 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revolutionary convictions or personal vendetta: an analysis of the Marx/Bakunin feud |
|
|
|
Introduction
Anarchism, Mikhail Bakunin's main political principle, has been defined as 'a political theory which aims to create anarchy', itself defined as 'the absence of a master, a sovereign.' The origins of the terms 'anarchism' and 'anarchy' are arguably the central theme of Bakunin's dispute with Karl Marx. 'Anarchy' is derived from the combination of the Greek words 'an', meaning 'without' or 'the absence of', and 'archos', meaning 'a ruler'. Although this ideal may not always have been matched in practice by Bakunin's beliefs, allegedly exemplified by the hierarchical nature of his Secret Alliance, it provided him with the necessary scope to criticise Marx's proposed 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which he argued would prevent the emergence of the stateless society both he and Marx claimed would be the end result of the predicted revolution.
Why is this topic, covering events in the late nineteenth century, relevant for discussion today? One factor is the subsequent practice of communism in Russia and elsewhere, which has been used by contemporary anarchists as evidence in support of Bakunin's claims. The dispute between Marx and Bakunin also provides a historical context for similar, albeit lower-profile, disputes today. The most notable of these is between the Socialist Workers Party and several anarchist factions which are themselves not united on much else.
The significance of this particular dispute, as opposed to those which took place between Marx and other anarchist contemporaries such as Proudhon or Stirner, relates to the institutional setting of the First International and the role the relations between Marx and Bakunin played in its eventual demise. Likewise, although the dispute took many forms, it is the issue of the future stateless society, how and how soon it could be achieved and how rigidly the concept should be interpreted, which formed the core disagreement.
Analysis of this disagreement divides fairly neatly into theoretical and practical elements, and this essay will be arranged along these lines. The first section deals with the theoretical disagreement, centred on Marx's 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and the different ways in which he and Bakunin interpreted this concept. The following two sections relate to different practical implications: one on the practical application of Marx's theory by Lenin, how far this diverged from Marx's original idea, and how far it validated Bakunin's criticisms; the other on the effect of the Marx/Bakunin split on the First International. As the theoretical element provides a background for the other aspects, it will be dealt with first.
Theory
The theoretical root of the disagreement between Marx and Bakunin about a future stateless society can be found in their different conceptions of and predictions regarding the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Marx believed this to be a necessary stage in the revolutionary process, and one which would eventually lead to the decline of the state as it had previously existed. In his own words, the proletariat will 'abolish its own supremacy as a class' once class distinctions have eroded. By definition, according to his main line of argument, the categories of proletariat and bourgeoisie will be obsolete at this point, and so therefore will rule by any one class. According to Ehrenberg, Marx used the term 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to describe 'the only way the working class can hold and use state power and oppose the class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie' and thought it essential because 'only the massive and continuous application of working class power from below could suppress inevitable attempts at counterrevolution and simultaneously make possible the construction of a new society whose social foundations were not set in place.' In other words, it was a practical concern if the revolution was to be maintained and a classless society to be achieved.
Bakunin, however, was not convinced by Marx's argument; this lack of conviction can only have been exacerbated by his suspicion that Marx personally harboured ambitions of holding dictatorial power. He argued that the difference between a revolutionary dictatorship, and the bourgeois state would be purely cosmetic, as both would be based on the government of the majority by a minority 'in the name of the presumed stupidity of the one and the presumed intelligence of the other.' He asks who the proletariat is to rule, and concludes that the new subject class will be the 'peasant rabble... which, as we know, does not enjoy the favour of the Marxists1'. To Marxist claims that the revolutionary government would consist of workers, he responds thus: 'Yes, perhaps of former workers, who, as soon as they become rulers or representatives of the people will cease to be workers and will begin to look upon the whole workers' world from the heights of the state.' He viewed Marx's planned revolution in terms similar to those in which the Russian revolution would later be satirised by Orwell: 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.' (The relevance of this question to the Russian revolution will be discussed in more detail in the next section.) If the proletariat become a dictatorship, they will become indistinguishable from other dictators. Furthermore, 'If their state is to be truly a people's state, then why abolish it? But if its abolition is essential for the real liberation of the people, then how do they dare call it a people's state?' Marx's response will be discussed shortly; first, however, some further comment on the definition of 'dictatorship' may be useful.
Draper attributes the origins of the term 'dictator' to the Latin 'dictatura', a constitutional institution which lasted through three centuries of the ancient Roman republic. The institution in question 'provided for an emergency exercise of power by a trusted citizen for temporary and limited purposes, for six months at the most' and 'was conceived to be a bulwark in defence of the republic against a foreign foe or internal subversion.' This appears to fit the definition of 'dictatorship' which supporters of Marx maintain he had in mind when applying the term in the context of post-revolution society. The institution of 'dictatura' lasted until Julius Caesar removed the time constraint and became what we today would define as a 'dictator'. This, it could be argued, was Bakunin's major fear; that the new 'revolutionary dictators' would also become permanent. They were, in his opinion, 'enemies only of existing governments, because they want to take their place.' The aftermath of the Russian revolution has been described as the realisation of this fear, resulting as it did in a system in which, to quote Orwell again, some were more equal than others. Proponents of this view include modern anarchists, whose hope is that anarchism will be viewed as an alternative to the discredited communist ideology.
Bakunin therefore favoured, outwardly at least, the outright rejection of the state from the revolution onward, stating that '[W]e (Bakunin and his followers) declare ourselves the enemies of every government and every state power, the enemies of state organisation of any kind.' It would be an understatement to say that Marx and Engels regarded Bakunin's position as impractical or unrealistic: Marx once termed Statism and Anarchy 'Schoolboyish rot!' This comment is specifically directed at Bakunin's fear that the peasantry would 'be placed in the same relationship of slavish dependency on the victorious German proletariat as that in which the latter finds itself vis-a-vis its own bourgeoisie'. Marx replies that 'A radical social revolution [due to the economic conditions which Marx regarded as essential]... is only possible where alongside capitalist production the industrial proletariat accounts for at least a significant portion of the mass of the people' and argues that for the revolution to be successful the proletariat must 'at the very least do as much directly for the peasants as the French bourgeoisie did in its revolution for the French peasantry at that time.'
Marx's criticism of Bakunin in the work cited above - an annotated edition of S&A - is based on the former's perception that the latter 'understands absolutely nothing of social revolution, only its political rhetoric; its economic conditions simply do not exist for him... Willpower, not economic conditions, is the basis of his social revolution': Marx did not believe this to be a realistic basis. He defends the rule of the proletariat, arguing that it will come to an end 'when [the proletariat's] victory is complete,' on the grounds that 'its class character will have disappeared'; without class the state will be obsolete. The new leaders will 'cease to be workers no more than a factory owner today ceases to be a capitalist when he becomes a municipal councillor'
The issue of whether either view of revolution and its aftermath is entirely realistic is the subject of ongoing debate; it would not therefore add much to go over the same ground here. However, accusations of being unrealistic and disregarding human nature are one of the many apparent similarities between Marx and Bakunin.
Whether the similarities between the political views of Marx and Bakunin outweigh, or are outweighed by, the differences, has been heavily contested; that the state in its current form must somehow be done away with is one area on which both agreed. This was rooted in what Thomas calls a shared 'indignation about the enervating effects of the division of labour in a capitalist society', in that both camps objected to the capitalist system and as such desired change. The eventual aims for a future society also appear to have more in common than not: in practice, however, these were arguably the greatest bone of contention. Thomas therefore describes the perceived agreement regarding the future society as a 'penumbra', coincidental rather than significant to the overall disagreement discussed above. He cites arguments based on the claim that, because of the 'shared' opposition of the state, the 'doctrinal differences' between the rival camps 'can safely be resolved into a difference in emphasis, about tactics', but argues himself that neither side were known for separating ends from means. The means - total abolition of the state versus a 'workers' state' which would wither away- cannot therefore be disregarded as a crucial element of disagreement.
Guerin does not accept the coincidence argument: 'As materialists, we do not believe that ideas are born purely and simply in the brains of human beings. They merely reflect the experience gained by the mass movements through class struggle.' This being the case, Marxism and anarchism share a common origin. He also points out some areas where the two ideologies have influenced one another, claiming for example that 'Bakuninist inspiration' was evident in Marx's address on the Paris Commune. 'Thus anarchism and Marxism, at the start, drank at the same proletarian spring. And, under the pressure of the newly born working class they assigned to themselves the same final aim, i.e. to overthrow the capitalist state and to entrust society's wealth, the means of production, to the workers themselves.' However, he also lists the differences of opinion over how this final aim should be achieved as a key point of divergence. Commentators who disagree as wildly as Marx and Bakunin themselves on related issues agree that this difference is irreconcilable: as such, it could be said to render any number of other perceived similarities insignificant in comparison.
The practical aspects of the debate will now be discussed, beginning with an examination of Marx's theory as put into practice by Lenin. A discussion of the implications of the theoretical disagreement for the First International will follow.
Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat
The theoretical interpretations of Marx's concept of a revolutionary dictatorship have already been discussed. However, neither Marx nor Engels discussed the complexities of the post-revolutionary transition period in any detail; 'because,' Ehrenberg claims, 'they were not given to idle speculation and because the actual course of events never forced them to do so.' These circumstances ensured that the disagreement between Marx and Bakunin remained theoretical in their lifetimes. After the Russian revolution, however, Lenin had to put Marx's theory into practice. Marx's dislike of 'idle speculation' often forced Lenin to use his own interpretations: the dictatorship of the proletariat is arguably a case in point. So how far does Lenin's practice differ from Marx's theory - and what does this contribute when examining the latter's conflict with Bakunin, who some have argued predicted a logical progression from Marxism to Stalinism via Leninism?
Whatever their ambitions within the International, it can be argued convincingly that Marx and Engels were proposing the dictatorship of the working class, rather than of individuals. In their own words, 'The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.' According to Ehrenberg, their disagreement with anarchist contemporaries hinged on the latters' 'failure... to distinguish between the dictatorship of a class and the dictatorship of an individual.' This class dictatorship was intended to create a workers' state and eventually wither away, arguably as per the Roman 'dictatura'. In the case of the Russian revolution, among others, it is clear that this did not happen. How can this be explained?
The explanation could potentially be found in the difference of interpretation. According to Draper, Lenin's definition of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was narrower than that intended by Marx, and his writings on the subject 'simply connected it up with the generic concept of "conquest of power"'. He once defined it thus: 'dictatorship means unlimited power based on force, and not on law. In civil war, any victorious power can only be a dictatorship. The point is, however, that there is the dictatorship of the minority over the majority... and there is the dictatorship of the overwhelming majority of the people over a handful of tyrants, robbers and usurpers of people's power.' The issue of whether the majority or minority had control appears to be the only distinction Lenin makes between the old and new regimes: he makes no mention of the new dictatorship withering away. Bakunin would of course have disputed the argument that power was held by an overwhelming majority, predicting that an elite of revolutionary leaders would take control - as indeed would be the case in the 'invisible dictatorship' alluded to in his own writings and those of his critics. It could be argued that revolution as practised by Lenin provided more grounds for accusations such as Bakunin's than it did when preached by Marx. The differences between theory and practice will now be discussed.
Part of Marx's annotated edition of Statism and Anarchy, reading like a direct argument between the two, contains the following 'dialogue' (Bakunin's words in normal type, Marx's in italics): '[the] result (of the dictatorship of the proletariat) is the control of the vast majority of the people by a privileged minority. But this minority, the Marxists say, 'Where?' will consist of workers.' Marx regarded Bakunin's criticisms as either a misinterpretation of his position or as outright slander: to reiterate his defence, he denied that a 'privileged minority' would form, and argued that the Communists had no separate interests from the rest of the proletariat which, for a revolution to take place, must form the majority of the population. This last factor forms one of the most significant points of divergence between Marx and Lenin, as the proletariat in Russia were heavily outnumbered by the peasantry. Gottlieb suggests that 'This Russia was very different from the developed capitalist country in which Marx thought the revolution would take place. In organising the working class, Russian Marxists faced what was for the most part a pre-capitalist society.' Lenin's was the most successful attempt to adapt Marxism to the context: however, Gottlieb argues that this adaptation led to the 'death of Marxism' and the eventual birth of Stalinism. Despite the differences, Lenin justified a revolution in Russia by asserting the interest in overthrowing the Czar which he alleged that the peasants and workers shared. However, because of the difference in social conditions, it was a 'vanguard' party of trained revolutionaries which should take charge; as opposed to the mass party envisioned by Marx.
Lenin's open divergences from Marx can to some extent be justified (in theoretical rather than moral terms) by the differences outlined above. However, there are also cases where Lenin appears accidentally or otherwise to have misinterpreted Marx. For example, he once stated that 'The recognition of the necessity for the dictatorship of the proletariat is most closely and inseparably bound up with the thesis of the Communist Manifesto that the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class.' Draper calls this a 'remarkable blunder', citing Marx's claim - on the page following the statement used by Lenin - that the proletarian revolutionary movement must be 'the self-conscious, independent movement or the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.' Here Lenin appears to be stripping his movement of the defences maintained by Marx against Bakunin's onslaught. The following statement, addressed to the peasantry, could not be a greater embodiment of Bakunin's fears had it been intended to do so: 'if you adopt this, our standpoint', he tells them, 'you can count on "indulgence" of every kind, but if you don't, well then, don't get angry with us! Under the "dictatorship" we shall say about you: there is no point in wasting words where the use of power is required.'
Marxist revolution as practised by Lenin, in the light of such misinterpretation, appears to justify Bakunin's criticisms to a greater extent to than Marx's own writings, highlighting as it does the unrealistic nature of expectations that a 'workers' state' will operate in the best interests of the majority and eventually become obsolete. However, it is possible to exaggerate the significance of hindsight. Arguably more significant to the disagreement between Marx and Bakunin is the effect it had in their lifetimes on the First International.
Practice
The institutional setting of the International Working Men's Association distinguished Marx's dispute with Bakunin from his earlier attacks on Stirner and Proudhon. Thomas refers to 'the most fundamental dispute of its kind in the history of [the International], since what was at stake in it was not just the doctrinal superiority of one or another set of propositions but the shape and future of the International itself.' The conflict became significant as Proudhonism - a vague doctrine with limited appeal - gave way to Bakuninism, a concrete movement with mass appeal that crossed national boundaries, as the dominant form of anarchism. This section will outline the circumstances of the dispute which culminated in Bakunin's expulsion and examine first the significance of the disagreement regarding the post-revolution society to the general dispute between Marx and Bakunin, then the role played by their conflict in the eventual disintegration of the International.
It is at this point important to emphasise, as have the majority of commentators, that neither Marxist nor Bakuninist ideology had any particular claim to dominance in the International, whose founders had not intended it to be 'an ideologically monolithic body': Thomas reminds his readers that 'these groups existed alongside many others which were just as characteristic of the kind of organisation the International was, but which by the same token were by no means reducible either to Marxism or Bakuninism.' However, for the reasons already given, the Marx/Bakunin conflict came to dominate the proceedings of the International, while Marx and his supporters on the General Council dominated the organisation itself and - to quote Thomas again, although slightly out of his intended context - 'came perilously close to making the International homogeneous and doctrinally monolithic.' Guerin charts Marx's progression from advising the International from behind the scenes - until 1879 - to ruling over the General Council from London from 1870 onwards. Freymond and Molnar have described the change in these terms: 'The earlier flexibility and pragmatism disappeared, giving way to a leadership of a centralist or "authoritarian" - as Bakunin's supporters called it - bent.' The change, in their view, became most clearly evident following a private conference of the General Council which took place in London in 1871. At this conference, 'resolutions of a hitherto unthinkable rigidity were adopted': not only on the expulsion of Bakunin, but also on 'organisational, political and ideological questions'. With these resolutions, the Council hoped to homogenise the accepted doctrine.
The question of Bakunin's position in the International, and those of his supporters, had first arisen in September 1868; the month when Bakunin founded his International Social Democratic Alliance (ISDA), which proceeded to apply en bloc for membership of the International. Marx persuaded the General Council to refuse this admission, but in March 1969 they compromised and admitted the national sections of the ISDA into the International. Guerin describes these events as 'wounding to [Marx's] pride'. He regards the conference ('so-called', in his words) as the first stage of the process which would culminate in the expulsion of Bakunin and his Swiss associate James Guillaume, and the restoration of Marx's pride; albeit arguably at the expense of the International's future. The expulsion was confirmed at the Hague Congress in 1872; decided by what Guerin controversially calls a 'fake majority'. Thomas, while less condemnatory, still believes it 'quite safe to surmise that had the Hague Congress been held at Geneva or Lausanne its outcome, following from its composition, would have been quite different.' Marx and Engels, however, were to justify the expulsion by publishing a detailed account of Bakunin's alleged trouble-making and subversion within the international, in which they describe his attempts to form secret societies and reproduce his blueprint for the 'Secret Alliance' which they claimed was the core of his plan for an 'invisible dictatorship'.
In the context outlined above, how significant was the disagreement regarding a future stateless society to the general dispute between the two? It is certainly a factor, given that it originally brought Marx and Bakunin into conflict. It was also, arguably, at the heart of the accusations of dictatorial ambition that the two levelled at one another throughout. Bakunin's fear that a revolutionary dictatorship would become an oppressive regime was almost certainly tempered by his (often justifiable) belief that Marx was becoming dictatorial; while Marx made much of the hierarchical structure of Bakunin's alleged Secret Alliance. However, while undeniably at the root of the conflict, the tensions stemming from the issue of the abolition of the state outgrew the original disagreement and became contentious issues in their own right. It is also necessary to note, although not to dwell on, the conflicting personalities and prejudices of Marx and Bakunin, and the resulting animosity which transcended any political agreement or disagreement. Bakunin's dislike of Germans, for example, is often cited, and is matched only by Marx's mistrust of Russians.
The importance of their conflicting personalities increases when considered in terms of the impact on the political attitudes of the two rivals. Marx has been described as authoritarian in contexts other than the International: Guerin cites an admission by Engels that Marx 'exercised his "dictatorship" over the editorial staff' of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, the Rhineland newspaper he edited from 1848-1849. Bakunin, meanwhile, has long been acknowledged to have been manipulative and disruptive. This may have accounted for the differences in revolutionary styles: Marx organised and keen to maintain some form of control, Bakunin subversive, manipulative, aiming for a violent uprising; and unwilling to accept any authority within the International or elsewhere. If this is taken into consideration, it can be argued that the differences in personality are the root of the disagreement about a future stateless society; that this disagreement is at the root of the conflict within the International; but that, in the end, the dispute surrounding the behaviour of the rivals within the International grew to become an entity in its own right, arguably obscuring the original point.
Whatever its causes, the split between Marx and Bakunin has often been cited as a major factor in the disintegration of the International. Was it, however, the most significant cause, or even the major influence on Marx's allegedly destructive behaviour? Freymond and Molnar suggest two hypotheses. One, that Marx's sole aim in pushing forward his 'authoritarian' changes was to remove the influence of Bakunin, they describe as 'less likely' than the alternative; that the dispute with Bakunin was part of Marx's wider ambition to stamp his authority on the International. According to this hypothesis, Marx felt the time had come to 'put forth his political doctrine by imposing it on all the sections': Bakunin's expulsion was one element of a '"strategic" operation' aimed at pushing the acceptance of Marx's policies in the International. Whatever Marx's motives, however, he was ultimately unsuccessful; Freymond and Molnar attribute this to his miscalculation about which forces he needed to oppose. '[H]is real adversary', they argue, 'was not Bakunin or any other leader, but the nearly physical resistance of the environment'. Society had not changed enough in since the International was established for 'class consciousness' to develop in the way it would have needed to for Marx's 'common theoretical program' to be appropriate.
The heterogeneous nature of the International must also be taken into account when examining its decline. There are two issues here. The first is the incongruity of attempting to impose a common program on an organisation in which diversity between sections was previously encouraged. The second is the level of tension which is arguably unavoidable in any movement which is not 'ideologically monolithic'. Both these factors may also go some way to explaining the homogeneity of subsequent Internationals.
The final factor in the decline of the International is the fall of the Paris Commune in 1871. The International had not been involved with the Commune, which Thomas points out was 'neither a Marxist or a Bakuninist initiative', but it was undeniably affected by the counter-revolutionary upsurge which followed the Commune's 'savage repression' by the French authorities. Therefore, at the time the Marx-Bakunin dispute was taking place, the International was already weakened by outside factors. If the context is taken into account, the dispute appears more likely to have been the final straw rather than the root cause of the International's subsequent disintegration.
Conclusion
There are many arguments surrounding the disagreement between Marx and Bakunin about a future stateless society, and therefore many elements of any attempted analysis. The main issues in this essay have been the theoretical differences between Marx and Bakunin, in particular the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat; the significance of any similarities between the two political outlooks; Lenin's application of Marx's theories and the relevance to the dispute examined here; other factors which divided Marx and Bakunin, and the role their conflict played in the disintegration of the First International. This section will summarise and conclude each issue in turn.
The theoretical distinction between the views of Marx and Bakunin on a future stateless society lies in the disputed concept of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which Marx claimed would take over from the capitalist state and create a 'workers' state' in its place. This 'workers' state' would eventually wither away. Bakunin argued that, once workers gained power, they would cease to be workers and would become dictators in the sense in which the word is now generally interpreted. Instead, he argued, there should be no visible means of state control following the revolution: the emphasis on the 'visible' here is an acknowledgement of allegations that Bakunin aimed for an 'invisible dictatorship'. Bakunin was also concerned that a powerful proletariat would oppress the peasants, a claim Marx countered by emphasising that the proletariat would have to be a sizeable majority in order to conduct a successful revolution.
The Russian Revolution could arguably be taken as evidence for Bakunin's concerns. It has been argued both that Lenin was forced by circumstances to adapt Marx's theory and that he twisted Marxist ideas to suit his purposes in a country Marx would have denied was ready for a revolution: either way, he was not true to Marx's plan. However, Marx had not been given to speculation about how his ideas should be put into practice: supporters of Bakunin can claim that the Soviet experience was always a more likely outcome than any Marx had envisioned. However, there has been no evidence either way to show whether Bakunin's ideas for the future of society would have yielded better results.
Similarities have been noted between Marx's political outlook and that of Bakunin, the most obvious being the desire of both to see the end, by revolutionary means, of the state as it then was. However, the composition of the new society and the route by which it is reached are areas of irreconcilable disagreement which override any common factors.
The disagreement about a future stateless society was undeniably a major factor in the overall dispute between Marx and Bakunin. However, other differences played a part in keeping the conflict running and increasing the tension: these had the potential to overtake the original disagreement to the extent where they were of greater significance. Other factors also affected the disintegration of the International, although the Marx/Bakunin split may have been the final straw.
Finally, it is necessary to note that much of the dispute was based on accusations the rivals and their supporters made against one another. The accuracy of these claims was, and in some cases still is, fiercely debated. This question will never be entirely resolved, at least not on the evidence which now exists.
|
| References |
'What is anarchism?', Anarchism FAQ A.1 http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/secA1.html visited 17/03/2002
'Reply to errors and distortions in the SWP's "Marxism and Anarchism"', http://flag.blackened.net/intanark/faq/append34.html visited 17/03/2002 hereafter 'RtED'
Bakunin, M. Statism and Anarchy trans., ed. and intro. M. Shatz (1994) Cambridge University Press hereafter S&A
Draper, H. (1987) The 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' from Marx to Lenin New York: Monthly Review Press;
Ehrenberg, J. (1992) The Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Marxism's Theory of Socialist Democracy London: Routledge
Freymond, J. and Molnar, M. (1966) 'The Rise and Fall of the First International' in Drachkovitch (1966)
Gottlieb, R. (1992) Marxism 1864-1990: Origins, Betrayal, Rebirth London: Routledge
Guerin, D. (1989) 'Marxism and anarchism' in D. Goodway (ed.) For Anarchism: History, Theory and Practice London: Routledge pp. 109-126
Lenin, V. I. 'The Victory of the Cadets and the Tasks of the Workers' Party' 10:pp.192-193 cited Ehrenberg (1992) p61
Lenin, 'Notes on Plekhanov's Second Draft Program' in Lenin's Collected Works 6:51 cited Draper (1987)
Marx, K 'Notes on Bakunin's Book Statehood and Anarchy' in K. Marx and F. Engels Collected Works vol. 24, May 1874-May 1883 London: Lawrence and Wishart and Moscow: Progress Publishers (1989)
Marx and Engels, 'Fictitious Splits in the International' Collected Works vol. 23
Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1873) 'The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Working Men's Association: Report and Documents Published by Decision of the Hague Congress of the International' in Marx and Engels Collected Works vol. 23 pp. 454-580 (hereafter ASD)
Marx, K. and Engels, F. The Communist Manifesto London: Penguin Classics (1985 ed.) (hereafter CM)
Nomad, M. (1966) 'The Anarchist Tradition' in M. Drachkovitch (1966) The Revolutionary Internationals 1864-1943 Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press pp. 57-92
Orwell, G. (1966) Animal Farm London: Penguin
Proudhon, P-J What is Property, cited in other sources
Thomas, P. (1980) Karl Marx and the Anarchists London: Routledge
|
|
Rights reserved E. Harding 2003 Solidarida home |
|