Routledge Library Editions karl marx

with the result that the court sternly reprimanded him. After the Cologne communist trial and his experiences in exile Liebknecht was rather inclined to suspect spies everywhere, but he accepted the verdict of the court and offered Bakunin his hand as a sign of reconciliation, and the latter accepted it.

Bakunin was therefore all the more embittered when a few weeks later on the 2nd of October Moses Hess revived the old slanders in the Paris Reveil. Hess, who was present at the Basle congress as a German delegate, was giving the secret history of the congress, and in this connection he dealt with Bakunin’s alleged “ intrigues ” to undermine the fundamental basis of the International and secure the removal of the General Council from London to Geneva. He declared that Bakunin’s plans had come to nothing at the congress and concluded with the baseless insinuation that he, Hess, did not want to impugn Bakunin’s revolutionary honesty, but that the Russian was closely related to Schweitzer, who had been accused by the German delegates at the Basle congress of being an agent of the German government. The malicious intent of this denunciation was made all the clearer by the fact that it was quite impossible to establish any “ close relation ” between the agitation of Schweitzer and the agitation of Bakunin, and that personally the two men had never had anything whatever to do with each other.

It would certainly have been wiser for Bakunin to have ignored this article, which was ignoble enough in all conscience, but it is easy to understand that he was provoked to anger by the repeated attacks on his political honesty, particularly when the attacks were underhanded and malicious. He therefore wrote a reply, but in his initial anger the reply became so long that he realized himself that the Reveil could not possibly publish it. He attacked the “ German Jews ” with particular violence, but expressly excepted “ giants ” like Lassalle and Marx from the race of pygmies a la Borkheim and Hess. He then decided to use this long reply as an introduction to a book on his revolutionary beliefs and he sent it to Herzen in Paris with the request that the latter should try to find a publisher, and he added a shorter reply for the Reveil. However, Herzen feared that even this would not be published and he himself wrote a defence of Bakunin against Hess, and this defence was published by the Reveil tcgether with an editorial comment which completely mollified Bakunin.

Herzen was not at all satisfied with the longer reply. He disapproved of the attacks on the “ German Jews ”, and was surprised that Bakunin attacked little known people like Borkheim and Hess instead of challenging Marx. Bakunin answered




on the 28th of October declaring that although he considered Marx responsible for the attacks made on him he had refrained from attacking him for two reasons and had even called him a “ giant ”. The first reason was one of justice. “ Apart from all the nasty tricks he has played us, we, or at least I, cannot ignore his tremendous services to the cause of socialism, which he has served for almost twenty-five years with insight, energy and disinterestedness, and in which he has undoubtedly excelled us all. He was one of the founders, the chief founder in fact, of the International and in my eyes that is a tremendous service and one which I shall always recognize no matter what he may have done against us.”

And then he was guided by political and tactical considerations towards Marx, “ who cannot stand me and loves no one but himself and perhaps those who are nearest to him. Marx’s influence in the International is undoubtedly very useful. He has exercised a wise influence on his party down to the present day and he is the strongest support of socialism and the firmest bulwark against the invasion of bourgeois ideas and intentions. I should never forgive myself if I had even tried to destroy or even weaken his beneficial influence merely in order to revenge myself on him. However, a situation may arise, and shortly at that, in which I shall take up the struggle against him, though certainly not in order to attack him personally, but on a question of principle, on account of the State communism which he and the English and Germans he leads support so enthusiastically. That would be a life-and-death struggle, but everything comes in its own good time and the hour of conflict has not yet arrived.” And finally Bakunin mentions a tactical reason which prevented him from attacking Marx. If he attacked Marx openly then three-quarters of the International would be against him, but on the other hand if he attacked the ragtag and bobtail that crowded around Marx the majority of the International would be on his side and Marx himself would find a certain amount of malicious pleasure in it—“ Schadenfreude ” is the German word which Bakunin uses in his letter to Herzen, which is otherwise written in French.

Immediately after writing this letter Bakunin moved to Locarno. He was so occupied with his personal affairs that during the last few weeks he spent in Geneva after the Basle congress he took no part at all in the working-class movement and did not write a line for VEgalite. His successor on the editorial board was Robin, a Belgian teacher who had moved to Geneva about a year previously, and together with him Perron, the enameller who had edited the paper before Bakunin. Both




were supporters of Bakunin, but they did not act on his instructions. Bakunin’s aim was to enlighten the workers of the gros metiers, in whom the revolutionary proletarian spirit was much more alive than in the workers of the fahrique, and to encourage them to undertake independent action. In this he found himself in opposition to their own committees—and what he has to say about the objective dangers of such a “ departmental policy ” as we should call it nowadays, is well worth reading even now— not to speak of the fahrique, which had supported the workers of the gros metiers in their strikes and drew from this undeniable service the false conclusion that the workers of the gros metiers should follow faithfully every step of their colleagues of the fahrique. Bakunin had fought against these tendencies, particularly in view of the incurable leanings of the fahrique towards alliances with bourgeois radicalism. However, Robin and Perron thought that they could whitewash and patch up the differences between the gros metiers and the fahrique, differences which had not been created by Bakunin, but which had their basis in a social antagonism. As a result they slithered into a see-saw system which satisfied neither the gros metiers nor the fahrique and opened the door to all sorts of intrigues.

A master of such intrigues was a Russian fugitive named Nikolas Utin, who lived in Geneva at the time. He had taken part in the Russian student disturbances at the beginning of the ’sixties, and when the country grew too hot for him he fled abroad, where he lived comfortably on a considerable income—from twelve to fifteen thousand francs have been mentioned—which he derived from his father’s trading in spirits. This fact won him a position which the intellectual capacities of the vain and garrulous fellow could never have obtained for him. His successes were exclusively on the field of tittle-tattle where, as Engels once said, “ the man with something serious to do can never compete with those who have all day to gossip in ”. In the beginning Utin had made up to Bakunin, only to be thoroughly snubbed by him, and when the latter left Geneva Utin seized the opportunity to revenge himself for his wounded vanity by pursuing him with underhand slander. His efforts to this edifying end were not without result, and afterwards he cast himself humbly at the feet of the Tsar and begged for mercy. The Tsar was not adamant, and during the Russo-Turkish war of 1877 Utin became a contractor to the Tsarist army, in which capacity he no doubt worshipped mammon even more successfully than he had done through the paternal spirits business.

People like Robin and Perron were easy game for Utin because although their personal honesty was above reproach




they were almost incredibly clumsy, and to make matters worse they began a squabble with the General Council on questions which were certainly not of any urgent interest to the Franco- Swiss workers. L’Egalite complained bitterly that the General Council paid far too much attention to the Irish question, that it failed to set up a Federal Council for the English sections, that it did not arbitrate in the conflict between Liebknecht and Schweitzer, etc. Bakunin had nothing to do with all this, and the wrong impression that he approved of these attacks on the General Council or even instigated them was caused exclusively by the fact that Robin and Perron were his supporters and that Guillaume’s paper took up the same attitude.

The General Council replied to Robin’s attacks in a private circular dated the i st ofJanuary 1870 and addressed, apart from Geneva, only to the French-speaking Federal Councils. Although this circular was sharp in its tone it remained well within the limits of objective argument. The reasons which the General Council gave for not forming a Federal Council in England are interesting still. It declared that although the revolutiona/y initiative would probably come from France, nevertheless only England could serve as the lever for any serious economic revolution. It was the only country where there were no longer any peasants and where the ownership of the land was concentrated in the hands of a few landowners. It was the only country where the capitalist mode of production had established itself in almost the whole of production and where the great mass of the population consisted of wage-workers. It was the only country where the class struggle and the organization of the workers had reached 8, certain degree of universality and maturity. And finally, thanks to the dominant position of England on the world market, any revolution in its economic conditions would immediately react on the whole world.

Although therefore all the necessary material conditions for a social revolution existed in England, nevertheless the English workers did not possess either a capacity for generalization or revolutionary ardour. The task of the General Council was to give the English workers this spirit and this ardour, and the fact that it was performing its task successfully could be seen from the complaints of the big bourgeois newspapers in London that the General Council was poisoning the English spirit of the workers and driving them towards revolutionary socialism. An English Federal Council would come between the General Council of the International and the General Council of the trade unions and enjoy no prestige, whilst the General Council of the International would lose its influence on the great lever of the




proletarian revolution. It therefore refused to commit the folly of placing this lever in English hands and contenting itself with bombastic mouthings in the place of serious and unseen work.

Before this circular arrived at its destination the trouble came to a head in Geneva itself. Seven members of the editorial board of UEgaliti were supporters of Bakunin and only two were his opponents. Arising out of a subordinate and politically unimportant incident the majority raised the question of confidence, and it was then seen that with their vacillating policy Robin and Perron had sat down between two stools. The minority was supported by the Federal Council and the seven members of the majority had to resign, including Becker, who had been very friendly with Bakunin whilst the latter lived in Geneva, but who had found many things to object to in the policy of Robin and Perron. The control of VEgaliti then went over into the hands of Utin.

3. 
   The “ Confidential Communication ”
   

In the meantime Borkheim continued his incitement against Bakunin. On the 18th of February he complained to Marx that Die ZukunJt, the organ of Johann Jacoby, had refused to publish what Marx described in a letter to Engels as. “ a monster epistle on Russian affairs, an indescribable hodge-podge of minute details all tumbling one over the other ”. At the same time Borkheim cast suspicion on Bakunin “ in connection with certain financial transactions ”, on the authority of Katkoff, who in his youth had been a follower of Bakunin but later went over to the reaction. Marx paid little attention to this accusation, and Engels remarked philosophically : “ Borrowing money is too typical a Russian means of existence for one Russian to be able to reproach another about it.”

Mter informing Engels about Borkheim’s continued incitement against Bakunin Marx declared that the General Council had been called upon to decide whether a certain Richard (who later really turned out to be a bad hat) had been expelled from the International in Lyon with justification, and added that as far as he could see the man could be accused of nothing more than a slavish support of Bakunin and an accompanying priggishness. “ It appears that our last circular made a sensation and that in France and Switzerland a regular hunt against the




Bakuninists has begun. However, there must be moderation in all things and I shall see to it that no injustice is done.”

A confidential communication which Marx made a few weeks later on the 28th of March through the mediation of Kugelmann to the Brunswick committee of the Eisenachers was in strong contrast with the good intentions with which he had concluded his letter to Engels. The basis of this confidential communication was the circular of the General Council intended only for Geneva and for the French-speaking Federal Councils, which had long since served its purpose and which had in fact let loose the “ regular hunt ” against the Bakuninists of which Marx had expressed his disapproval. It is difficult to see why Marx communicated the contents of this circular to Germany in face of the unpleasant result it had already had elsewhere, particularly as Bakunin had no supporters in Germany at all.

It is still more difficult to understand why he provided the circular with an introduction and a close which were even more calculated to let loose a “ regular hunt ”, particularly against Bakunin. The introduction began with bitter reproaches against Bakunin, who had first of all attempted to smuggle himself into the League for Peace and Freedom, but in whose executive committee he had been watched as a “ suspected Russian ”. After having failed to secure the adoption of his programmatic absurdities in the League he had then turned his attention to the International in order to make it into his private instrument. To this end he had founded the Alliance of Socialist Democracy. After the General Council had refused to recognize the Alliance the latter had nominally been dissolved, but in fact it had continued to exist under Bakunin’s leadership, who had then sought to attain his ends with other means. He had put forward the question of the right of inheritance at the Basle congress in the hope of defeating the General Council on the theoretical field and causing its removal from London to Geneva. He had organized “ a downright conspiracy ” in order to secure a majority at the Basle congress; however, he had not been successful and the General Council had remained in London. “ Bakunin’s anger at the failure of his plan—perhaps he had attached all sorts of private speculations to its success—” had then expressed itself in the attacks of L’Egalite on the General Council, attacks which had been answered in the circular of the 1st of January.

Marx then inserted the full text of the circular in his confidential communication and continued : even before the arrival of the circular the crisis had come to a head in Geneva. The Franco-Italian Swiss Federal Council had disapproved of the attacks made by L’Egaliti on the General Council and decided




to keep a close control over the paper for the future. Bakunin had then retired from Geneva to Tessin. “ Soon afterwards Herzen died. Bakunin, who had disavowed his old friend and patron from the moment he wished to put himself forward as the leader of the European working-class movement, then immediately began to sound a fanfare in Herzen’s praise. Why ? Despite his own wealth Herzen had been in receipt of an annual sum of 25,000 francs for propaganda from the pseudo-socialist Pan-Slavist party in Russia, with which he was friendly. Thanks to his lavish praise Bakunin succeeded in obtaining this money himself and then ‘ took over Herzen’s heritage ’ unreservedly, as much as he hated it.” In the meantime a colony of young Russian fugitives had established itself in Geneva, students who were really honest in their endeavours and who had made the struggle against Pan-Slavism the chief point in their programme. They had asked to be admitted as a section of the International, proposing that Marx should be their provisional representative on the General Council, and both these requests had been granted. They had also declared that they were about to tear the mask from Bakunin’s face publicly. In this way the game of this highly dangerous intriguer would be up, at least as far as the International was concerned.

It is hardly necessary to enumerate the many errors this document contains. Generally speaking, the more incriminating the accusations it makes against Bakunin appear to be the more baseless they are in reality. This is true in particular of the accusation of legacy-hunting. No pseudo-socialist Pan- Slavist party in Russia ever paid Herzen 25,000 francs annually for propaganda. The unsubstantial basis of this fairy-tale was that in the revolutionary years a young Russian named Bat- metiev had given 20,000 francs to start a revolutionary fund and that Herzen had administered this fund. There is no reason whatever to believe that Bakunin ever showed any inclination to pocket this fund on his own behalf and certainly the warm obituary he wrote for Rochefort’s Marseillaise on a political opponent who had been a friend of his youth cannot be quoted in support of such a statement. At the utmost the obituary might offer an opportunity for an accusation of sentimentality, just as all the errors and weaknesses of Bakunin, no matter how numerous they may have been, were due to characteristics which were generally speaking the opposite of those which go to the make-up of a “ highly dangerous intriguer ”.

The concluding passages of the confidential communication show how Marx came to fall into these errors concerning Bakunin. His information was obtained from the Russian fugitives com




mittee in Geneva, in other words from Utin, or through him from Becker. At least, a letter from Marx to Engels seems to indicate that he obtained the most serious of the accusations, that of legacy-hunting, from Becker. However, this does not rhyme with a contemporary letter from the latter to Jung, which is still extant, in which Becker complains about the confusion prevailing in Geneva, about the antagonism between the fabrique and the gros metiers, about “ weak-nerved illusionists like Robin and obstinate cranks like Bakunin ”, but ends up by praising Bakunin and declaring that he was much better and more useful than he had been. The letters of Becker and the Russian fugitives committee in Geneva to Marx are no longer extant, and in both his official and private answers to this new section of the International Marx apparently thought it better to say nothing about Bakunin at all. He advised the Russian section to work chiefly for Poland, that is to say, to free Europe from its own proximity, and he did not fail to see the humour of being the representative of young Russia, declaring that a man could never know in what strange company he might fall.