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." - ThreadSky

endrea.net • 21 days ago

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."

Comments

nomasters.org•20 days ago

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

nomasters.org•20 days ago

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.

endrea.net•20 days ago

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.

nomasters.org•20 days ago

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.

endrea.net•21 days ago

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.

endrea.net•21 days ago

He didn't advocate for indiscriminate force, but specifically that use of force in service of deconstructing the state is permissible.

"Let us trust the eternal spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of life;—

endrea.net•21 days ago

The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!"

nomasters.org•20 days ago

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

nomasters.org•20 days ago

These quotes are often taken out of context. Bakunin's reference to "destruction" is metaphorical, referring to the dismantling of oppressive institutions (e.g., state, capitalism). 2/2

endrea.net•20 days ago

I don't think we disagree, but you would prefer framing it away from words like violence and instead "dismantling", collective struggle". There isn't much difference, as a collective struggle against the state will likely be violent, as the state will most likely not go down quietly.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply