Saltman for Bakunin

8/8/2019 Saltman for Bakunin

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/saltman-for-bakunin 1/5

-12- '{

Soeial AnarehismVolume4, Number1

1984

There are few eomprehensive studies of Bakuninrs thought in Eng-lish, or, for that matter, in any language. Most of what does exist is ofvery poor quality. The most extensive assessment n English has long beenPyz_ui1rselatively brief and awful book, in whieh the most unappealing aspeetsof Bakunin's position are emphasized,and his positive contributions arJignbreO.The result is a carieature of his actual viewpoint. on the other hand, there isa great deal of biographieal materialin whieh Bakunints theories are giveninadequateattention. Often the treat-ment of theory is merely an adjunetto the writerrs assessmentof the his-torical figure. Those who have ad-mired Bakunin as a dedieated revolu-t ionary have unerit ieally praised histheoretical aehieve-ments; hose who

have feared him as a dangerous ex-ponent of destruetiveness have hastilydismissed him as theoretieallymedioere.

Given this low level of dis-eussion, one must weleome new at-tempts at a comprehensive ssessmentof Bakuninrs deas. Unfortunately, Sal-tmanrs book does not rise mueh above

the previous efforts. While the workhas some value as a eoncise and usu-ally aeeurate summary of Bakunintsdoetrines, it is theoretically unsophis-t ieated and often superficial in itstreatment of many important issues.Although it purports to show that Ba-kunin has a eonsistent theoretieal posi-t ion, it does so only at the expensdof remaining at the surfaee of his thought, and failing to explore the deep

eontradictions which do indeed exist. consequenily, many of the most crueialproblems haunting not only libertarian thought, but el,assieal adical theory ingeneral, are left unexamined.

One of Saltman's chief eoncerns is to plaee Bakunin's thought incorrect historical perspective. His resulting eomments on Bakuninrs theoretieallineage range from the perceptive to the idiosyneratie. He usefully disereditsthe eommon overemphasison Bakuninrs links to earlier Freneh conspiratorialrevolutionaries, who diverged markedly from his ouilook. He also points out

Bichard B. Saltman

MICHAEL BAKUNIN



-13-

to be a preeursor. Furthermore, he eorreetly related Bakunin to the Young

Hegelian movement that profoundly affected him in his youth. On the other

haid, he underestimated Bakunin's debt to Proudhonrs mutualism and

Federalism, quoting his strong rejection of eertain Proudhonian prineiples, but

ignoring the lavish praise that he aeeorded Proudhon in other passagesr

But the most striking thesis eoneerning the origins of Bakunin'sthought deals with his supposed inks with Lamarck and Feuerbaeh, who are

hardly mentioned n either Bakunin's own writings or in previous diseussions

of his thought. These are stressed throughout the book, especially in the

case of thJ former. (The latter will be overlooked here for the sake of

brevity.) Unfortunately, Bakunin?stLamarckianismtrturns out to be some ather

general 19th eentury ideas on evolution, and the aeceptanee of the prineiple

6f ttmutual interaetiontt-a concept so vague as to have no particular theoretieal

eonsequenees. It thus eonveni-ently becomes the souree of a multitude of

Bakuninist precepts.

The two most important tenets of Lamarekianism-the inheritanee

of acquired charaeteristies and a partially teleologieal view of nature-hardlyenter the picture, despite eontinued referenees to Lamarek. Saltman asserts

at one point that Baicunin adopted Lamarekian evolutionary theory with itsrtpurposiveness.rr But the issue is never developed. To what extent ean a

teleologieal perspective be found in Bakunin thought? How, if at all, can

these Jbments b-ereeonciled with his materialism? These are the kinds of

questions that are never raised

In faet, an even larger issue is ignored: Bakuninrs relation to the

19th century positivist tradition and the noxious effeets resulting from this

eonneetion. Saltman points out that Bakunin believed that ttsoeial lawstt were

eontinuouswith "physiealaws.rr Yet this positivistic outlook is not questioned.

If anything, this view is taken to be an element of Bakuninrs laudable respeet

for icienee as a progressive human endeavor. Unfortunately, the author

identifies positivisrn witn its Comtean and similar versions, and is therefore

unable to focus on larger trends toward meehanism, reductionism, and

objeetivism, tendencies tliat Bakunin shared to a degree with many of his

generation.

Bakunin's thought is partieularly murky on the issue of the

eonneetion between itnatuialtt and itsoeial laws.rr He seems to hold the view

TffiTleneral principles about the operation of nature ean help us determine

how society ought to operate. If it can be disentangled from its positivistic

presuppositions, this problematie offers some promise. Despite eonventionalarguments that the rrfaet-value diehotomytt makes such a eonnection impossible,

ad-vanees ave been made in this kind of projeet, espeeially in so far as links

between eeology and ethies have been explored. Yet Bakunin makes a mueh

too effortless leap from the deseriptively natural to the preseriptively soeial.

There is a faeile transition, for example, from the rrmutual intefaetiontt of

"u"titningto the rrlaw of sbtidarity" iir sbeiety. Perhaps sueh a law exists,

but neither Bakunin nor his defender Saltman explains how we ean know that

it does. Indeed, aecording to their generalized arguments, there is no

explanation of why exploitation, which occurs according to the laws of nature'

an-d s, in fact a lorm of ?rmutualtrif lousy) rrinteraetion?rs not also a ttsoeial

law.rl



-14_

Bakuninrs evolutionary approaeh is proposed by Saltman as an

al.ternative to I'dialeetic,rt whieh he sees as a quite sinister coneept. Inassessingdialeetic, the author fails to distinguish between the dialeetiealmethod and the results that have followed from a particular theoristsl

illlii-zation of tnat-m6inoO. Aeeording to his view, the dialectie inherently

has anrrauthoritarian charaeter,tr hough why authoritarian eonsequeneesmustresult from its exereise is never explained.

trn act, it is unelear preeisely what is rejected in Bakunin's supposedopposition to dialeetie. As it turns out, his "Lamarckianismilallows him toexplain ehange ttwithout being dialeetieal,rr so that, for example, he ean holdthat I ' the development of everything. .implies the gradual negation of thepoint of departure.'? But the negation of the point of departure is itself adialeetical prineiple, so we are left with belief in rapid ehangeas the hallmarkof the truly dialeetieal view. Yet this is simply not what dialeetic means, .notto mention the faet that Bakuninrsaccount of soeial transformation assumes

atleast

asrapid

social changes as does that of Marx, and far more rapidones than that of Hegel, the arch-dialeetieian. But the eonfusion does notend here. Saltrnancontends urther that the dialeetieal view assumes"abrupthistorieal breaksn'? hile Bakunin holds instead that I'historieal transformationswere unilinear.rt So far is this from being the case coneerning the dialeeticalposition that a major current debate in soeial theory is predieted on exaetlythe opposite charaeterization. Aeeording to Foueault, the Hegelian-Marxistdialectieal traditon should be rejeeted preeisely for its unilinear view ofhistory and its failure to recognize the reality of historieal breaks, ordiscontinuities.

Mueh of Saltmantsdiscussion is eoneerned with a defense ofBakunlnts polities. On some issues he makes a strong ease. There is a

eonvineing defense, for example, of mueh of Bakunin's activity within theInternational" Conventional, but stil l powerful anarehist arguments arererterated eoneerning the superiority of deeentralism to centralism, and ofeeonomie o politieal organization. The strength of Bakunin's positon lies inthe degree to which he argued for making the International an organizationwhich embodied much of the structure and spirit of the liber atory societytoward which it was aiming. Saltmaneonvincinglydemonstrates hat Bakunintsemphasis on loeal organization, partieipatory deeision-making and non-bureaueratie strueture offer a eoherent l ibertarian program.

He also helps eorreet the false opinion, often held, that Bakuninwas on all key points an opponent of Marx. He rightly points out that onissuesof eeonomie theory Bakunin was a follower of Marx, whose achievementshe admired irnrnensely, n spite of his intense antipathy toward the man. WhatSaltman does not indieate is that part of what Bakunin inherited from Marxwas an eeonomistie approaeh that at times beeomes even more meehanistiethan the original (whieh, despite serious lapses, retains its dialeetical subtlety).Saltman reponts without eritieism Bakunin's adoption of the view that theeeonomie is prior to the politieal, and that ?'objective exploitationil determineswhieh elasses eould be rbbjeetively revolutionary.'t

Fortunately, Bakunin himself often transeended this simplistieotttlook, and devoted some attention to how eulture and eritical consciousnessaffect the development of revolutionary potentiality. While the cultural aspeetof Bakunin's thought is given little attention, Saltman does note that contraryto crities who depiet Bakunin as an irrationalist, he in fact believed that



-15-rev.olutionary instinet or will was not sufficient for soeial transformation,whieh dependson rreonseiouslyreflected, elearly determined thought"" Thi;emphasis n conseiousness,oupled with an adherenee o universald6terminism,sho"ws strong rationalist ie undereurrent n Bakunin?shought. His often rashciaims of revolutionary possibil i t ies in numerous eountries at diverse timesduring his career showed that he did not adhere firmly to his prineiples ofeareful analysis of historieal precondit ions. yet, the existence of those

prineiples must be reeognized.

saltman presents a good summary of Bakuninrsargurnentsagainstthe state as an art if icial, oppressive,and coereive institut ion of domination.one questionable aspect of this diseussion, hough, is his interpretation ofBakunints elaim that the state was 'ran histori-aly neeessary evil.?r Heeonstrues this as a belief that the state t'performed an historieally essentialtask in manrsdevelopment rom his animal origins into a moral human being.rfThis principle would eommit Bakunin to a denial that humanity ernerged npre-state and non-state soeieties, since they lack an ?tessentialtrpreeondit ionfor the development of morality, humanity, or both. I doubt i f Bakuninbelieved this. He eseapes hese conelusions f the term ilnecessaryrris takenin the sense

of

ttdetermined

by events of history.r rhe state is thus a"neeessaryevil, 'r not because t eontributed to some greater good, but ratherbeeause, given the nature of things, it was an evil that could not be escapedin the past. Bakunin repeatedly stresses his kind of determinist ie necessity,and it is undoubtedly what he meant in the passage in question.

One of the authorrs main theses in the book is his eontention thatBakunints proposals for revolutionary assoeiations are consistent with his basiclibertarian position. Saltman will hear nothing of irreeoneilable contradietionsin Bakuninrs thougtrt. Because of their offenGs on this seore, careful seholarsl ike Avrieh and woodeock are lumped together with the worst distorters ofBakunin's ideas. In spite of these two writersr generally sympathetie ands-crupulousattention to mueh of the anarehist tradition, they

are disdainfuliydismissed as "right-wing libertarians, who are unable to " deal rairiy wittBakunin's posit ion. But the problems in Bakuninrspolit ieal proposalseannotbe dissolved by saltmants own ftimsy attempt at psyehologicafexplanation--something he treats with utter contempt wnen praciieed b-y others.

It is true that Bakunin puts numerousqualifications on the natureo{

1-h" revolutionary organizations. They are merely to express the strivingsof the massesand to elarify them. Their membersare never to be manipulatiieor,power-hungry. They must not be used to pursue individualist ic ends. Theywlrl dlsappearafter the revolution is won. Ete. But these eommentseannotbe taken at face value. If one is willing to do so, there would be no reasonto reject Marxismts 'tproletarian dictatorstrip,r sinee it is, after all, only aprelude to the rapid 'rwithering away of the- state.r

An examination of the evidence presented by saltman himselfshould raise some disturbing questions for a iritieal observer. IIe sees noproblem in the faet that after debate eaeh member of the association 'rmustaccept fully the decisions of the majority,'r and that the plans adopted mustbe "implementedunder rthe.strictest diseipl ine.rn yet sueh eommentssuggestthat the view that Bakunin exerted an influenee on the developmen-i ofdemocratie eentralism.is. not entirely without foundation. In describing themembers of the assoeiation, he stipulates that these revolutionary paragonsmust be 'tdevoid of personal vanity and ambition.r' This is a highiy

-taucaote



- 16 _

ideal (although one that would have assured hat Bakunin himself would neverhave passed he entranee exam). But further deseription of the organizationmakes even an approximation of this ideal highly unlikely. It turns out that100 well-plaeed revolutionaries "eould be an adequate foree to organizeWestern Europe.rr The question of how these 100 energetie individuals could

guide mil l ions of Europeanworkers in anything but a manipulative manner isnot explained. Saltman entirely dismissesBakunints evealing statement thatthese revolutionaries would eonstitute a t'general stafft ' of the movement.This mil iary metaphor, he says, is only loose terminology and an attempt topopularize his ideas. However, loose terminology often betrays more thanguarded speech, and it is unlikely that he was npopularizing,"in view of thefaet that the phrase was addressed o Neehaev,'a-fellow r6volutionary.

On other matters Bakunin also lapses rom his l ibertarian posit ion.He proposes produetion of propaganda that follows the rule of 'ravoiding al lquestions of broad soeial and revolutionary theory,r in order to preventalienation of the workers by the more theoretieally advaneed revolutionaries.Instead, there shouldbe an emphasison ttpractical eeonomicand social issues.trAgain, there is the danger--in this ease, the certainty-of a manipulativeapproaeh.. The neeessity of developing a movement (and more to the point,a eommunity and a eulture) with erit ieal conseiousness nd a eommon iferooted in a l ibertarlan-$-stem of values is set aside. Instead, we find theelassie eft ist searehfor the rrcorreetl ine" which is eapable of mobil izing themasses n order for them to seize power.

This mentality, whieh is I 'polit iealt ' in the worst sense, emergeselearly in Bakunints discussionof the plaee of rrbrigandsrtin the revolution.saltman goes to some lengths to defend Bakunin on this point, showing thatthere was a tradit ion of revolutionary

aetivity on thepart

of the Russianbrigands. He admits that their radicalism eonsistedessentially in opposit ionto the status quo, and in a desire to destroy it. Yet ?tthiserude antagonismtoward the state had to be reshaped nto a eonseiouslymoral and instrumentalpursuit of broad popular l iberation.tt rhis seemspyschologieallynaive. It isan extreme example of ignoring all eonsiderations of historieally andpsychologicallyrooted capaeity for eonstruetive activity, and foeusing nsteadon opposit ion to existing eonditions as evidence of revolutionary potential.Given the extreme eorruptabil i ty of dedieated revolutionaries in the face ofa sueeessfulseizure of power, the chanees seem slim for rapid developmentof erit ieal eonseiousness nd moral responsibil i ty on the part- of the brigandsor their eounterparts elsewhere. This aspect of Bakunints though deserves

no defense, but rather ruthless erit ique, on the part of anarchists.

In fairness to the author, I should mention that he admits near theend of the book that he does not believe that t?Bakunin'sapplieation of theprineiples of mutual authority and eolleetive self-diseipline is eompletelyunproblematie.rt rhe serious weakness n the work is that he never exploresthe deeply problematic nature of these and other key issues, n spite of theirrnomentous mportanee for revolutionary movementsand radieal theory overthe last century. Anyone looking for a eoneise summary of Bakunin's ideasean profitably make use of this book. on the other hand, he reader who seeksa thorough eritical analysis of Bakuninrs thought will have to look elsewhere.

The soeial and Politieal rhought of Mic by Richard B. saltman.$ss' o'

Documents

Saltman for Bakunin