Statism and Anarchy is a short essay by Mikhail Bakunin, where he expresses his views on the nature of the state and the ways to improve human condition via a social revolution.

I believe that our political views are inseparable from our personal background, so let’s get a quick summary on Bakunin’s life and work.

Mikhail Bakunin was born in a noble Russian family, and he was obsessed with German philosophy in his 20’s. He studied abroad and got radicalized by some of the prominent radical thinkers of that time. Russian Empire, like all the other European powers, didn’t really like any dissent, so Bakunin had to stay abroad in order to continue his revolutionary activities.

Although all European states were repressive, they were also much more sovereign, with significant interstate rivalry, so they were willing to turn a blind eye on certain revolutionaries, as long as they thought that those people will hurt their rivals more than themselves. Many radical thinkers used that “jurisdictional arbitrage” to find a temporary refuge and continue their work on stirring the social revolutions.

Statism and Anarchy analyzes political trends of 19th century Europe, with a specific focus on Germany. There are also a few broad statements which clarify author’s position on the nature of the state, such as:

States, essentially opposed to each other and irreconcilable to the end, could not and cannot find any other basis for unification than in the friendly enslavement of the masses of the people, who constitute the common basis and goal of their existence.

There is only one essential difference between a monarchy and the most democratic republic: in the former, the official world oppresses and robs the people for the greater benefit of the privileged, propertied classes, as well as their own pockets, in the name of the monarch; in a republic, however, it will oppress and rob the people in exactly the same way for the same pockets and classes, only now in the name of the people’s will.

As we can see, Bakunin wasn’t a big fan of any form of government, and he was extremely sceptical of democracy as an alternative to the older and more widespread systems such as monarchy. He warns us that the idea of states being too friendly to each other is not as good as it may sound. It might stop the wars between the states, but it will allow them to wage a much more devastating war against their own populations.

I generally agree with those views, the formal type of government in not as important as the quality of a ruling class. It’s obvious that some countries are better managed than the others, mostly because they tend to be more meritocratic and have better “social ladders”, but it can be achieved in many different ways, and democracy doesn’t even look like the best and surest way to achieve that, so I share his healthy scepticism.

This essay also mentions that Slavic tribes were unable to form a state without Roman or German influence. Bakunin uses Polish and Eastern-Slavic Szlachta as an example of imported class of oppressors. I’d like to note that modern historians do not agree with this theory, and I find it hard to believe in such stories. There is a pretty popular theory which states that first Russian leader saw actually a foreigner, hired to rule, which also seems obnoxious and absurd, although even the highest ranking officials such as Putin himself repeat this story from time to time (it doesn’t mean they really believe in it though).

The author also considered some other alternatives to European monarchies, here is his opinion on giving the power to a scientific class:

A scientist is by his very nature inclined to all sorts of mental and moral depravity, and his chief vice is the exaltation of his knowledge, his own mind, and contempt for all who are ignorant. Give him control, and he will become the most intolerable tyrant, because learned pride is disgusting, offensive, and more oppressive than any other.

It’s pretty clear that Bakunin was convinced that scientists should stay away of power, since scientists themselves are fallible. There are also deeper reasons, which he formulated as:

Thought precedes life - a recipe for centralization and dictatorship

It’s not that Bakunin and anarchists in general are anti-science, they just think that you may lose the life itself when you start building too many abstractions. It’s dangerous to use those abstractions and generalizations in a top-down fashion. Bakunin believed in bottom-up societies, where people have a mutual sense of belonging based on shared languages and culture, but the main driver of social change is direct on-the-ground life experience, not some fancy words and theories. According to Bakunin, you don’t have to be a scientist of even be literate in order to act in your best interest.

It’s also pretty clear that the author had some grudges against Germany. Let’s examine this quote, as an example:

Bismarck, with his usual boldness, his characteristic cynicism and contemptuous frankness, expressed in these words the whole essence of the political history of nations, the whole secret of state wisdom. The constant predominance and triumph of force - that is the real essence; everything that in political language is called law is only the sanctification of a fact created by force. Clearly, the masses of the people, thirsting for liberation, cannot expect it from the theoretical triumph of abstract law; they must conquer freedom by force, for which they must organize their elemental forces outside the state and against it.

So, he again bashes Germany and calls its leaders a root source of evil and centralization. He thought that Germans, unlike other Europeans, didn’t want social revolution since their main urge is to worship power. I have no strong opinion on that, but they did have Hitler, and they are still obediently serving the United States interests, after all. There must be a grain of truth in the idea that some cultures are more obedient than others, China with its Confucianism is just another example.

So the whole essay is basically an attack on German culture and a broader critique of governments and the trend of centralization. Here is another quote:

If there is a state, then there is necessarily domination, and therefore slavery; a state without slavery, open or disguised, is unthinkable - that is why we are enemies of the state.

I couldn’t agree more, Bakunin was a principled man, and he had to part his ways with Marxists precisely because he didn’t see building new states as a solution to the problems created by the existing ones. Marxists wanted centralization, but only in their own hands. I think it’s safe to say that Marxist states didn’t really fare any better than monarchies and democracies, on average, so it seems that Bakunin was right about that.

Conclusion

Statism and Anarchy is an interesting essay, especially if you want to learn more about the main political and social trends of 19th century Europe. The book is not unbiased and there are too many rumblings about Germany to my taste, but it serves me as a good reference point if you want to dive deeper into the history of that period.

Bakunin also emphasises the importance of focusing our attacks on the most vulnerable parts of the state machinery, since our resources are much more limited, and we shouldn’t spread them thin. I completely agree with this line of reasoning, and the Achilles’ heel of the modern state is obviously a money printer. If we will be able to destroy the money printer and undermine the national currencies, it will be the end of a modern hyper-centralized state, so things like Bitcoin should give us the biggest bang for a buck.

After reading this essay, I want to explore the following topics:

• The history of the International Workingmen’s Association.
• More on what caused the split between Marxists and Anarchists.
• Why was Hegel so influential? He seemed rather unremarkable when I studied the history of philosophy. Perhaps I should read more about this guy and his life and ideas.