Talk:Mikhail Bakunin

Bibliography

I'm missing a section about Bakunin's works. I know that he left most of his writings unfinished, but still it's strange not to have a section explaining at least that, especially considering that some of his works do have Wikipedia pages and are mentioned in this article (e.g. God and the State). There are compilations of Bakunin writings in pages like this one: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/ --SugarKane (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote:Worse than Czar

'If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Czar himself.' - (?)

This quote, without reference, should be deleted. It is referenced on some Anarchists Websites, but they as well give no source for the quote. I made an extensive search and found nothing. A check of http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/ also gives no clue of that quote.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.131.118.135 16:27 (talk • contribs) 13 June 2005

The quote above does appear in _The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin_ by Eugene Pyziur (First Gateway Edition, 1968), but as the search feature of my book seems to be offline at the moment, I will dig in detail for the specific cite later. --Astrobdw 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

According to L'Anarchisme by Daniel Guérin, this quote is indeed one of Bakunin's, from La science et la tâche revolutionnaire urgente, Kolokol, Geneva, 1870. --Axel Löfving 17:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's from a debate between Bakunin and Marx at the First International. It's in my Marx-Engels Reader somewhere. I will find it and give the citation. It'll be a least until Sunday. 150.131.148.22 15:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC) NC

A citation was added to the body of the text some time ago (from Guerin's Anarchism).

Destructive POV ?

What do people think of the "destructive" references in the last paragraph? Do they really represent Bakunin's views, or is it simply the kind of language authorities like to use when regarding anarchists? --Tzartzam 10:36 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with using the word to describe his proposed methods - he was more in favour of destruction and complete rebuiling than most (largely influenced by Sergei Nechayev, it seems). George Woodcock, who was himself an anarchist, called the Bakunin chapter in his book Anarchism (a really good book, by the way) "The Destructive Urge." But to call his principles destructive, as the last para does at the end, is biased and wrong. It needs rewriting - all these 1911 texts do (although this one isn't as bad as some) --Camembert

Marx' evil twin

I think we should add a paragraph when it is explained that Bakunin is the evil twin of Marx,separated at birth.

-or how about we don't, because this is an encyclopedia, not the ramblings of a lunatic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.129.7.100 (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it possible to have *famous* degenerate to *infamous* in the first paragraph? "Bakunin's enormous prestige as an activist, made him one of the most famous ideologues in Europe; during his lifetime, he was arguably more infamous than Karl Marx. He gained substantial influence among radicals throughout Russia and Europe." A substitution of "well-known" would work better.

81.109.107.22 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)GaryGMason

More violence

In 1848, on his return to Paris, he published a violent tirade against Russia, which caused his expulsion from France. The revolutionary movement of 1848 gave him the opportunity of entering upon a violent campaign of democratic agitation, and for his participation in the Dresden insurrection of 1849 he was arrested and condemned to death.

The repetition of "violence" should be got rid of- but by someone familiar with the subject matter. I'm not sure, but this might be part of what is discussed above. --Sam

In an ideoligical sense, the "destructive" references could be used by "authoritarians" just being concerned with the semantics as if fits within the article. Bakunin did study and translate Hegel, so what rises out of destruction of the state is what can enable the essence and actualization of individual freedom. This is a great article. --Classicjupiter2 01:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Choice of references

The reference [1] seems to be a poor choice as a reference as it argues that anti-semitism is justified and comes from "The Racial Nationalist Library" and the Heading on the page is "Our Race is our Nation". Presumably the Bakunin quote is an actual quote, in which case can't a better source for it be found? I believe most of Bakunin's work has been translated into English and is available on the net.

I can't find a source for this quote, just repeated about 4 times on google without sourcing.

Bearing in mind...?

Bear in mind, Karl Marx was anti-semite...

First, that's not grammatically correct. Second, how can you 'bear in mind' something which is factually controversial? Marx was opposed to Judaism - true, as he was opposed to all religion. That does not make him anti-Semitic, especially in the 'racial' sense it has taken in the 20th Century. I would like to see that quote stricken although i'd have trouble modifying it while maintaining the (also controversial) remainder of the section.

In the introduction for my copy of the Communist Manifesto, it claims quite plainly that Karl Marx did have a prejudice towards Jews. It also states the he gained the habit of calling somebody he didn't like a "dirty Jew of Negro blood." 4.234.51.173 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion from Anti-Semetism

I'm cutting from the Anti-Semetism section the sentence "Bakunin's anti-Semitism, like that of many at the time, likely grew out of a perception that they were behind the workings of European capitalism and politics, which he spent his life opposing." It appeared directly before the sentence introducing the long quotation that ends the section. It doesn't seem really to add anything, as it explains Bakunin's Anti-Semetism in terms of an Anti-Semetic belief, but seems to offer it as an excuse. One could say simply that "Bakunin believe that Jews were behind etc.", but this seems to me redundant, as the quotation makes that quite clear. D. D. Cohen 11:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)DDCohen

Why, (please somebody explain) there's an anti-Semitism section? It's useless, pointless and totally unnecessary. Bakunin gave a much more harder time to catholicism and was against all religions and religious believers. I don't see an anti-catholicism section, do you? What about an anti-budism section? But no, I really don't need no explanation, I can tell this is the result of resentment and some kind of sensitive hipocresy. Its bullshit, that's what it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, how can it even try to be it when there are people driven by prejudices and an easily offended sensitivity? My polish grandpa's sisters and brothers died on the hands of Nazis, but you don't see me bitching about Palestine and defending Israel's cause, do you? Objectivity. I vote for the deletion of the anti-Semitism section. Spikedude44 11:35, 31 January 2008

Transitional stage

Marx never called this period socialism, Lenin did. So therefore, it is incorrect to refer to it as such.

Economic views

Can anyone start a section on his economic views? I haven't been able to figure them out. RJII 15:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Was he an anarchist?

The entry confuses me. What makes him an anarchist? Did he call himself that? It reads to me like he was a socialist who disagreed with the notion of the workers state. --Duncan 16:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Read them in this pamphlet by guillame: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/guillaume/works/ideas.htm

Anti-Bakunin "Slanders"

This is a response to those who have no interest in Bakunin other than to attack him, turn people away from him or his major ideas, or use him for their racist, nationalistic, sexist, homophobic or authoritarian agenda by putting their own spin or attacks on him in his Wikipedia entry. The "Anti-semitism" and "Criticism" sections belong here no more than you will find "criticism" or "anti-semitism" sections for so many other popular and important historical figures. Is Wikipedia a place to educate, or a place to destroy and render irrelevant it's own content? Is it a place for bias and POV, or for alterior motives, nationalist or islamic terrorist agendas, anti-communists who do not (or refuseto) understand or accept the exixtance or treu nature of anarchism or even individualism, never mind collectivismc? Clearly not.. and no other encyclopedia would stoop so low. I'm asking people to not include such sections and to remove them if they are added.

There are many, many famous people who before World War II said negative things about Jews. It did not imply anti-semitism so much as an accident of history: Jews were forced into money-lending jobs because Christians and Moslems both forbade jews from having normal jobs in Europe, and also both religious authorities had made "Usery" (money lending with interest) illegal... so jews ended up with money-lending jobs, and also because they were a persecuted minority, they focussed their knowledge naturally on enriching themselves for self-preservation. The combination of two factors: jews becoming rich off of interest bearing loans (and rich people and land owners tend to become calous jerks because of the way humans are "hard wired"), and the fact that christian and moslem anti-jew propaganda was so widespread led many intellectuals to view jews in a negative way. Even jews themselves were anti-semetic in many ways.

If you read Kafka you can see the staggaring emotional and mentally-crushing effect of the Jewish situation on the minds of some of the more psychologicaly vulnurable affected jews. The feelings of persecution and helplessness in the face of a world run by Christians and Moslems who hated them and stacked the deck against them. And if they were poor, they were called "degenerate" and if they were rich they were called "decadent"... there was no way out of it. Many US officials and government officials and leaders of all western countries were virulantly anti-semetic, yet no mention of it is in their wikipedia entries, and it is understood that anti-semitism is not related in any way to people's other personal philosophies that people today draw inspiration from.

The point about Bakunin is that people like yourself who highlight that about him have an agenda (a fascist, capitalist, or religious fundamentalist one) where you are trying to take something that is irrelevant to Bakunin and his message and use it for your own personal attacks on Jews, and in fact this could be done with many, many historical figures.. especially US presidents (LBJ made some anti-semetic statements, there is also H.L Menkin, and even Karl Marx) and so on. Why do people choose to not include that in all the historical record of those figures? It is because it is irrelevant to the positive work they did, and it was more of a personal thing related to the times. People like you and others who have an agenda to make Jews look bad are simply being manipulative propagandists. The other group that tries to do this are the marxists, who wish to defame and destroy the anarchists, even though they are responsible for far more negative things because of their authoritarianism and statism. I will change the Bakunin section back the way it was. Please do not bring your anti-seminism into the anarchist world.

If Bakunin were alive today it is obvious he would vehemently denounce anti-semitism as a nationalistic, racist, anti-anarchist idea. Before World War II nationalism had not played out it's final "card" and showed the world what the ultimate result of it was, so it is understandable that people did not see such things as a threat at the time. That so many jewish anarchists existed during and right after Bakunin's time, and so many jewish anarchist publications, and there were and still are so many jewish followers of Bakunun is proof that they knew his basic message was one of universal brotherhood (sic.) and that anti-semitism was overruled and surpassed by it.

This is similar to attacks on Emma Goldman that claim she supported euthinasia to make her seem sinister and evil and ill-intentioned, when in fact she was simply urging poor women to practice contraception so they did not have to bear children and be further crushed by poverty. People who hate anarchists always try to "Dig up dirt" on them, but they have an agenda behind what they do and are thus dishonest. If they want to criticize someone, they (and you) should criticize themselves.

The national anarchism concept is created by fascists and as we all know, the fascists/nazis whole philosophy is based on lying, injustice, and murdering. The "National Anarchist" section cannot be trusted or relied on for anything. Radical Mallard Sat Mar 18 13:43:46 EST 2006

Please don't take out entire sections because they don't fit your POV. There are alot of "criticism" sections for bios across Wikipedia, this article is not unique in that. Furthermore, some of the info in that part of this article did actually cite reputable sources (marxists.org for instance and a direct quote from Bakunin). Please note that this doesn't mean that I don't think some parts of the section were POV, for instance "Bakunin was a known anti-semite" I would agree is POV. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 03:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

With regard to the Bakunin quote about Jews, is there any better, more reliable source? The current source comes from a obviously anti-semitic website called The Racial Nationalist Libarary. For that reason I am going to put a {{fact}} in the quote despite the "source" and if a reliable source is not added then I would argue that we are going to have to delete the quote altogether.--Jersey Devil 03:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just removed a lot of the waffle. Bakunin's anti-semitism is well established. In my anthology of his writings (which I haven't got with me) I believe it is Max Nettlau who describes his anti-semitism as being pathological. It might have been Maximoff, I'll check later. The entry is very poor and does not describe Bakunin's involvement with various national movements and in particular his pan-slavism. Also the Japanese anarchist publication Namazu had a discussion some years ago about Mr B.s visit to Yokohama, concluding that he was completely disinterested in the Jpanese workers struggle on a ccount of his eurocentrism. It's my lunch breal from work so I can't do much more now.Harrypotter 14:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Right so basically none of you can prove that he's anti semtic. I just deleted the whole damn thing because it cited sources that were biased and untrue. I think any forms of alleged racism should be kept within the Criticism section. It's disgraceful for this writer to have a whole section dedicated to his unfounded alleged anti semtism. One thing that should be kept in mind is that anti semitism is actually anti religion, not neccesarily anti jew. If you took this into acount, you could say Bakunin was anti semetic. However, the definition of anti semitism is different now.-Finn

I've put a POV warniong - because there is an obvious cover-up about this man's antisemitism which is well documented - eg Polemique contre les Juifs, 1872. Paki.tv 16:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Where's the cover-up? The entry says "Bakunin has also been criticized for his anti-semitic comments, which were usually in response to attacks by political opponents who also happened to be Jewish, such as Marx, Moses Hess, Nicolai Utin and S.L. Borkheim." There is no cover up or denial that Bakunin made anti-semitic comments. But as Arthur Lehning points out, Bakunin's anti-semitism, regrettable and deplorable as it is, does not invalidate his arguments regarding socialism, anarchism and the state.

What's Arthur Lehning got to do with it? The changes made in the article clearly obscure the anti-semitic aspect to his writings, and added to the lame excuses, constitute an attempt at cover-up. Paki.tv 09:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The changes don't obscure anything. They just don't give unwarranted prominence to a small fraction of Bakunin's voluminous writings. I will be requesting arbitration on this. It is time for the Bakunin entry to remain a NPOV entry, rather than being hijacked by people who for ulterior purposes want to exaggerate the importance of Bakunin's anti-semitic writings.

I have now requested arbitration. Here is my statement to the arbitration board:

To maintain the NPOV status of the Bakunin entry, his anti-semitic comments should not be given the undue prominence that certain people keep insisting on giving them. It is sufficient to note that Bakunin made anti-semitic comments, and then to provide a link to an acceptable original or NPOV secondary source. The current quotations are taken from anti-semitic websites and are of dubious provenance. The first quote (allegedly calling Jews an "exploiting sect," a "people of leeches," etc.) is taken from an "essay" posted on an anti-semitic website: http://library.flawlesslogic.com/jtr_01.htm. This is not an acceptable NPOV secondary source. The second quote is just a lengthier version of the first quote, and is supposedly from an essay attributed to Bakunin entitled "Polemique contre les Juifs." There is no link or other information given that would enable anyone to verify the authenticity of this alleged quotation or the essay it is supposed to be taken from. If you search for it on the internet, it shows up only on anti-semitic websites. I have yet to find a reference to this alleged essay in any library catalog or in any collection of Bakunin's writings. When I posted a "citation needed" note to this second quotation, the Iron Duke simply deleted that, claiming the current citation was adequate. Thus, I object to the inclusion of these particular quotations because they have not been properly authenticated. I also object to more than passing reference to Bakunin's anti-semitism because these lengthy quotations, even if authentic, exaggerate the importance of Bakunin's anti-semitic writings, which formed only a miniscule part of his voluminous literary output (the Archives Bakounine project published 7 large volumes of his writings, and that was not a complete collection; the International Institute for Social History in Amsterdam has since published his complete works on CD ROM. It contains thousands of pages of material). Robgraham 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Statement by Harrypotter 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The question of Bakunin's anti-semitism should not be in doubt by anyone who has familiarised themselves with his career. Google Bakunin and anti-semitism and you will get plenty of websites to read and ponder about (this or this. Whilst it is true that Robgraham does not want the reference removed, we have been faced with a series of naive anarchist militants whose political education falls far short of their enthusiam, and thanks to the intellectual dishonesty which is rife amongst anarchist circles (see however this and this for interesting articles on an anarchist sites), imagine that reference to his anti-semitism and nationalism constitute slanders! On the one hand they ask for proof, but when chapter and verse is quoted, they say it gives the issue to much prominence. I can't help feeling that Robgraham is being disengenuous. Yes it would be much better give references to sites which are not anti-semitic, e.g. The Non-Jewish Question quotes from the Historia Judaica 1952, and does not go to the original sources. So and go and find those other references, go do the work. For instance, google "Polemique contre les juifs" and you well get mostly anti-semitic sources, and a confusion of the dates (1869 or 1872). But you will also find references to une étude sur les juifs allemands, google that and you'll find Profession de foi d’un démocrate socialiste russe précédé d’une étude sur les juifs allemands (Lettre au Le Réveil, Paris, 1869) in a Bakunin Bibliography.

I am fed up with having to put with the ideological assaults of a various anarchists seeking to turn certain pages into blatant propaganda (see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-07 Anarchism). Clearly the emergence of anarchism, through Bakunin and Proudhon in particular, is linked to their nationalism, anti-semitism and eurocentrism. Yet any attempt to deal with these issues is met by attempts to censure the issue. Sometimes, for instance the removal of all links to Lala Hardayal from the anarchism page simply smacked of white supremacism. But do not fear: I shall not allow the racist sentiments of a few unreflective anarchists put me off from helping to develop wikipedia as a NPOV encyclopedia. Rather it is a case of slowly and methodologically moving through the material. Sometimes it is necessary to step back from the fray, as has happened with Lala hardayal, until a book I have ordered is shipped from abroad arrives. The repressive deletions of authoritarian "anarchist" editors attempting to stamp out any critical comments about their cherished faith will eventually give way to reasoned argument and cited sources. Of course it is somewhat depressing having to deal with the continual racist attacks, but, hey, that's the norm living in a world dominated by European cultural values - and I have long outworn any sense of suprise that anarchists are any different from other polticians.Harrypotter 19:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter's hostility towards anarchism and anarchists is obvious. How can we have an NPOV article on Bakunin when he insists on inserting his own POV material without proper citations? He still has not come up with a proper citation for the alleged Bakunin essay, "Polemique contre les Juifs." Plus, I never said Bakunin was not an anti-semite. I said the quotations that keep getting put back into this article are not properly authenticated and acceptable NPOV secondary sources are not cited. That goes for the ones Potter has set forth above. If the Historia Judaica article is a scholarly one, it will cite the original sources for the alleged Bakunin quotations, which people can then independently verify. That's NPOV procedure, not anarchist special pleading.Robgraham 05:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this about my "hostility" to anarchism and anarchists? I am hostile to the sort of uncritical historical falsification which has become common currency in anarchist circles. This disingenuous behaviour is illustrated by the way Robgraham complains that I "still" have to produce a citation for the article "Polemique contre les Juifs" attributed to Bakunin. As I did not insert this text, nor have I ever reinserted it, nor confirmed its attribution, this is just a gratuitous personal sneer. Likewise his remarks about the Edmund Silberner article in Historia Judaica - well I remark that the website - which is Steve Cohen's excellent little book That's Funny you don't look antisemitic- does not have any original citations. These remarks I made were to help people find teh relevant text. Behind all this bluster, in fact Robgraham has removed an elucidation of situation, which refered to Max Nettlau, the anarchist historian as the source. (so much for hostility to anarchists!) I must admit I do have a certain negative feelings towards historical revisionism, which I feel is precisely what Robgraham is up to. He has removed the reference to Bakunin's Pan-slavic nationalism and eurocentrism when they are clearly part of Bakunin's politics. At no point does he attempt to resolve the issue. Furthermore I have done my best to develop the article, dealing with Bakunin's intellectual development eg. the impact of Johann Gottlieb Fichte ("called by some the father of German nationalism and also of German anti-semitism": wikipedia). However looking at Robgraham, it seems that all he wants to highlight is Mr B.s anarchist theory. This is NPOV, reducing the page to a anarchist hagiography.Harrypotter 19:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of hostility: denouncing anyone who disagrees with your POV entries, accusing them of intellectual dishonesty, hagiography, disingenuousness, racism, etc. Your more recent additions to the biographical section are generally unobjectionable, although your above attempt to tie Bakunin into Fichte's alleges proto-nazism is really too much. As for Bakunin being "eurocentric" because he didn't contact Japanese workers during a very brief stay in Japan when he was attempting to return to Europe following his escape from Siberia, and because at one point he advocated a United States of Europe, that is not NPOV - it's your own twisting of the facts. When Bakunin was in Japan there was no trade union movement, nor any socialist movement. He couldn't speak Japanese. He was trying to get as far away from Siberia as possible and to make good his escape to Europe. Because he didn't dally in Japan to contact a non-existent revolutionary workers movement this makes him Eurocentric? As for the United States of Europe, if you actually bothered to reference the text where Bakunin advocated that, it was in the context of his federalist socialism, with each commune and geographical area having the full right of secession, with the workers directly managing the means of production through their workers' associations. He never advocated that the United States of Europe be established as an imperialist power to rule over non-European peoples. As for Bakunin's Confession to the Tsar, you're fine with quoting Nettlau when it suits your purposes but we won't find you making reference to any of his analysis of the Confession because he puts it in its proper historical context - a desperate attempt by Bakunin, who was on the verge of suicide having been held literally in chains and in solitary confinement, where he developed scurvy and lost his teeth and almost died, to obtain some relief from his misery. To cite the Confession, which was only published after the Russian Revolution, as providing an accurate depiction of Bakunin's views is more than disingenuous. And thanks for your attempt to tie Bakunin in to the neo-Nazis! Robgraham 16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually it is not a matter of accusing anyone who disagrees with me of . . ., however when people deliberately try and suppress information, then it is a different matter. As for Bakunin in Japan, the Anarchist magazine Namazu went into that issue in some detail. Their conclusion was that it was a matter disinterest rather than lack of contacts. As regards the eurocentrism of his call for a USE, well it was just that eurocentric. The fact that he was federalist does not make him any less eurocentric any more than the fact that Proudhon was a federalist made him any less nationalistic. As regards the Confession, my understanding is that it only came to light after the Russian revolution when it was found in the state files. It shows a readiness of Bakunin to through his lot in with the Tsar for some sort of pan-slav political movement. Perhaps you would do better comtributiong material about the confession to the article, rather than annoying people removing justifiable references to Bakunin's political evolution. Personally I find your readiness to suppress information about Bakunin's anti-semitism and eurocentrism more insidious than the claims of the neo-nazi idiot below. At least upfront neo-nazis like below can be readily identified, whereas your attempts to sweep controversial aspects of Bakuinin's career under the carpet smacks of more hypocracy. Judging by your deletions, you have very real problems with dealing with the clear reality that Bakunin was a pan-Slavic Nationalist, which might also have some bearing on his anti-semitism. Also as work continues on this article you will have to face the fact that some of Bakunin's followers actively advocated anti-semitic pogroms towards the end of the nineteenth century.Harrypotter 12:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This will be the last time I respond to your invective and abuse. Your link to Namazu is neither to the article nor the magazine, so as usual it's impossible for anyone to verify whether the article says what you claim, or to review the sources used in the article. Your claim that European federalism = eurocentrism is a complete non-sequitur. Your misuse of the Confession is shameless POV posturing. I haven't suppressed anything but rather have sought to keep the references to Bakunin's anti-semitism and anti-Germanism within reasonable bounds. Robgraham 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I feel I owe you (and everyone else) an apology, my dear old Robgraham, it was not Namazu but Libero International which published the article. And hey, some kind sole has even put it on the web. I'm sorry, but it has been over twenty five years since I read the article. But it was indeed a joy to read it again. Personally it was one of the articles which helped me understand better the fnature of @narchism. And if you feel it does not spell out clearly enough the situation of Mr B.s eurocentrism, I have even taken a little quote from the Anarchist Nettlau, as regards B.s correspondence with Herzen. I can't help feeling that your withdrawal from commenting on this page is not because you see my robust commentary as invective and abuse, but because the case you are arguing does not stand up to scrutiny. Anyway at least B.s bio is a little bit more advanced now.Harrypotter 21:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Judeo-totalitarian crowd-driven suppression of un-PC facts

Wikipedia is notorious for its crowd-driven liberalistic PC suppression of 'uncomfortable', 'inconvenient' facts about major historical figures. The truth about Bakunin is apparently too much to stomach for modern postmodernized soft-bellies. Similarly, the Nietzsche article is consumeristically-friendly, postmodernized, and distortive, no reality comes through. Demoliberal Jewish-Christian ressentiment and assassination of reality is here evident. Perhaps if wikipedia ever wishes to earn any sort of respect, it would not permit its quality to be constantly degraded by hypersensitive Judeo-totalitarian and demoliberal fanatics and assassinators of reality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.219.230 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2006 AND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.22.21 (talk)

Why don't you just edit it, then...? Tpth 03:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reason "why": View my contributions to follow these persistent trollings. Happy trails in the delusions of fantasy. Sighs 07:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

er, so by contribution you actually mean vandalism, ie a subtractive or chisselling rather than an additive or amplic form of writing ? 195.92.40.49 12:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, destructive users like "Sighs" (a possible Jewish ethnic activist, see Kevin MacDonald) whose efforts in smearing and suppressing ironically confirm the previous poster's very thesis...

Why, (please somebody explain) there's an anti-Semitism section? It's useless, pointless and totally unnecessary. Bakunin gave a much more harder time to catholicism and was against all religions and religious believers. I don't see an anti-catholicism section, do you? What about an anti-budism section? But no, I really don't need no explanation, I can tell this is the result of resentment and some kind of sensitive hipocresy. Its bullshit, that's what it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, how can it even try to be it when there are people driven by prejudices and an easily offended sensitivity? My polish grandpa's sisters and brothers died on the hands of Nazis, but you don't see me bitching about Palestine and defending Israel's cause, do you? Objectivity. I vote for the deletion of the anti-Semitism section. Spikedude44 11:35, 31 January 2008

Restoration of Siberian Material and clarification of Heco material

It is indeed deplorable that someone who has removed an account of Mr B.s political activity in Siberia, when it sheds light on his later political development, particularly with the League of Peace and Freedom. Obviously that section also needs to be developed, and I have done a little work on it. I have also clarified Heco's role the Meiji Restoration. Would it be too much to hope for that the so-called "historian", Robgraham, desists from removing all the material which prevents him from reducing Mr B. to some sort of cardboard cut out anarchist, in accordance with his own political prejudices. Whilst it has taken some time to assemble all the references for this material, Robgraham outbursts that these additions have been without basis and are POV have been shown to be empty. They have all been backed up now with references. In particular:

1) "He never advocated that the United States of Europe be established as an imperialist power to rule over non-European peoples." Well perhaps technically true, but Bakunin was involved in an imperialist project of setting up a federal society in Siberia to rule over non European people.

2)"When Bakunin was in Japan there was no trade union movement, nor any socialist movement. He couldn't speak Japanese. He was trying to get as far away from Siberia as possible and to make good his escape to Europe. Because he didn't dally in Japan to contact a non-existent revolutionary workers movement this makes him Eurocentric?" He was in close contact with an active participant in the revolutionary overthrow of a feudal society. True this was much more a bourgeois revolution carried out by Samurai, but as Bakunin had been and was to continue to be actively involved with radical republicans as in the League of Pece and Freedom, the a-historical reference to a workers movement illustrate more the ideological blinkers which dear old Robgraham not only chooses to wear but would foster on the readers of this page. Indeed when we look at the history of the Republic of Ezo, I think we can see how the blindness of eurocentrism unfortunately held Bakunin back, both during his Far East sojourn and later, even though Emile Acollas, (also of the LPF) fortunately did not suffer this mental impediment. Whereas many may feel that Bakunin's short comings in this respect are mitigated by the Eurocentric spirit of his age, I am less sure to what extent such pleading can do for Robgraham, who rather than learning from this exposition, seems to have grasped ever more tightly to a somewhat two dimensional understanding of what a wikipedia entry on Bakunin should be. Of course it would be much better if Robgraham were to learn from their mistakes and concentrate on making more positive contributions to this and other pages. I hope they do!Harrypotter 00:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Invisible Dictatorship

IMO invisible dictatorship is not notable enough to warrant its own article. As far as I know, its a term that appears only in a handful of Bakunin's letters to friends. If there is more to be said about the term, I believe that it is best said in this article's criticism section (where it is already mentioned in brief). - N1h1l

Ok. Since I made this proposal yesterday, the invisible dictatorship article has been expanded somewhat to include non-anarchist, non-Bakuninist uses of the phrase. So maybe a merge is not the correct course of action. Any comments or suggestions? - N1h1l 19:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge proposal as regards the invisible dictatorship in light of the above and taken the quote from Anarchy and Statism in the critique of marx and away from its place in the chronologyHarrypotter 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the merge proposal from this article. - N1h1l 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of ridiculous apolgetics

I have removed the ridiculous apologetics providing an unsourced suggestion that Bakunin's anti-semitism was in some way a product of his anti-religiou sentiments. This is because his anti-semitism was in part directed against atheist Jews such as Karl Marx, who incidently was brought up in a protestant household as his father converted to Christianity to retin his governmental post when the Prussian regime tok over Westphalia. Also it not just a matter of Bakunin being "accused" of anti-semitism - he was an anti semite and the people who try and cover this up merely end up turning themsleves into apolgists for anti-semitism themselves - surely something they do not really want to do . . . /Harrypotter 02:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, (please somebody explain) there's an anti-Semitism section? It's useless, pointless and totally unnecessary. Bakunin gave a much more harder time to catholicism and was against all religions and religious believers. I don't see an anti-catholicism section, do you? What about an anti-budism section? But no, I really don't need no explanation, I can tell this is the result of resentment and some kind of sensitive hipocresy. Its bullshit, that's what it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, how can it even try to be it when there are people driven by prejudices and an easily offended sensitivity? My polish grandpa's sisters and brothers died on the hands of Nazis, but you don't see me bitching about Palestine and defending Israel's cause, do you? Objectivity. I vote for the deletion of the anti-Semitism section. Spikedude44 11:35, 31 January 2008

Removed POV tag

I checked the cites re: his anti-Semitism. There's no credible doubt that he was an antisemite and so say pro anarchist sources:

That was why in his controversies with Marx and Lassalle, in which he denied that their views on the revolution were different simply because he did not understand the essential difference between them, Bakunin used to attribute their doctrines either to their German sentiments or to their Jewish descent. "I am convinced," he wrote, "that the Rothschilds value Marx's services, and that Marx instinctively feels attracted towards and entertains profound respect for the Rothschilds." August Bebel, the well-known leader of the German working class, used to call anti-Semitism "the socialism of fools." But Bakunin's anti-Semitism was more deep-seated. Its roots went down into that aristocratic, landowning, exploiting environment from which he had come, and with whose sentiments he never succeeded in breaking completely. History of Anarchism in Russia, by E. Yaroslavsky, Anarchy Archives

To call noting this a smear or anti-anarchist propaganda is nonsense. The only comment I'd make is that the second B quote seems a bit long. I was going to edit it down but couldn't decide where to snip. Armon 11:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Why, (please somebody explain) there's an anti-Semitism section? It's useless, pointless and totally unnecessary. Bakunin gave a much more harder time to catholicism and was against all religions and religious believers. I don't see an anti-catholicism section, do you? What about an anti-budism section? But no, I really don't need no explanation, I can tell this is the result of resentment and some kind of sensitive hipocresy. Its bullshit, that's what it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, how can it even try to be it when there are people driven by prejudices and an easily offended sensitivity? My polish grandpa's sisters and brothers died on the hands of Nazis, but you don't see me bitching about Palestine and defending Israel's cause, do you? Objectivity. I vote for the deletion of the anti-Semitism section. Spikedude4s 11:35, 31 January 2008

Marx "not Jewish"

Marx was of course Jewish. He came from a long line of Rabbis, but his father, a civil servant in West Phalia converted to protestantism, when antisemitic regulations were brought in. Following this the sectons of the family which upheld Judaism broke contact with the Marx family. However all this material does not really belong in an article on Mr B.Harrypotter 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

First anti-semitic quote

Where does the first quote come from? I'm sure have asked this before. maxrspct in the mud 15:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Washing machine world

Front-loading washing machine.

yeh, I am sure we have been here before. What seems to happen is that certain people are a bit shocked to discover Bakunin's anti-semetic views, and ask for references. These are supplied, and then another group of people ask why there is so much space given over to what they regard as regrettable if not offensive views. This probably results from the idea that Mr B. can be some sort of archetypical anarchist, where as he is an historical figure who had a long career an a a pan slavic nationalist working in the pay of the French state in 1848, and later as an agent of Muriev's Siberian colony. In this context I feel that David Urquhart accusations that Bakunin was a tsarist agent need putt ing in context of Urquhart's anti-Russianism, and that Muriev at the time of his funding of Bakunin was considering independence form the Russian Empire. Proably a lot of the material on this is not available in English . . .Harrypotter 21:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Euro centrism

The Eurocentrism section makes little actual sense, it seems to consist of 3 allegations, these are

1. His Eurocentrism manifested itself in his call for a United States of Europe,

Is this eurocentrism if you live and are politically active in several countries in Europe?

2. his support for Russian Imperialism, particularly as practised by his relative and patron Count Nikolay Muravyov-Amursky

There isn't any evidence for this claim beyond that he was related to this guy.

3. his indifference to Japan and Japanese peasants during and after his brief stay in Yokohama.[5].

This at least is referenced but the claim itself is very odd as the most Bakunin could have been in Yokohama was two months (that is the time span between leaving Siberia and arriving in the US). It was probably much less so this seems akin to accusing someone who has been on a holiday to Cario of being euro centric for not being aware of some Egyptian rural struggle. There is no evidence that Bakunin spoke Japanese or that he visited the countryside near Yokohama so I see no reason to even assume he was aware to peasant struggles that may or may not even have been occuring in that brief period.

I while back I added the following piece of context to the end of that paragraph

"All these aspects of his thought however date from before he became an anarchist. Bakunins conversion to anarchism was not till 1865, some years after his exile in Siberia and escape through Japan.[6]"

but having given this some further thought I don't think this section adds anything to the article at all and so its removal would improve the article AndrewFleming72 15:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Its over two months since I posted the above and there has been no response, the continues inclusion of this section makes little sense given my comments above, it is little more than POV speculation on an area very marginal to the article itself. I will remove the section in the near future unless solid reasons are presented to do otherwise AndrewFleming72 11:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed this section for the reasons given above AndrewFleming72 14:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored this:

1)This has to be seen in the context of his collaboration with Russian settlers in Siberia who wanted to set up a settler state modelled on the USA.

2)Nikolay Muravyov-Amursky was not only his relative but patron. He made is escape from Siberia only after his patron had been sacked.

3)He travelled for several days on a ship with Joseph Heco, an active participant in the revolution in Japan known as the meiji Restoration. Heco spoke English. Compare Bakunin to Emile Acollas, who he knew through the League of Peace and Freedom, who taught Nakae Chomin, leader of the radical wing of the Freedom and People's Rights Movement. Sorry it has taken so long todeal with this, but it had escaped my attention.Harrypotter (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Bakunin's anti-semitism

Well, not really, but I followed the reference from the Marx quotation in the above section and it appears that his letter to Engels has been translated into German and back into English. It has evidently gained some colourful language in the process. In the quote, "nigger" appears twice, but here is the same passage quoted in Léon Poliakov, The Aryan Myth: A History of Racist and Nationalist Ideas in Europe (1971 [1977], New American Library), p.246:

"I now see clearly that he is descended, as the shape of his head and his hair clearly indicate, from the Negroes who were joined to the Jews at the time of the exodus from Egypt (unless it was his mother or paternal grandmother who mated with a Negro). But this mixture of Judaism and Germanism with a Negro substance as a base was bound to yield a most curious product. The importunity of the man also is negroid."

I recommend this version if the quote is included at all. It might not make the point quite so colourfully, but presumably Poliakov is at least quoting the original. Though I have to question whether Marx's attitude to Jewish-Negro mixture tells us anything about his anti-semitism as such. Gnostrat 00:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read (and will try to dig out the source) that 'n****r" is the more accurate translation of the German word used. Given that the source of the translation is the marxist internet archive is would be a surprize if they used a translation that reflected unfavourably on him. Of course as it is a translation from German to English this is something that can be argued over. As both n****r and negro are use within the current translation this suggests that two different words were used in the German original rather than that a substituion of one for the other has occurred in this translation.

Not really a suitable source but an old email to the maxists list claims the original German was "jüdische Nigger Lassalle" and translates this as "jewish Nigger Lasalle" - the text the marxists.org archive is sourced to is the MECW Volume 41, p. 388 which would be considered definitive although it would be useful to check the print version to make sure the transcription is accurate.

The quotation is quite relevant as Bakunins use of anti-semetic slurs is most often with regards to Marx and is most often raised as part of the dispute between marxism and anarchism. So it demonstrates not only that was would now be considered unacceptable racist abuse was common on the left but that both sides of this notorious split engaged in such language. AndrewFleming72 13:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, and it looks like I was mistaken about the re-translation. Thanks for digging :) Gnostrat 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why, (please somebody explain) there's an anti-Semitism section? It's useless, pointless and totally unnecessary. Bakunin gave a much more harder time to catholicism and was against all religions and religious believers. I don't see an anti-catholicism section, do you? What about an anti-budism section? But no, I really don't need no explanation, I can tell this is the result of resentment and some kind of sensitive hipocresy. Its bullshit, that's what it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, how can it even try to be it when there are people driven by prejudices and an easily offended sensitivity? My polish grandpa's sisters and brothers died on the hands of Nazis, but you don't see me bitching about Palestine and defending Israel's cause, do you? Objectivity. I vote for the deletion of the anti-Semitism section. Spikedude44 11:35, 31 January 2008

Sartre didn't exist in Bakunin's lifetime

71.114.216.105 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Sorry but Bakunin couldn't read Sartre. Sartre wasn't even close to being conceived let alone an established philosopher.

Removed statement about Marx

I removed this text from the section on Bakunin's anti-Semitism:

Karl Marx, Bakunin's associate and intellectual rival during this time dealt with this issue in his seminal work On the Jewish Question.

for three reasons. I'm not entirely sure it's relevant, OtJQ is not really Marx's 'seminal' work, and the idea that the work is anti-Semitic is controversial. There's also the statement that anti-Semitism was common among the anti-capitalists of the 19th century. Could someone find a cite or remove this please? I would just remove it, but I have seen accusations of anti-Semitism levelled at a few prominent old leftists before, so it may well be true. --210.246.30.134 09:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (aka superioridad^discusion)

Why, (please somebody explain) there's an anti-Semitism section? It's useless, pointless and totally unnecessary. Bakunin gave a much more harder time to catholicism and was against all religions and religious believers. I don't see an anti-catholicism section, do you? What about an anti-budism section? But no, I really don't need no explanation, I can tell this is the result of resentment and some kind of sensitive hipocresy. Its bullshit, that's what it is. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, how can it even try to be it when there are people driven by prejudices and an easily offended sensitivity? My polish grandpa's sisters and brothers died on the hands of Nazis, but you don't see me bitching about Palestine and defending Israel's cause, do you? Objectivity. I vote for the deletion of the anti-Semitism section. Spikedude44 11:35, 31 January 2008

Blaming "Marx's followers" for the expulsion of the Bakuninists from the 1872 congress

"Bakunin joined the Geneva section of the First International, in which he remained very active until he was expelled from the International by Karl Marx and his followers at the Hague Congress in 1872."

They were democratically voted out by the entirity of the organization.

This article has Anarchist bias all over it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.79.193.120 (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-semitism section (again)

I see no purpose for the completely uncited section about Bakunin's alleged anti-semitism. The accusations are completely baseless, as the "critics" are unnamed and unreferenced. Also, there is no citation for claims about anti-Jew ideas being common among anti-authoritarians of that period. It is poorly written and there is no source for the Marx argument and quote. The citation that was there (now removed) had no mention of Bakunin at all, and only had one passing allusion to Marx, and that was about him being an atheist. The link is here. The only reference is about Proudhon writing that he wanted the Jews exterminated from Europe, which does not support claims of Bakunin's anti-Jew stance (and doesn't necessarily mean Proudhon was anti-Jew). I agree with the concerns raised by Spikedude44 above. I have put {{fact}} templates next to the claims. Suggestions or thoughts, anyone? --PlatanusOccidentalis (talk) 03:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Revolutionary Violence and Bakunin

A passage has been added dealing with Bakunins views about violence and revolution. I never read in any of Bakunins writings that not all revolutions need be violent, expecially not in his writings appearing after the suppression of the Paris Commune.

Moreover He was opposed to certain ideas of a number of Marxists, arguing that not all revolutions need be violent makes not much sense, because probably the only Marxist he was opposed to was Marx himself (and he would have had the same objections to all Marxists and not only a number of them). --Koroesu (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Definition of "Dictatorship"

Would some bright spark assist with the etymology of "dictatorship" as used by Bakunin and Karl Marx?

The sense and frequently context of their use of the term does not appear to be taken in the modern tense of demagogue, autocrat or tyrant.

Hence, without qualification, interpreting the word in a strictly modern meaning may be quite the opposite of what either man intended!

Example: - "dictatorship of the proletariat” --the modern mind might reasonably question, how can you have a "dictatorship” when everyone is a dictator?!

What precisely, did they mean in their era and doctrine, by this term?

The definition would be extremely informative and helpful to readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archilles last stand (talk • contribs) 05:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation system

The citation and referencing system on this article is a mess. It's impossible to follow an established method because there is none. The Bibliography uses one system (title-author-publisher-date), Further Reading puts author before title, and the References section is a chaos of competing styles. WP:CITE requires consistency of citation styles so I began to harmonise them in line with the method familiar from a good many scholarly publications (author-date-title-page-publisher-ISBN), only to be reverted. I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this matter, so could people please decide which one style they want for this article?

Perhaps it's easier to standardise the other way, since most references seem to put title before author. I checked the edits and the earliest system in the Bibliography is title-author-publisher-date (14:19, 9 May 2005) while the earliest used in the References, but only by a whisker, is title-author (09:10, 8 Aug 2006). WP:CITE#HOW recommends going with the earliest method used, but only when there's a disagreement. If folk can come to a consensus on some more advantageous system, I'd like that better. Gnostrat (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

If people who watch this page are also interested in how Wikipedia is governed, be sure to check out this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development . Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Italian period

I find the section on Bakunin's time in Italy confusing. "Bakunin asked Garibaldi to participate in a movement.." but doesn't note Garibaldi's response. "By June, he had resolved to move to Italy, but was waiting for his wife to join him." from where? Irkutsk? "When he left for Italy in August, Mazzini wrote..." When and where did he meet Mazzini? "Bakunin rejected Mieroslawski's chauvinism and refusal to grant any concessions to the peasants" What sort of chauvanism did Mieroslawski exhibit and what concessions did Bakunin desire? "his friend Aurelio Saffi" Who is Saffi and where did they meet?

I'd also like to know how he supported himself (and his wife) during this and other periods when he had no obvious income. Did he ever have any kids? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.79.10.114 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

repetitive quotations

There are two long quotes in the "anti-semitism" section. The second, longer quote contains the entire content of the first quote -- it's obviously just a different translation. If I pare down the second quote to just what's in the first quote, you can see what I mean.

First, the entire first quote:

“ This whole Jewish world, comprising a single exploiting sect, a kind of blood sucking people, a kind of organic destructive collective parasite, going beyond not only the frontiers of states, but of political opinion, this world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other... This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralisation of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found. ”

Now, the second quote, pared down, by me, to just the content of the first quote:

“ Now this entire Jewish world, which constitutes an exploiting sect, a people of leeches, a voracious parasite, closely and intimately connected with another, regardless not only of frontiers but of political differences as well -- this Jewish world is today largely at the disposal of Marx or Rothschild. [...] This may seem strange. What could there be in common between communism and high finance? Ho ho! The communism of Marx seeks a strong state centralization, and where this exists, there the parasitic Jewish nation -- which speculates upon the labor of people -- will always find the means for its existence.... ”

They are the same, just a different translation. It seems repetitive. M-1 (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Both quotes are actually from unpublished manuscript fragments. The first is from a manuscript identified as "Lettre aux Internationaux de Bologne. Pièces explicatives et justificatives No. 1," and the second from an identified as "Rapports personnels avec Marx. Pièces justificatives No 2." Both were written in Locarno, Switzerland in December, 1871. Both translations engage in a bit of paraphrase. The repetition does seem to be excessive, and, honestly, if this is the evidence, the claim that Bakunin was an "outspoken" anti-Semite probably isn't supported. A keyword search of the contents of the complete works CD-ROM turned up plenty of evidence that Bakunin was perhaps excessively aware of who was and wasn't a Jew around him, but not much outspokenness of the sort implied by the article as it now stands. I'm not going to make an edit, but there are some of the facts. Libertatia (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism" - Anti-Semtitism, Eurocentrism, Nationalism

How is that criticism? Under nationalism it's just a paragraph from Baknunin on his thoughts of nationalism. There's no critique there of Baknunins view of nationalism. It should be placed under Thought instead. Same goes for the other two.

Under 'Violence, revolution, and "Invisible dictatorship"' there's actual criticism of Bakunin, not just some lines describing his thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.146.14 (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013

A "citation needed" reminder follows the following text in the article: "What! Are you sitting down eating oysters! Well! Tell me the news. What is happening, and where?!" The source is an article by Philip Billingsley, available here: http://libcom.org/library/bakunin-yokohama-dawning-pacific-era Ddlt (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

On elections

I found (thanks to Reddit btw) this resource from him: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1870/on-elections.htm Maybe add it as an external link. It is on the same site as "Writings on Bakunin", however that reference doesn't link to this piece. Codegrinder (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

On 'founder of anarchism' claim

The intro to the article includes the line "Many scholars argue he is the founder of anarchist theory in general" with reference. However, this is only correct if the reference considers Social Anarchism to be the only form of anarchism. From a NPOV, or the objective POV of wikipedia, the scope of Anarchism is not limited to Social Anarchism, and therefore Bakunin cannot possibly by the father or founder of "Anarchist" theory in general.

There are already many references that consider Proudhon to be the father of modern anarchist thought, with his founding of Mutalism (in 1840's), which preceded Social Anarchism by several decades (1860's, 70's), and Market Anarchism. However, one of the users who has reverted my edit cited that "True, but many scholars (as demonstrated by the ref) would disagree with idea of Proudhon as an anarchist". This cannot be true, since Bakunin himself regarded Proudhon as the first anarchist (references here), which is true since he was the first person to call himself an "anarchist" to begin with. 72.231.4.108 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

[1]: Daniel Guerin, Anarchism: From Theory to Practice (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1970).

The problem should be solved by simply saying "a founder" instead of "the founder". Clearly there are many scholars who see either Produhon or Bakunin as the most significant founder of anarchist thinking.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reference (book) in question here, looks at Anarchism purely within the scope of Social Anarchism. And this is often the case, since an Anarcho-socialist by principle would never accept a Capitalist (or in this case Mutualist) as a fellow Anarchist. So the reference itself is arguably biased or simply not wholesome. Yet the line it is cited with, claims Many scholars argue he is the founder of anarchist theory in general. 72.231.4.108 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:Maunus that he is "a founder" of Anarchism rather than "the founder". However, he is technically the founder of "Social anarchism", at least. So if we can modify your edit to the line on the main page, it would be useful to state that. 72.231.4.108 (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Scientific socialism quote

The following quote:

Bakunin also rejected the notion of "scientific socialism," writing in God and the State that a "scientific body to which had been confided the government of society would soon end by devoting itself no longer to science at all, but to quite another affair... its own eternal perpetuation by rendering the society confided to its care ever more stupid and consequently more in need of its government and direction."

In the context of God and the State, has absolutely nothing to do with Marx and Engels' conception of scientific socialism. You might read it as a critique of technocracy or vanguardism, but this explanation is just blatantly wrong.