| If you would
like to read more entertaining and educational stories like the one you've just read, then check out  ! |
Ursula's
History Web
|
If one accepts the premise that politics exists only in relation to government, then to say an anarchist had a political theory is oxymoronic. Anarchists reject the validity of the state and governmental authority. In essence, the only political theory any anarchist can have is the destruction of government; any of the anarchist's ideas about what should come about after the destruction of the state cannot properly be called political theory. These ideas are closer to theories about post-governmental social organizations than to political theories. Anarchists seek, not to implement political theories, but to make them obsolete. But their ideas about how to make political theories obsolete, are themselves political theories.
The inherent contradiction in anarchism -- that government must be destroyed and then replaced without the creation of an authoritative body -- has led to misinterpretations of what anarchy is. Anarchy is not a theory that preaches chaos. The closest anarchist theory comes to chaos, is nihilism. Nihilists believe that all forms of compulsory organization should be destroyed and once they are destroyed mankind's natural form of organization will emerge. Even this is not chaos, for it is assumed that there will be some sort of organization. Most anarchists do have some idea of what will come after the destruction of the state and governments. Though it is not proper to call these ideas political theories, that is what best describes what they are. They are theories about how society will be run without government and for lack of a better term -- non-political theory? -- political theory is closest to what they propose. The most famous anarchist was Michael Alexandrovich Bakunin.
Michael Alekxandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876) was one of the most interesting political thinkers of the Nineteenth Century. Bakunin, though known more as a political activist than a theorist, did have what could be called a coherent political philosophy. It was a philosophy of anarchy; a theory in which there would be no politics as such because there would be no state. Bakunin argued that society should be built from the bottom up by means of voluntary organizations. For Bakunin, the state -- the organization of society from the top down -- was the ultimate evil. Before discussing Bakunin's political theory and the influences that helped him formulate it, it is necessary to briefly discuss what anarchy actually is.
Political anarchy is not chaos. Instead it is a philosophy that rejects organized authority and particularly the authority of the state. "All anarchists agree, however, on the need to dispense with compulsory forms of authority, . . . ". Anarchists believe that compulsory authority negates man's freedom. Bakunin's anarchy is much harsher than this; he sees organized authority as inherently evil and the principle of command as the devil itself. "If there is a devil in human history, that devil is the principle of command". Built upon the principle of command, the state is the ultimate evil and negation of humanity. "The State, therefore, is the most flagrant, the most cynical, and the most complete negation of humanity". Bakunin saw the state as a repulsive factory that destroyed everything in man that makes him human. "The State is like a vast slaughterhouse or an enormous cemetery, where all real aspirations, all the living force of a country enter generously and happily, . . . , to let themselves be slain and buried". Because the state robbed man of his humanity, to become human again, man must free himself from the state and the principle of command. Bakunin's version of anarchy is best summed up in his own words: "In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed and legal powers over us, . . . ".
Bakunin was not born an anarchist and did not always reject the power of the state. It is, therefore, necessary to briefly discuss Michael's life and the various influences that helped make him an anarchist. Due to the complexity of Michael's life, it is necessary first to briefly discuss the key moments in his political development and then to discuss the thinkers that helped shape his ideas. This is done to show that the events in Michael's life were just as responsible for his political thought as were those thinkers whom he was influenced by. Furthermore, the events in Michael's life made him willing to seek new ideas as an attempt to explain why things were the way they were.
Michael Alexandrovich Bakunin was born on May 18, 1814 at his family estate in Premukhino, Russia, about forty miles south of Moscow. Michael's father, Alexander, exposed his son to the ideals of European liberalism and the French Revolution during his childhood. The Decemberist uprising brought an end to Michael's liberal education however. Alexander, horrified by the uprising and afraid that his liberal ways would cause him trouble, became a loyal Tsarist. It was also at this time that he decided to send Michael to St. Petersburg to become an artillery officer. The artillery school in St. Petersburg was not, however, the institution that Alexander thought it was.
Alexander had sent Michael there so that he would become a good loyal subject of the Tsar, unfortunately, the school he was sent to was a bastion of liberal thought. Michael soon tired of his studies and, after nearly deserting, was sent to Poland in 1832. In Poland, all the liberal ideas Michael had been exposed to suddenly made sense in the aftermath of the Polish uprising of 1830. Two years later, Michael would leave the army and begin studying philosophy at Moscow. In 1840, Michael would go to Berlin to study for a professorship in philosophy. Due to his radical views, Michael was soon forced to leave Berlin for Geneva where he, for the first time, came into contact with the German Communists. From 1844 to 1847 Michael stayed in Paris until he was forced to leave after the Russian Ambassador heard about a speech in which he argued for Polish independence. But events would soon bring Michael back to Paris.
The revolutions of 1848 were where Michael Bakunin made his reputation as the great revolutionary. In a two-year period, Michael took part in at least four Revolutions: in France, Prague, Berlin and Dresden. In fact, the French government paid for Michael's travel. In each of these revolutions Michael's leadership and dedication were astounding, though Michael seemed to want the disorder to continue. The Dresden revolt marked the end of the revolutions of 1848 and of Michael's freedom, for shortly after the revolt collapsed Michael was arrested and eventually deported back to Russia.
Michael's experience as a Russian prisoner definitely marked the end of any respect he might have had for the Tsar. In prison Michael contracted scurvy and lost all his teeth. Eventually, his family convinced the Tsar to commute his life sentence and banish Michael to Siberia in 1857. In 1861 Michael managed to escape Siberia via ship to Tokyo and then San Francisco. By 1862 Michael was in London again taking part in various radical groups culminating in his founding in 1864 of the International Brotherhood of Revolutionary Socialists. The purpose of the International Brotherhood was to spread propaganda in support of revolution and for direct action in bringing about revolutions. Michael would also become a member of the International Workmen's Association but because of his opposition to Marx, would be kicked-out.
As this brief biography of Bakunin's life demonstrates, Bakunin had many reasons for becoming an anarchist even without being influenced by anarchist's theories. Bakunin's personality was such that he could never accept authority over himself. Partially because of this attitude, every experience Bakunin had with authority ended badly and each added to his hatred for organized authority. In a sense, it could be said that Michael was a natural anarchist, an argument that is supported by the fact that Bakunin was noted not for his theoretical work but for his work as an activist.
Activist though he was, Bakunin did have what can be titled a political theory. Bakunin's theory was an admixture of various ideas from various theorists. It has even been stated that "Bakunin's thought was never very subtle or very original; . . . ". As will be shown, many of Bakunin's ideas may have come from other political thinkers, but, the way Bakunin combined them was indeed original. Before developing Bakunin's theory of the state and post-state social organization it is necessary to discuss those political thinkers whom Bakunin studied during his life.
While at the university of Moscow, Bakunin studied the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and Fichte. The romanticism of both can be seen in Bakunin's positive view of human nature and the idea of the inherent socialist in each person. Bakunin was also exposed to Hegel while at Moscow and was so impressed with Hegel's ideas that he decided to go to Berlin to study Hegel's philosophy. In 1842 Michael came into contact with the so-called young Hegelians -- a group that interpreted Hegel's work as supportive of revolutionary activities. It was from this group that Michael first found an outlet for his dislike of authority and became a political activist. Ludwig Feuerbach and the obscure philosopher Weitlig provided Bakunin with his ideas about the potential of the revolution.
All of these influences were active in Bakunin when he went to Paris in 1844. In Paris, Bakunin met Jean-Pierre Proudhon and it was from Proudhon that Bakunin was first introduced to anarchism. The interaction between Bakunin and Proudhon was not one sided however, for while Proudhon was introducing Bakunin to anarchism, Bakunin was introducing Proudhon to Hegel. Bakunin " . . . , borrowed much from Proudhon, . . . " . He adapted Proudhon's ideas to the needs of industrial society by creating large voluntary social organization and, also, accepted Proudhon's positive view of human nature and the "lowest" social classes as the least corrupt. It can safely be said that by 1847, as a result of Proudhon's influence, that Bakunin was an anarchist; Bakunin's writings and actions in 1847 and after demonstrate this. Some have argued that Bakunin became an anarchist only after the failure of the Polish insurrection of 1863, and that Bakunin's anarchism was the last step of his political development and the result of many influences. Bakunin's anarchism was the result of numerous influences -- as shown both in the section of personal and political biography -- but he was already an anarchist before 1863. All that Bakunin was exposed to after 1848 only served to help delineate his ideas about what the post-state social organization should be. Since most of Bakunin's writings are from after 1863, it is easy to assume that he became an anarchist because of the Polish insurrection but this is not correct. Bakunin was incommunicado from 1850 to 1862 and therefore could have no works published. It was clear when Bakunin came back from Siberia many of his anarchist ideas were formulated but just not complete.
Karl Marx, while his greatest rival, also helped Bakunin solidify his anarchist ideas. Marx provided Bakunin with a critique of capitalist society that supported Bakunin's views. This did not mean, however, that Bakunin accepted all of Marx's ideas. Bakunin utterly rejected Marx's idea of the workers' state: this idea made "Marx, the Bismarck of Socialism." For Bakunin a state, no matter who ruled it, was a state: "..., even the pseudo-People's State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, . . . ". Marx's scientific intelligentsia, according to Bakunin, would be the most despotic of all regimes. Thus, Marx provided both a negative and positive influence on Bakunin's ideas: Marx's workers state highlighted the difference between Marx and Bakunin but Marx's political economy helped Bakunin formulate his post-state theories.
Marx was not the only thinker who had a negative influence on Bakunin's theories. It is clear from his writings that Bakunin read Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, and, it is also clear that he rejected much of what they said. Bakunin mentions all of them in his writing and while mentioning them rejects what they propose. But as with Marx, this negative influence helped Bakunin formulate his ideas.
Before going into Bakunin theoretical ideas it is necessary to discuss the two thinkers that most influenced Bakunin: Ludwig Feuerbach and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. According to Richard Saltman, Bakunin's political thought was a combination of Lamarckian evolution and Feuerbach's repudiation of Absolutes. I would add Proudhon to this list because, though Bakunin and Proudhon disagreed on many things, Bakunin did get his anarchism from Proudhon. Thus, Bakunin was a Social Lamarckian, rejected absolutes and history as an entity and, rejected the state and all forms of coercive authority. Bakunin's theoretical works will to serve to highlight these ideas.
Any attempt to reconstruct Bakunin's ideas into a coherent theory is dangerous. Bakunin never wrote a great work like Marx's Das Kapital, in fact, Bakunin never wrote anything larger than a pamphlet. Making it still harder to organize Bakunin's ideas was his inconsistent use of terms, particularly his four definitions of freedom. This imprecision in terms can be directly linked to the nature of Bakunin's writings. Nearly all of Bakunin's works were first drafts, he never had or found time to edit them. Nor did he attempt to combine all his ideas into a coherent whole. Despite these problems, I think it is possible to reconstruct Bakunin's writings into a viable "political" theory.
There are five separate components to Bakunin's theory: a theory of historical development, a definition of freedom, a theory of the state, a definition and theory of society and finally a theory of revolution. Each component is, in itself, a complete set of ideas but when put in relation to the others helps create a viable theory. Bakunin's theory of the state, for example, makes sense but when understood and put together with his definition of freedom and society it makes a construct -- or more appropriately a deconstruct. Thus, it is necessary to first discuss each of the parts separately and then to put them together and finally to explain the theory.
Bakunin delineates four epochs of history: the first stage is that of animalistic man, the second stage is the era of slavery, the third stage is the era of economic exploitation, the forth and final stage is the Epoch of Justice. Bakunin saw the time he lived in as the third stage, the era of economic exploitation and worked to bring about the forth stage. Bakunin believed that history was both evolutionary and linear. Each of Bakunin's stages of history built on the last, meaning that " . . . , man's historical evolution also [sic.] moves in a constantly ascending line". The rules of the state and its means of control were primitive means of control to Bakunin: Enacted law belongs to a low stage of evolution". But being an evolutionary theory, the state was necessary for the progression of man.
"The State is evil, but an historically necessary evil, as necessary in the past as its utter destruction will eventually become in the future". The state is necessary to show man how not to organize society just as slavery was necessary to show how not to organize an economy. The evolution of history takes place through the use of reason. Bakunin utterly rejected Hegel's notion of a Weltgeist as unscientific and metaphysical. "It is impossible to leap across this abyss by what Hegel called a 'qualitative jump' from the world of logic to the world of nature and of real life". History was driven by man not by the world trying to find itself. Yet, Bakunin did see an end to history, that end was freedom. "It can be said that the real and complete emancipation of every individual is the true, the great, the supreme aid of history, . . . ". The emancipation of every individual, for Bakunin, meant freedom.
Bakunin's idea of freedom was neither simplistic nor was it consistent, so this attempt to define it cannot be considered definitive. A further difficulty with Bakunin's concept of freedom comes when trying to classify it as positive or negative freedom. Positive freedom is the freedom to do something, i.e. buy a car. Negative freedom means that certain rights cannot be infringed upon, in the U.S. Constitution "Congress shall make no law". Bakunin's assertion that one's own will unimpeded is freedom indicates that his freedom was positive freedom expressed negatively. But to attain Bakunin's freedom man must be freed from the shackles of the state making it negative freedom. So Bakunin's idea of freedom is both negative and positive.
For Bakunin, freedom meant being recognized by others as being free. A free society was necessary for the creation of the truly free individual. "Individual freedom of every man becomes actual and possible only through the collective freedom of society". Bakunin's freedom was constructed from what he identified as the two human laws: "Social Solidarity is the first human law; freedom is the second law". True freedom meant the humanization of solidarity. The humanization of solidarity meant the ending of all forms of coercive authority and creating a voluntary organization of society. The state was not, for Bakunin, a voluntary organization.
The only way to understand what Bakunin thought the state was, is through his writings. Bakunin never defines the state but he does indicate what the state does, how it is created and what it must do to survive. In many ways, the state is the key to Bakunin's theory. It is only through his identification of the flaws of the state that Bakunin can suggest an alternative method of social organization. It is only in relation to the constraints of the state, that true freedom can be identified and, the state is a necessary part of the evolution of history.
The history of any state begins with violence. Bakunin describes the state as an instrument of politics built upon the backbone of physical coercion. "All states were founded by violence, by conquest". In order to continue the state must continue to conquer. The reason it must conquer to continue is because the primary goal of the state is self-preservation: "The supreme law of the State is self-preservation at any cost". The only way the state can preserve itself is by conquering other states before they can conquer it. As is obvious, Bakunin's state is very much like a living organism.
The state is not just any living organism, it is the devil incarnate, the slaughterhouse of the people. The state can corrupt even the most virtuous of men: "Even the best of men are rendered corruptible by the temptations of power . . . ". The power of the state is so negative that it can even deny humanity. "It is the nature of the State to break the solidarity of the human race and, as it were, to deny humanity". It is Bakunin's view of the state that separated Bakunin and Marx.
"The two doctrines (Marxism and anarchism) were thus at odds over the issue of whether state was needed for the purpose of abolishing the state". It was because of Bakunin's opposition to Marx's workers state that Bakunin was kicked out of the international, which, in turn, drained the International of its vitality. For Bakunin the idea of creating a transitory state was unthinkable because of the nature of the state. Bakunin identified three components of every state: first, no state existed without a ruling class, second, the ruling class tried to perpetuate its power, third, the structure of the state never served the interests of the subject classes. These three components made it impossible for a transitory state to exist: any state would try to perpetuate its power no matter who was in charge.
Rejecting the state, Bakunin had to find something to replace it with. What would replace the state would build upon the state and yet be an evolutionary step forward. It would enhance human freedom and not hinder it. It would allow for natural liberty, not place unnatural constraints upon it. The only force capable of doing this is, for Bakunin, was society.
Bakunin believed that all the functions of the state could be better accomplished by society. Bakunin saw society as the basis of human existence. In fact, it was only through society that man could reach his personal potential. Similarly, society is the foundation of liberty. "Society is the root, the tree, and liberty is its fruit". Whereas liberal political theorists see liberties as a consequence of government, Bakunin sees liberty as a consequence of society. It is society, not the state, that determines both what liberty is and provides the means to attain it. Bakunin's view of what society means to man is best explained through his own words:
"Man is a social animal, . . . He does not create society by means of a free agreement: he is born in the midst of Nature and apart from it he could not live as a human being -- he could not even become one, nor speak, think, will or act in a rational manner."
Bakunin takes Aristotle's concept of man as a political animal and replaces the politics with society. For Bakunin, politics is merely a function of the state. Politics is a method of the ruling class for dealing with internal disputes while also making the subject classes feel important. Bakunin rejected social contract theory because it was impossible for the social contract to be voluntary. The social contract for Bakunin, was a means of creating the first ruling class. The first social contract was the end of humanity because it created the state, which drained the humanity from man. To regain mans natural freedom it is necessary first to do away with the state and second to recreate society as it would have been if it had not been corrupted by the state.
The terms anarchist and revolutionary are often used interchangeably. The distinction is further blurred by the fact that many terrorists often claim to be anarchists. While Bakunin was an active revolutionary, he was never a terrorist and only advocated terrorist activities for a two-year period. These two years, however, forever linked terrorism and anarchism. This linking was indeed unfortunate, for Bakunin's idea of revolution was not one of a cataclysmic event; Bakunin actually called for an economy of violence during the revolution. Though he sought to destroy the state, Bakunin did have a concept of how society should be organized after the state was destroyed. The best way to explain Bakunin's ideas, is again through his own words:
"For no one can destroy without having at least a remote concept, . . . , of the new order of things . . . The more fantastic the conception, the more ruthless the destructive force. The more this concept approximates reality and conforms to the necessary, creative development of society, the more useful and salutary will be the effects of the destructive action."
The conception Bakunin had after the destruction of the state conformed to the creative development of society. Bakunin's society was the next step in the historical evolution of mankind and because of this, his revolution would not be that destructive. The revolution would destroy the state but it would not destroy society; it would make it stronger and more advanced. Society would be freed from the constraints placed upon it by the state and its ruling class. Mankind could only be equal if everyone in society had the same rights and the same possibilities. Under the rule of the state the ruling class was recognized as superior, thus creating social inequality. The elimination of the state would eliminate one of the barriers to both human equality and to human freedom. But the state was not the only barrier to the realization of human freedom, for Bakunin, property prevented equality and therefore negated freedom.
The abolition of the state and property were the two main components of Bakunin's theory. Bakunin's society would be voluntary and reciprocative: property would be earned through labor not received through inheritance. How the process of deciding how much land one got for their labor was never discussed. Bakunin's theory, therefore is more a framework than a theory. He suggests how things should be but does not provide a method for the realization of his ideas. It would be unfitting with Bakunin's beliefs to suggest a method for realizing his goals: first because he was an anarchist and, secondly, because he saw his society as the next stage in the evolutionary development of society.
Property as an inheritable possession, was, for Bakunin, both illogical and wrong. Bakunin believed that the land was the common property of society but that what the land produces was the property of those who cultivated it. "The land is the common property of society. But its fruits and use shall be open only to those who cultivate it by their labor". This is similar to Locke's labor theory of property without the labor resulting in property; under Bakunin's system the produce not the land was the property. Since the land was common to society, there would need to be no inheritance; thusly he called for, "abolition of the right of inheritance". One got only what one received through their labor; merit, not birth would determine what a person was entitled to. In Bakunin's society everyone able to work would, for, " . . . , he who consumes without working, if able to work, is a thief". One's quality of life would be determined not by what their parents did, but by how! hard they worked. Bakunin did not argue for equality, he argued for equal opportunity.
There was no way, for Bakunin, that all men were equal. Some were further evolved than others, some were stronger, and some were smarter. To impose equality would be the same as imposing inequality. Bakunin just wanted to make sure that each individual had the same opportunity for equality. Those who worked harder deserved more because they earned it. Those who did not work deserved nothing: each child would have the same chance for success no matter what their parents had done. This equality was not only economic but economics provided the easiest method for explaining it. Economic equality required placing the means of production under collective control.
Bakunin's collective control would be built from the bottom up. "I would have the organization of society, and of the collective or social property, from below upward by means of free union, not from below downward by means of any authority". Bakunin's "free union" meant voluntary organizations. People with similar occupations or living in the same area would naturally join together and theoretically build higher level voluntary organizations. Bakunin never presented a hierarchical theory of voluntary organizations but I believe that it is inferred. Bakunin, unlike Proudhon, realized the requirements of industrial society; he knew that large-scale capital investment was not possible for a few rural artisans. Bakunin even provided for limits on the larger voluntary organizations.
"Every individual, every association, every commune, every region, [sic.] every nation has the absolute right to self-determination, . . . ". There could be no compulsion in Bakunin's society. Compulsion was a negation of human freedom, for the very act of compulsion required authority. "Bakunin's political philosophy was an argument against the institutionalization of social authority". Authority directly leads to inequality and the enslavement of humanity. In Bakunin's society there would be no crime because most crimes are crimes against either authority or property; his society would have neither. It would, however, have a system of education.
Bakunin's society would require an educated public, the key to this educational system would be science and the scientific method. "Available to everyone will be a general scientific education, especially the learning of the scientific method, the habit of correct thinking, the ability to generalize from facts and make more or less correct deductions". Armed with this education, the people would organize a highly efficient society. The organization of society would, in fact, be scientific. Thus did Bakunin create his utopia.
As was noted in the introduction, Bakunin was more an activist than a theorist and this fact is highlighted by Bakunin's political theory. It is as if his ideas stop in midstream. It would have been very interesting if he had been the theorist and Marx the activist. Speculation aside, Bakunin's theory was very utopian. His society would be suigeneris somehow springing from the minds of those educated in the ways of the scientific method. Bakunin's idea of a voluntary society of autonomous individuals is intriguing but impractical. While Bakunin's society is unrealistic, his critique of the world he lived in was, in many ways, accurate.
The Russia Bakunin was born in was highly despotic and marked by great discrepancies in wealth and opportunity. Bakunin was only famous because he happened to belong to the nobility, if he had been a peasant he would have been put to death. Even after he left Russia, the Russian State was able to restrict his freedom forcing various countries to make him leave. Even today governments serve the function of restricting freedom more than encouraging it; what was the last law passed granting someone the freedom to do something?
Many of Bakunin's ideas have been proven true. Marx's workers state did degrade into the most despotic of all regimes as shown by Stalin's collectivization policy. The Soviet Bureaucracy ended up being just another ruling class -- a class that has yet relinquished its power. Universal suffrage has also not brought about social equality -- Bakunin argued that universal suffrage did not change the state because the ruling class still rules. The U.S. has universal suffrage but not all American's are equal. Is the child born in Watts truly equal to the son of Sam Walton? Bakunin's ideas about education have also come to fruition.
The scientific method is drummed into today's college student. They are taught the scientific method in natural science and social science classes. The goal of college is to produce educated members of society. This education includes the use of deductive reasoning. Correct thinking is also a part of the American school system. Children are taught to be accepting and open-minded. Though I do not think this was the correct thinking Bakunin was writing about, it is still correct thinking.
Though his theoretical ideas are far from compelling, Michael Alexandrovich Bakunin's critique of the state and society is fascinating. Bakunin combines elements of radical, liberal and even some ancient political theories into a critique of the state and social authority. While Bakunin's ideas were not original, his combining of various ideas was. He combined the ideas of Aristotle and Feuerbach, Locke and Marx, Rousseau and Proudhon, Hegel and Lamarck. While combing the ideas of all he completely accepted the ideas of none. He took what he saw as the most realistic aspects of various theorists and combined them into a true utopian theory. Bakunin believed that man was evolved enough to dispense with all forms of authority and to create a viable society. This society would be free and those who lived in it would be born with equal opportunities. Inequality would exist but it would exist not because of luck or birth but because some people worked harder than others did. In short, Bakunin was the Horatio Alger of political theorists.
Bakunin, Michael, Alexandrovich. Bakunin on Anarchy: Selected Works by the Activist-Founder of World Anarchism. Translated an Edited by Sam Dolgoff. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972.
Bakunin, Michael, Aleksandrovich. Bakunin's Writings. Edited and Translated by Guy A. Aldred. New York: Kraus Reprint Co., 1972.
Collections of Anarchist Writings
Eltzbacher, Paul. Anarchism: Exponents of the Anarchist Philosophy. Translated by Steven T. Byington. London: Freedom Press, 1960.
Horowitz, Irving, Louis. The Anarchists. New York: Dell Publishing, 1964.
Krimerman, Leonard, J. Lewis Perry. Eds. Patterns of Anarchy: A Collection of Writings on the Anarchist Tradition. Garden City: Ancor Books, 1966.
Masters, Anthony. Bakunin: The Father of Anarchism. New York: Saturday Review Press, 1974.
Saltman, Richard, B. The Social and Political Thought of Michael Bakunin. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1983.
General Works on Anarchy and Radicalism
D'Agostino, Anthony. Marxism and the Russian Anarchists. San Francisco: Germinal Press, 1977.
Geary, Dick. Ed. Labour and Socialist Movements in Europe before 1914. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1989.
Joll, James. The Anarchists. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1964.
Lindemann, Albert, S. A History of European Socialism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Miller, David. Ed. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought. New York: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1987.
Russel, Bertrand. Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism and Syndicalism. London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., 1918, 1966. Simmons, A., John. On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent and the Limits of Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993.
Tucker, Robert, C. The Marxian Revolutionary Idea. New York: W. W. Norton, Inc., 1969.
Burkett, Richard, W. The Spirit of System: Lamarck and Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.
Engels, Frederick. Ludwig Feuerbach and the Outcome of Classical German Philosophy. New York: International Publishers, 1941.
Feuerbach, Ludwig. Principles of the Philosophy of the Future. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1966.
| If you would
like to read more entertaining and educational stories like the one you've just read, then check out ! |