation: they are contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits."
"The masses," a man says to himself, "recognising their incapacity to govern on their own account, have elected me their chief. By that act they have publicly proclaimed their inferiority and my superiority. Among this crowd of men, recognising hardly any equals of myself, I alone am capable
of directing public affairs. The people have need of me; they cannot do without my services, while I, on the contrary, can get along all right by myself. They, therefore, must obey me for their own security and in condescending to command them, I am doing them a good turn."
This book needed a good edit and a simple spell checking would have found errors such as these:
The emancipation of the toilers cart be the work only of the toilers themselves
...a new consolidation of the esrablished power of the boutgeois
I know what is meant, but I think Bakunin's work is worthy of an editor.
A couple of excellent observations about political leaders.
"Nothing is more dangerous for man's private morality than the habit of command. The best man, the most intelligent, disinterested, generous, pure, will infallibly and always be spoiled at this trade. Two sentiments inherent in power never fail to produce this demoralisation: they are contempt for the masses and the overestimation of one's own merits."
"The masses," a man says to himself, "recognising their incapacity to govern on their own account, have elected me their chief. By that act they have publicly proclaimed their inferiority and my superiority. Among this crowd of men, recognising hardly any equals of myself, I alone am capable
of directing public affairs. The people have need of me; they cannot do without my services, while I, on the contrary, can get along all right by myself. They, therefore, must obey me for their own security and in condescending to command them, I am doing them a good turn."
March 24, 2016
Poor Greg Guroff! He was the teacher in the two-semester Russian History course I took during the sophomore year at Grinnell College. Dr. Guroff was of Russian extraction himself, presumably descended from victims of the Red Terror, and a proud collector of icons. We, his students, were creatures of the sixties, profoundly suspicious of our own State, many of us intrigued by the alternative(s) represented by, among other things, the post-revolutionary USSR. Personally, my interest was primarily with the origins of that and with its fringes, namely, the Social Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks and the anarchists. In any case, teacher and students were approaching our subject from different angles and classroom discussions were often heated, he thinking us naif, we thinking him reactionary.
Guroff, being our teacher, had the upper hand of course. Not only did he know more but he also had the power of the grade book. He was a proud Princeton man, intent on raising us to those standards. This he did by requiring a great deal of research and writing, several twenty-to-thirty page papers being required a term when most courses in the humanities and social sciences only required the equivalent of thirty pages total a semester. As ever, we retaliated, one of our number producing, with some help in typing, an essay of almost one hundred pages. Deadpan, he returned it, with a A-.
Guroff went on to greater things. Many years later I found him mentioned in the NY Times in reference to the Soviet Union where he was working for the US Information Agency.
Anyway, I had been first exposed to Bakunin through reading about Marx and that from a Marxist perspective whereby the famed anarchist was derided as the wrecker of the First Internationale, but I'd never read more than paragraphs by him until finding this book. Being interested in anarchism as a political philosophy since having read, with some sympathy, Alexander Berkman and various homegrown syndicalists during high school, I approached it with interest. Unfortunately, either Bakunin wasn't the scholar Marx was or the selection simply didn't give him his due. Whatever the case, I wasn't much impressed.
Guroff, being our teacher, had the upper hand of course. Not only did he know more but he also had the power of the grade book. He was a proud Princeton man, intent on raising us to those standards. This he did by requiring a great deal of research and writing, several twenty-to-thirty page papers being required a term when most courses in the humanities and social sciences only required the equivalent of thirty pages total a semester. As ever, we retaliated, one of our number producing, with some help in typing, an essay of almost one hundred pages. Deadpan, he returned it, with a A-.
Guroff went on to greater things. Many years later I found him mentioned in the NY Times in reference to the Soviet Union where he was working for the US Information Agency.
Anyway, I had been first exposed to Bakunin through reading about Marx and that from a Marxist perspective whereby the famed anarchist was derided as the wrecker of the First Internationale, but I'd never read more than paragraphs by him until finding this book. Being interested in anarchism as a political philosophy since having read, with some sympathy, Alexander Berkman and various homegrown syndicalists during high school, I approached it with interest. Unfortunately, either Bakunin wasn't the scholar Marx was or the selection simply didn't give him his due. Whatever the case, I wasn't much impressed.
June 15, 2021
yikes.
for being a materialist, bakunin sure has an ahistorical and totalising conception of the state. there's no depth here, just blanket statements about the state as always-already corrupt and antithetical to human freedom.
hints of the coming marxist humanism, ala r.d. laing, as well poststructuralist critiques of institutions, ala foucault.
but this text is weak. the state is productive as well as repressive. to recognise this is not to condone it, but to better understand it. furthermore, horizontal forms of organisation are not free from power relations, and the more you believe they are, the fucking worse it is for those marginalised within such formations. it's the very doctrinaire bullshit bakunin accuses marx of committing.
fuck this anarchism v marxism debate of who is the most bad faith subject, and to whom deserves the most credit for their revolutionary insights. it's just phallic jousting and reification of the highest order.
for being a materialist, bakunin sure has an ahistorical and totalising conception of the state. there's no depth here, just blanket statements about the state as always-already corrupt and antithetical to human freedom.
hints of the coming marxist humanism, ala r.d. laing, as well poststructuralist critiques of institutions, ala foucault.
but this text is weak. the state is productive as well as repressive. to recognise this is not to condone it, but to better understand it. furthermore, horizontal forms of organisation are not free from power relations, and the more you believe they are, the fucking worse it is for those marginalised within such formations. it's the very doctrinaire bullshit bakunin accuses marx of committing.
fuck this anarchism v marxism debate of who is the most bad faith subject, and to whom deserves the most credit for their revolutionary insights. it's just phallic jousting and reification of the highest order.
August 14, 2025
Mikhail Bakunin’s Marxism, Freedom and the State arrives on the scene like a firebrand of anarchist zeal, ready to torch the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Credit where it’s due: his critique of Marx’s state theory is prescient, and history has repeatedly vindicated his fears of party bureaucracies becoming mini-Tsarist regimes. But let’s not kid ourselves—in dismantling Marxism, Bakunin often falls headfirst into the same traps he claims to expose, swapping one utopia for another and calling it freedom.
First, there’s Bakunin’s obsession with decentralisation as the ultimate cure-all. He imagines a world where permanent suspicion of central authority produces a society running on harmonious federations of self-organizing communities. Here’s the catch: human societies don’t spontaneously organise into benevolent communes once the state vanishes. Power vacuums exist, and someone — usually the worst actor—will inevitably rush to fill them. Bakunin’s solution, a perpetual decentralisation enforced by moral clarity and revolutionary will, reads less like a practical blueprint and more like an anarchist fantasy with Molotov cocktails as décor.
Ironically, the man railing against centralisation had a taste for command himself. Within anarchist circles, Bakunin advocated for secret societies, tightly disciplined revolutionary “brotherhoods,” and coordinated insurrections. In other words: he denounced Marxist statism while quietly designing a proto-state of his own — invisible, yes, but staffed by the “right” revolutionaries. The critique ends up feeling like a marketing gimmick: new boss, same boss, different wardrobe — anarchist chic edition.
Bakunin’s reading of Marx is equally selective. He flattens Marx’s nuanced warnings about bureaucratic ossification into cartoon authoritarianism, ignoring, for instance, Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune. This makes the polemic punchy, sure, but intellectually lazy — like trying to refute Shakespeare by quoting only Polonius. The “Marxism” Bakunin critiques is often a straw man: a tidy villain stripped of historical context, debate, and contingency.
Then there’s the romanticism, which soars above historical materialism like a poetic drone. Bakunin trusts in spontaneous harmony, the natural wisdom of liberated masses, and federations that supposedly solve every social problem on their own. History, of course, laughs. Without structured mechanisms for resource distribution, conflict mediation, or defense, decentralisation can be as brutal, coercive, and chaotic as the centralised state he despises. Freedom in Bakunin’s vision is not so much guaranteed as assumed — a high-wire act without a net.
The contradictions in practice are deliciously ironic. Bakunin accuses Marx of elitism and intellectual authoritarianism, yet his revolutionary plan rests on a cadre of “advanced” revolutionaries guiding the masses. The only difference? Marx’s cadre runs a visible state; Bakunin’s cadre is invisible. But invisibility doesn’t magically erase hierarchy or coercion — it just makes it creepier, like an anarchist Big Brother hiding behind a beard and a manifesto.
Philosophically, Bakunin often abandons dialectical rigor for moral assertion: the state is evil because it corrupts freedom. Stirring speeches? Absolutely. Robust theoretical scaffolding? Less so. The work’s emotional fire can ignite passion, but when it comes to explanatory power or predictive insight, it flounders. Marxists gleefully label it “utopian,” and they aren’t wrong: morality and romanticism can only carry a theory so far before reality catches up.
Bottom line: Marxism, Freedom and the State is a fascinating, fiery, occasionally brilliant demolition of Marxist statism, but it trades one flawed utopia for another.
Bakunin’s anti-state vision flirts with the very authoritarian impulses it condemns, sacrifices dialectical depth for romantic moralism, and assumes human nature is far more virtuous than evidence suggests. It’s not really “freedom versus the state.”
It’s “freedom versus the state, but only under my revolutionary friends’ watchful eyes.” Passionate, prophetic, and entertaining? Sure. Practical, coherent, and historically reliable? That’s a much harder case to make.
First, there’s Bakunin’s obsession with decentralisation as the ultimate cure-all. He imagines a world where permanent suspicion of central authority produces a society running on harmonious federations of self-organizing communities. Here’s the catch: human societies don’t spontaneously organise into benevolent communes once the state vanishes. Power vacuums exist, and someone — usually the worst actor—will inevitably rush to fill them. Bakunin’s solution, a perpetual decentralisation enforced by moral clarity and revolutionary will, reads less like a practical blueprint and more like an anarchist fantasy with Molotov cocktails as décor.
Ironically, the man railing against centralisation had a taste for command himself. Within anarchist circles, Bakunin advocated for secret societies, tightly disciplined revolutionary “brotherhoods,” and coordinated insurrections. In other words: he denounced Marxist statism while quietly designing a proto-state of his own — invisible, yes, but staffed by the “right” revolutionaries. The critique ends up feeling like a marketing gimmick: new boss, same boss, different wardrobe — anarchist chic edition.
Bakunin’s reading of Marx is equally selective. He flattens Marx’s nuanced warnings about bureaucratic ossification into cartoon authoritarianism, ignoring, for instance, Marx’s analysis of the Paris Commune. This makes the polemic punchy, sure, but intellectually lazy — like trying to refute Shakespeare by quoting only Polonius. The “Marxism” Bakunin critiques is often a straw man: a tidy villain stripped of historical context, debate, and contingency.
Then there’s the romanticism, which soars above historical materialism like a poetic drone. Bakunin trusts in spontaneous harmony, the natural wisdom of liberated masses, and federations that supposedly solve every social problem on their own. History, of course, laughs. Without structured mechanisms for resource distribution, conflict mediation, or defense, decentralisation can be as brutal, coercive, and chaotic as the centralised state he despises. Freedom in Bakunin’s vision is not so much guaranteed as assumed — a high-wire act without a net.
The contradictions in practice are deliciously ironic. Bakunin accuses Marx of elitism and intellectual authoritarianism, yet his revolutionary plan rests on a cadre of “advanced” revolutionaries guiding the masses. The only difference? Marx’s cadre runs a visible state; Bakunin’s cadre is invisible. But invisibility doesn’t magically erase hierarchy or coercion — it just makes it creepier, like an anarchist Big Brother hiding behind a beard and a manifesto.
Philosophically, Bakunin often abandons dialectical rigor for moral assertion: the state is evil because it corrupts freedom. Stirring speeches? Absolutely. Robust theoretical scaffolding? Less so. The work’s emotional fire can ignite passion, but when it comes to explanatory power or predictive insight, it flounders. Marxists gleefully label it “utopian,” and they aren’t wrong: morality and romanticism can only carry a theory so far before reality catches up.
Bottom line: Marxism, Freedom and the State is a fascinating, fiery, occasionally brilliant demolition of Marxist statism, but it trades one flawed utopia for another.
Bakunin’s anti-state vision flirts with the very authoritarian impulses it condemns, sacrifices dialectical depth for romantic moralism, and assumes human nature is far more virtuous than evidence suggests. It’s not really “freedom versus the state.”
It’s “freedom versus the state, but only under my revolutionary friends’ watchful eyes.” Passionate, prophetic, and entertaining? Sure. Practical, coherent, and historically reliable? That’s a much harder case to make.
April 10, 2022
A tract on the future of the International. Anarchism vs Marxism.
January 28, 2026
I read it when i became an anarchist (1-2 years ago) and i wanted to read it again. Certainly, one of the best analysis of the state.
December 31, 2021
A well-written and thought-provoking text. Some of Bakunin's arguments still seem quite relevant today, while others have been clearly disproven in whole or in part by the triumphs of the first wave of socialism. Unfortunately much of his argument against government boils down to the tired saying that 'power corrupts', and what else remains of it is not so different from Marx and Engels' more developed arguments on the state and its' function.
Similar to Kropotkin, much of his faith in immediate statelessness hinges on 'natural' tendencies toward liberty and solidarity. Somewhat akin to Marx's 'species-being' these concepts become quite difficult to formulate, as picking out general 'natural tendencies' invariably gives way to reifying human nature under a specific or a few specific periods in history. I think it's generally safer to combat the social darwinists' 'human nature' than to posit a definite 'human nature' of our own, since under capital it seems that invariably leads down the road of eugenics. I think the far superior formulation is the 'new man of socialism', dating to Marx and Engels and treated with more detail by some such as Che Guevara (see 'Socialism and Man in Cuba'). The idea that an ideal human nature will immediately break through given the destruction of capitalist chains has been disproven again and again. Social revolution is a long and protracted struggle, and we still don't have the perfect answers to that. Mass line I think is a central advancement. Anyway, to return to the text at hand, certainly useful but limited.
Similar to Kropotkin, much of his faith in immediate statelessness hinges on 'natural' tendencies toward liberty and solidarity. Somewhat akin to Marx's 'species-being' these concepts become quite difficult to formulate, as picking out general 'natural tendencies' invariably gives way to reifying human nature under a specific or a few specific periods in history. I think it's generally safer to combat the social darwinists' 'human nature' than to posit a definite 'human nature' of our own, since under capital it seems that invariably leads down the road of eugenics. I think the far superior formulation is the 'new man of socialism', dating to Marx and Engels and treated with more detail by some such as Che Guevara (see 'Socialism and Man in Cuba'). The idea that an ideal human nature will immediately break through given the destruction of capitalist chains has been disproven again and again. Social revolution is a long and protracted struggle, and we still don't have the perfect answers to that. Mass line I think is a central advancement. Anyway, to return to the text at hand, certainly useful but limited.
February 21, 2016
يأتي هذا الكتيب في إطار الصراع الذي دار بين معسكر الماركسية و على رأسه كارل ماركس و فردريك انجلز من جهة،و بين معسكر الأناركية (اللاسلطوية) بقيادة برودون و الكاتب ميخائيل باكونين من جهة أخرى،يتمركز هذا الصراع كما عرض باكونين هنا له من وجهة نظر أناركية حول مبادىء الحرية و حقوق الانسان وصولا إلى العلاقة بالسلطة التي كما يراها الأناركيون نقيض لأي مشروع انساني،إضافة إلى طبيعة الثورة الاجتماعية و ارتباطاتها الطبقية المتشعبة.
يشن باكونين هجوما شرسا على الماركسية عموما و على كارل ماركس نفسه كقائد لها و كمنظر يرى فيه باكونين "بسمارك" آخر،رغم اشادته بذكائه و قدرته على بعث الأممية و بالتالي الاسهام في تعطيل مد الوحش الرأسمالي،فهو يقدم نقدا للمشروع الماركسي نافيا عنه صفة العلمية معتبرا ماركس و انجلز و اتباعهم طبقة فوق بروليتارية أقرب ما تكون إلى البرجوازية المتخفية.
عندما نحاكم أفكار ماركس أو باكونين "على اعتبار طوباوية الفكرتين" فإن أيا منهما لم يتمكن فعليا من حسم الصراع لفائدة فكرته،حيث نرى في نقد باكونين الكثير من الصحة لمشروع ماركسية "ما بعد ماركس" فيما نشاهد غرق الأناركية في الطوباوية التي لم تستطع أن تقنع الناس بقدرتها على القضاء على الدولة و تحطيمها في سبيل الوصول إلى تحرر الانسانية،تتفق الأناركية مع الماركسية على حتمية اضمحلال الدولة و لكنها تختلف معها على المنهج و الأسلوب،حيث يشدد باكونين هنا على ضرورة تحطيم الدولة كخطوة أولى بعد الثورة الاجتماعية،فيما يقوم مشروع ماركس على دكتاتورية البروليتاريا التي وحدها من يستولي على السلطة بعد الثورة و قبل إقامة الاشتراكية بخطواتها العلمية العملية وصولا إلى اقامة الشيوعية التي تأذن باضمحلال الدولة كمحصلة نهائية.
يشن باكونين هجوما شرسا على الماركسية عموما و على كارل ماركس نفسه كقائد لها و كمنظر يرى فيه باكونين "بسمارك" آخر،رغم اشادته بذكائه و قدرته على بعث الأممية و بالتالي الاسهام في تعطيل مد الوحش الرأسمالي،فهو يقدم نقدا للمشروع الماركسي نافيا عنه صفة العلمية معتبرا ماركس و انجلز و اتباعهم طبقة فوق بروليتارية أقرب ما تكون إلى البرجوازية المتخفية.
عندما نحاكم أفكار ماركس أو باكونين "على اعتبار طوباوية الفكرتين" فإن أيا منهما لم يتمكن فعليا من حسم الصراع لفائدة فكرته،حيث نرى في نقد باكونين الكثير من الصحة لمشروع ماركسية "ما بعد ماركس" فيما نشاهد غرق الأناركية في الطوباوية التي لم تستطع أن تقنع الناس بقدرتها على القضاء على الدولة و تحطيمها في سبيل الوصول إلى تحرر الانسانية،تتفق الأناركية مع الماركسية على حتمية اضمحلال الدولة و لكنها تختلف معها على المنهج و الأسلوب،حيث يشدد باكونين هنا على ضرورة تحطيم الدولة كخطوة أولى بعد الثورة الاجتماعية،فيما يقوم مشروع ماركس على دكتاتورية البروليتاريا التي وحدها من يستولي على السلطة بعد الثورة و قبل إقامة الاشتراكية بخطواتها العلمية العملية وصولا إلى اقامة الشيوعية التي تأذن باضمحلال الدولة كمحصلة نهائية.
December 21, 2020
Time has been unkind to Bakunin's beliefs, Idealism particularly, but this work is nonetheless valuable in understanding the schism between two of the most iconic figures of the First International, the falling out between two iconoclasts who had once been drinking buddies.
May 17, 2015
the good shit
July 31, 2024
"Marxism, Freedom and the State" by Mikhail Bakunin critically examines Marxist theory from an anarchist perspective. Bakunin, a prominent 19th-century anarchist, explores the contradictions he perceives in Marxist ideology, particularly its approach to state power and individual freedom. Despite Bakunin's significant contributions to political theory, this work is marred by several issues that undermine its overall impact.
The book centers around Bakunin’s belief that Marxism, despite its revolutionary aims, ultimately leads to a form of authoritarianism. He argues that Marxism's reliance on the state as a tool for achieving socialism is fundamentally flawed. According to Bakunin, any state, regardless of its intentions, inevitably becomes oppressive. He posits that true freedom can only be achieved through the abolition of the state and the establishment of a decentralized, stateless society.
One of Bakunin’s main ideas is the critique of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." He contends that this concept, central to Marxist theory, is inherently contradictory. Bakunin argues that placing power in the hands of a few, even if they claim to represent the working class, will result in a new form of tyranny. He foresees that the leaders of such a dictatorship would eventually become a new ruling elite, betraying the revolution’s goals of equality and freedom.
Bakunin also emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and spontaneous organization. He advocates for a form of socialism that is rooted in voluntary association and direct action by the masses, rather than imposed from above by a centralized authority.
Despite these compelling ideas, "Marxism, Freedom, and the State" has flaws. Bakunin's arguments often lack rigorous evidence and concrete examples. His critique of Marxism sometimes devolves into ad hominem attacks against Karl Marx, rather than substantive analysis of Marxist theory. This weakens his position and makes his arguments less persuasive.
Furthermore, Bakunin’s romantic vision of a stateless society is not thoroughly fleshed out. While he eloquently criticizes the pitfalls of state power, he provides scant detail on how a complex modern society could function without any form of government. His proposals for decentralized self-management, while appealing in theory, lack practical mechanisms for implementation and coordination.
The book also suffers from a lack of coherent structure. Bakunin’s writing is often disjointed, with ideas and critiques scattered rather than logically organized. This makes it challenging for readers to follow his arguments and fully grasp his vision.
In conclusion, while "Marxism, Freedom and the State" presents critiques of Marxist theory and a passionate defense of anarchism, it falls short due to its lack of substantive evidence, practical solutions, and coherent structure. Bakunin’s work, while historically significant, ultimately leaves readers with more questions than answers about the viability of his anarchist vision.
The book centers around Bakunin’s belief that Marxism, despite its revolutionary aims, ultimately leads to a form of authoritarianism. He argues that Marxism's reliance on the state as a tool for achieving socialism is fundamentally flawed. According to Bakunin, any state, regardless of its intentions, inevitably becomes oppressive. He posits that true freedom can only be achieved through the abolition of the state and the establishment of a decentralized, stateless society.
One of Bakunin’s main ideas is the critique of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." He contends that this concept, central to Marxist theory, is inherently contradictory. Bakunin argues that placing power in the hands of a few, even if they claim to represent the working class, will result in a new form of tyranny. He foresees that the leaders of such a dictatorship would eventually become a new ruling elite, betraying the revolution’s goals of equality and freedom.
Bakunin also emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and spontaneous organization. He advocates for a form of socialism that is rooted in voluntary association and direct action by the masses, rather than imposed from above by a centralized authority.
Despite these compelling ideas, "Marxism, Freedom, and the State" has flaws. Bakunin's arguments often lack rigorous evidence and concrete examples. His critique of Marxism sometimes devolves into ad hominem attacks against Karl Marx, rather than substantive analysis of Marxist theory. This weakens his position and makes his arguments less persuasive.
Furthermore, Bakunin’s romantic vision of a stateless society is not thoroughly fleshed out. While he eloquently criticizes the pitfalls of state power, he provides scant detail on how a complex modern society could function without any form of government. His proposals for decentralized self-management, while appealing in theory, lack practical mechanisms for implementation and coordination.
The book also suffers from a lack of coherent structure. Bakunin’s writing is often disjointed, with ideas and critiques scattered rather than logically organized. This makes it challenging for readers to follow his arguments and fully grasp his vision.
In conclusion, while "Marxism, Freedom and the State" presents critiques of Marxist theory and a passionate defense of anarchism, it falls short due to its lack of substantive evidence, practical solutions, and coherent structure. Bakunin’s work, while historically significant, ultimately leaves readers with more questions than answers about the viability of his anarchist vision.
January 29, 2019
Powerful essay
Powerful essay on the difference between Marxism and anarchism. Bakunin lays it all out in typical 19th century prose, requiring some careful reading, but the intent is clear: no states will be the savior of the people. True liberty cokes from below, not above. This ebook however has a number of typos that are most distracting.
Powerful essay on the difference between Marxism and anarchism. Bakunin lays it all out in typical 19th century prose, requiring some careful reading, but the intent is clear: no states will be the savior of the people. True liberty cokes from below, not above. This ebook however has a number of typos that are most distracting.
October 13, 2019
To understand Bakunin is to be a socio-anarchist,politico-revolutionary spirit bigoted.
June 26, 2010
Always an interesting read. Fun to pick up and glance over from time to time just to shake up your routine of work, school, kids.
May 20, 2014
solid. Critique of Marx and his dictatorship of the proletariat and the state
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews