Mikhail Bakunin’s essay “Statism and Anarchy” outlines his critique of the state and his argument for social revolution as the path to improving the human condition.
I believe that our political views are inseparable from our personal background, so let’s review a quick summary of Bakunin’s life and work.
Mikhail Bakunin was born into a noble Russian family and became obsessed with German philosophy in his 20s. While studying abroad, he was radicalized by some of the prominent thinkers of the time. The Russian Empire, like other European powers, tolerated no dissent, forcing Bakunin to remain abroad to continue his revolutionary activities.
Although European states were repressive, their greater sovereignty and significant interstate rivalries led them to sometimes turn a blind eye to certain revolutionaries. This was contingent on the belief that these individuals would harm their rivals more than themselves. Many radical thinkers used this “jurisdictional arbitrage” to find temporary refuge and continue their work of stirring social revolution.
“Statism and Anarchy” analyzes the political trends of 19th-century Europe, with a specific focus on Germany. The essay also makes several broad statements that clarify the 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.
In summary, Bakunin rejected all forms of government and was deeply skeptical of democracy as an alternative to traditional systems like monarchy. He warns that interstate cooperation is not the positive development it may appear to be. While it might end wars between nations, it would enable them to wage a far more devastating war against their own populations.
I generally agree with Bakunin’s view that the formal type of government is less important than the quality and character of the ruling class. It is evident that some countries are better managed than others, largely because they are more meritocratic and have better “social ladders”. However, this can be achieved through various systems. Democracy does not appear to be the most reliable path to this goal, and in this, I share his healthy skepticism.
The essay also advances the theory that Slavic tribes were incapable of forming a state without Roman or Germanic influence. Bakunin points to the Polish and East Slavic Szlachta as an example of an imported oppressive class. It is important to note, however, that modern historians largely reject this view, which I also find difficult to accept. A related and popular narrative posits that the first Russian ruler, Rurik, was a foreigner invited to rule, a concept that similarly seems dubious and rooted in nationalist myth-making. Despite not being backed by any historical evidence, this story is occasionally repeated even by high-ranking officials like Putin himself, though their repetition of it should not be mistaken for genuine belief.
Regarding another alternative to European monarchies, here is the author’s opinion on giving 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 is clear that Bakunin believed scientists should stay away from power, as they are just as fallible as anyone else. He also articulated deeper reasons for this, which he formulated as follows:
Thought precedes life - a recipe for centralization and dictatorship
Bakunin and anarchists in general were not anti-science, but they warned that an over-reliance on abstraction can cause one to lose touch with life itself. They considered the top-down application of such abstractions and generalizations to be dangerous. Bakunin envisioned bottom-up societies built on a mutual sense of belonging through shared language and culture. For him, the main driver of social change was direct, on-the-ground experience, not abstract theories. He argued that one need not be a scientist, or even literate, to act in one’s own best interest.
It is also evident that the author held a strong animosity toward Germany. Consider the following 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.
Here, Bakunin again criticizes Germany, portraying its leaders as a primary source of statist evil and centralization. He argued that Germans, unlike other Europeans, were averse to social revolution because of a cultural tendency to venerate state power. While I refrain from endorsing this sweeping generalization, it is a historical fact that Germany produced the Nazi regime and today operates as a key ally of the United States. This lends a degree of plausibility to the broader argument that certain cultural traditions, such as Confucianism in China, may place a higher value on obedience and social order.
In essence, the essay serves as both an attack on German culture and a broader critique of state power and centralization. The following quote illustrates this:
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.
Couldn’t agree more. Bakunin was a man of principle who split with the Marxists because he didn’t believe building new states would fix the problems of the old ones. The Marxists wanted all power centralized in their hands. Given that Marxist states generally didn’t turn out any better than monarchies or democracies, it looks like Bakunin’s skepticism was right.
Conclusion
Statism and Anarchy is a fascinating essay for anyone interested in the principal political and social trends of 19th-century Europe. While the book is not unbiased and, to my taste, contains excessive criticism of Germany, it serves as an excellent reference point for understanding the period.
Bakunin emphasizes the strategic importance of targeting the most vulnerable parts of the state machinery. Given that our resources are limited, he argues we must avoid spreading them too thin. I find this logic compelling. In the modern context, the Achilles’ heel of the state is arguably its money printer. The ability to undermine central banking and national currencies could precipitate the collapse of the modern, hyper-centralized state. From this perspective, innovations like Bitcoin offer an effective way of challenging the system.
After reading this essay, I am motivated to explore the following topics:
- The history of the International Workingmen’s Association.
- More on what caused the split between Marxists and Anarchists.
- The source of Hegel’s profound influence. His work seemed unremarkable in my prior studies of philosophy, warranting a deeper dive into his ideas and their historical impact.