From 1864 to 1876, socialists, communists, trade unionists, and anarchists synthesized a growing body of anticapitalist thought through participation in the First International—a body devoted to uniting left-wing radical tendencies of the time. Often remembered for the historic fights between Karl Marx and Michael Bakunin, the debates and experimentation during the International helped to refine and focus anarchist ideas into a doctrine of international working class self-liberation.
Robert Graham has been writing about anarchism for thirty years. He recently edited the three-volume collection Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas.
A marvellous account of the forerunners of the International, the popularity of anarchism within it, and the Marxists' treacherous machinations vs. this libertarian, mutualist, and syndicalist alternative, which subsequently would live on autonomously as the Anti-Authoritarian International!
A great introduction on the development of Anarchism in Europe, not as a philosophy but as a political movement. Graham definitely sides with the "anarchists" in his storytelling, which might repel some Marxists. But his research is well documented and thorough and clearly identifies the formation of two tendencies in the First International, one political and somewhat reformist/statist, which will eventually become Social Democracy and Marxism, and a second anti-political and federalist which will give birth to Anarchism.
Marx vs. Bakunin is arguably the most notorious rivalry in all of the anti-capitalist movement. It’s taken on legendary status over the years to the point where it’s scarily similar to our pop culture celebrity beefs. To the uninitiated: way back in the 1800’s an international worker’s conference was organized where the big minds would come together and lay out the best plan and approach that would make up the great anti-capitalist revolution. On one hand we had Marx and his followers who favored an authoritarian stance where a small group of people would “direct” the working class who were now in power, on the other hand you had Bakunin and his followers who favored a less-authoritarian flavor of revolution where everything would be organized by “autonomous interconnected federations” with very little hierarchy. Marx, who is an alpha-type to say the least did not take well to being challenged (or things not going his way, generally) started a campaign smearing Bakunin, his ideas and his followers, and getting them kicked out of this International.
In this book, Robert Graham very neatly and concisely sums up the stakes going into the first international, its backlash against Bakunin and the anarchist, and the aftermath. As Bakunin and Marx tried to dominate the ideas of the International and its subsequent congresses, a pattern emerges of Marx cunningly, aggressively and somewhat unfairly slandering and attacking Bakunin by stacking the cards against him in each meeting and packing it with Marxist supporters. Bakunin never sees it coming! As things start going more and more Marx’s way (the authoritarian way, that is) Bakunin and his followers notice the very artifact they feared would control the workers of the revolution control the members of the International. Marx basically sets up a very authoritarian executive body controlling the stance of the International from the center, any challenge to its authority being cut off.
The aftermath is that Bakunin and his supporters never stood a chance and they are successfully banished by Marx, tarnishing the anarchists in the eyes of the International (and the International itself in the eyes of many workers). And so one of the great rivalries is created and sides are picked: Marxists vs. Anarchists. But the joke’s on the Marxists because in the process the foundation for modern anarchism is established. So, who has the last laugh? No seriously, I'm asking...
Graham presents a very insightful history not only of workings, personalities and divisions of the International and what the International inspired, but also the ideoligical formation of both anarchism and Marxism. His writing is clear and analytic, at times capturing the drama and tensions, but also a little dry.