Bakunins position wasn't "to overthrow the government by any means necessary: Assassinations, war, and uprising" your article conflates Bakunin’s analysis of state violence with an endorsement of indiscriminate force. his focus was on dismantling hierarchies via self-organised federations of workers
BTW anarchist theory addresses power vacuums through structured decentralisation (e.g., federations of communes/syndicates). The Spanish CNT (1936) organised industry, healthcare, and education via worker councils, proving self-management can replace state functions.
I believe you misquoted my article, because I did address that his focus is for the state to be replaced by worker federations. After the section you quoted, I then wrote: "Then— in the absence of a state, society is to be organized by a federation of autonomous workplaces and communes."
I literally quoted your article. You stated he posited "that the only way for society to be just would be to violently overthrow the government by any means necessary: Assassinations, war, and uprising" which is simply false.
1/2
Bakunin saw violence as a situational response, not a tactic to be glorified. His writings stress mass direct action (strikes, occupations) over insurrectionist plots. His work emphasised self-emancipation through collective struggle.
you frame it as violence.
Yes, he did see it as situational necessity. You are correct. The reason the violence aspect is emphasized among political philosophers, is because contemporary theoretical anarchists (specifically those named in my article) do not believe in violence or struggle to dismantle or shrink the state.
No, not a situational necessity, but response. There is a difference.
The violence aspect is being emphasised by yourself. If you read his work he is speaking of understandable reaction, not his position, which was NOT one of violence as you frame it for readers and even twist my comment above.
If you mean to imply Bakunin was averse to violence as a means, in his essay The Reaction in Germany, and both his works Statism and Anarchy and God and the State he frequently points at the inevitability of conflict, and that the state is to be abolished by force if necessary.
Bakunin did argue that dismantling hierarchical power might require force, but he also warned against replicating state violence or authoritarianism. Alternatives to the state required that : “Revolutionary methods must be in tune with revolutionary aims.” 1/2
Comments
1/2
you frame it as violence.
The violence aspect is being emphasised by yourself. If you read his work he is speaking of understandable reaction, not his position, which was NOT one of violence as you frame it for readers and even twist my comment above.
"Let us trust the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of life;—