147
caused to be brought upon the International frightened them. Although the
Manifesto dealing with the Paris Commune had been written by Marx at the request
of the General Council, these members hastened to renounce their association with
it. This caused a schism in the English section of the International.
These were the circumstances under which in September, 1871, a conference
of the International was called in London. Two chief questions were taken up at this
conference, one of which was the perplexing question concerning the struggle on the
political field. In connection with this, the question of Marx's forging the
Constitution of the International, which was pressed by the Bakuninists, was again
taken up. The answer given by the resolution adopted, left not a shadow of a doubt. It
indicated the complete defeat of the Bakuninists. As it is not widely known, we shall
cite the concluding paragraphs:
"In presence of an unbridled reaction which violently crushes every
effort at emancipation on the part of the working men, and pretends to
maintain by brute force the distinction of classes and the political domination
of the propertied classes resulting from it; ...
"That this constitution of the working class into a political party is
indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social Revolution and its
ultimate end -- the abolition of classes;
"That the combination of forces which the working class has already
effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever
for its struggles against the political powers of landlords and capitalists --
"The Conference recalls to the members of the International:
"That in the militant state of the working class. its economical
movement and its political action are indissolubly united."
The conference had to encounter the Bakuninists on another score. The
conviction that, despite Bakunin's protestations, his secret society continued to exist
became firmly established in the General Council. The conference therefore adopted
a resolution which prohibited any organisation with an independent programme to
function within the body of the International. In connection with this the conference
again took cognisance of the Bakuninists' declaration that the Alliance was disbanded
and announced that the incident was closed.
But there was still another regulation which was intended to cause the
discomfiture of Bakunin and his Russian followers. The conference resolved to
148
declare in the most categorical manner that the International had nothing to do with
the Nietchayev affair, that Nietchayev had falsely appropriated and utilised the name
of the International.
This decision was directed exclusively at Bakunin, who, as was well known,
had been for a long time connected with Nietchayev, the Russian revolutionist who
had fled from Russia in March, 1869. In the Fall of the same year Nietchayev
returned to Russia and with Bakunin's authority organised a special Bakuninist
group. Suspecting a certain student, Ivanov, of being a government spy, Nietchayev,
aided by some of his comrades, murdered him and again fled to Europe. Those
arrested in connection with this affair were put on trial in the summer of 1871. At the
trial the prosecution made public many documents in which there was hopeless
confusion as to the relation of Bakunin's society and its Russian branch with the
International. It is enough to compare these documents with Bakunin's writings
definitely to establish their authorship. These documents differed from his
proclamations addressed to his European comrades by their greater frankness. The
passages corrected and added by Nietchayev could be easily distinguished by the
greater coarseness and carelessness of presentation.
This affair has been generally interpreted in the following way. Bakunin, it
had been claimed, fell under the influence of Nietchayev who tricked him and used
him for his own purposes.
Indeed, Nietchayev, a poorly educated man, who rejected all theory as sterile,
was endowed with extraordinary energy, an iron will, and an unshakable devotion to
the revolution. At the trial and in prison he showed his staunch manliness and his
unquenchable hatred for the oppressors and the ex plotters of the people. Ready to
do anything, regarding any means good if he thought they would help him reach the
goal to which he had dedicated his life, he never stooped to baseness for personal
reasons. In this respect he was incomparably superior to Bakunin, the latter never
having hesitated to enter into any deals if they furthered his personal aims.
Nietchayev's moral superiority is beyond doubt. Everything points to the fact that
Bakunin himself was fully conscious of this, else how could Bakunin respect and
value so highly a man who was his intellectual inferior.
Yet it would have been naive to deduce from all this that Nietchayev had
imposed his revolutionary views on Bakunin. The converse is more nearly the truth;
he was a disciple of Bakunin. But while our apostle of ruin proved himself to be an
149
inconsistent character and an unstable revolutionist, Nietchayev was distinguished
by his iron consistency; he made all the practical deductions from the theoretical
propositions of his master. When Bakunin told him that he, Bakunin, could not
refuse to do the work he had undertaken (a translation of Capital) because he had
received money in advance, Nietchayev offered to free him of this obligation. This he
accomplished in a very simple fashion. He wrote to the intermediary between
Bakunin and the publisher demanding in the name of the revolutionary committee,
"The People's Revenge," that the gentleman leave Bakunin alone if he did not wish to
be killed.
Since, instead of the workers engaged in large industries, he had always
stressed the Iumpenproletariat as the real carriers of the social revolution, since he
had regarded criminals and robbers as the most desirable elements to be attracted
into the revolutionary ranks, his disciple, Nietchayev, quite consistently arrived at
the conclusion that it was necessary to organise a group of desperadoes in
Switzerland for the purposes of expropriation. Bakunin finally parted with his
disciple, not because of a dfference in principles, but because he was awed by
Nietchayev's directness. Bakunin never dared to make this separation public;
Nietchayev was in possession of too many compromising documents.
Immediately after the London Conference a still more savage battle broke out.
The Bakuninists declared open war against the General Council. They accused it of
shuffling the conference and of foisting upon the International the dogma of the
necessity of organising the proletariat into a special party for the purpose of gaining
political power. They demanded another Congress where this question would be
definitely settled.
This Congress for which both parties had been preparing most feverishly,
convened in September, 1872. For the first time Marx was present in person.
Bakunin was absent. The resolution of the Conference dealing with political action
was ratified. There was one small addition which was lifted verbatim from the
Inaugural Address of the International. It read:
"Since the owners of land and capital are always using their
political privileges to protect and perpetuate their economic
monopolies and to enslave labour, the great duty of the
proletariat is to conquer the political power."
Dostları ilə paylaş: |