Anarchist & Radical Book Club discussion

As part of Aprils book selection we're discussing Michael Bakunin's God and the State. Which is available online

I will leave the closing date open ended but at 80 pages odd it should be pinch to finish.

People should just discuss as and when.

Finished the first chapter.

"Who is right, the idealists or the materialists?"

My understanding is that the book is a response to the followers of Hegel who were split over the centrality of religion in his dialectics. Never read Hegel directly but his core work is Phenomenology of Spirit.

The idealists defended the theological aspects and the materialsts rejected it. This split is also referred to as left and right Hegelians I think.

For this reason, I think it can read almost like a rant and diatribe against a piece or persons you don't have to hand. So not sure what people unaware of the debates by Hegel's followers would make of text, obviously a context helps.


There is use of dialectic in explaining 'being' and 'nothing' and some of the sentiments are parallel to anything you could pluck from Marx. The defence of the materialist interpretation is best spelt out,

"Very far from pursuing the natural order from the lower to the higher, from the inferior to the superior, and from the relatively simple to the more complex; instead of wisely and rationally accompanying the progressive and real movement from the world called inorganic to the world organic, vegetables, animal, and then distinctively human - from chemical matter or chemical being to living matter or living being, and from living being to thinking being - the idealists, obsessed, blinded, and pushed on by the divine phantom which they have inherited from theology, take precisely the opposite course. They go from the higher to the lower, from the superior to the inferior, from the complex to the simple. They begin with God, either as a person or as divine substance or idea"

The core drive is that Bakunin feels religion blocks (or negates) your interpretation and conviction for social revolution.

"Condemned to a fruitless struggle, without issue and without end, we should for ever have to content ourselves with fighting it solely on the surface, in its innumerable manifestations, whose absurdity will be scarcely beaten down by the blows of common sense before it will reappear in a new form no less nonsensical."

"While the root of all the absurdities that torment the world, belief in God, remains intact, it will never fail to bring forth new offspring."

I have a number of problems with this arguement. Religion is not a vacuum, it to can be affected in a dialectial sense. So even if we designate religion to being reactionary, how do you explain stuff like Catholic Worker or even Liberation Theology?

Religion and the state may have been working in tandem as a whole in the 19th century but even before Bakunin's time religion had had a progressive role to play in the English Civil War, which Marx acknowledges. If no one as ever read Engels' piece 'On the History of Early Christianity' they should have a look. It tries to argue Jesus and his followers constituted some kind of early social movement.

I finished the first chapter too.

I am really not digging this rant.

Dude was writing a long time ago and basing his assumptions off proud knowledge of the newest science of his day, but ecology/evolutionary theory has moved so far beyond this intolerant, anthropocentric diatribe. And thank god, as it were. I don't see how Bakunin's description of historical inevitability, the linear movement of evolution from "inferior to superior," "simple to complex," which only confirms his own belief system, is any more logical than a belief in creation and a higher power. Humans are not an endpoint of evolution, not the goal of the world. That idea seems to indicate that the world would have some kind of consciousness or raison d'etre in order to have a goal. Which negates his original argument then?

Complexity and diversity! Circular, seasonal histories! A little healthy agnosticism/ignorance and openness to the validity of other people's paradigms, experiences, and ways of seeing/understanding the world! Please.

He's also really only writing about the almighty god of monotheism, mainly Christianity; statements like "If God is, man is a slave" only work logically if God must be an all-powerful creator. The book is titled "_God_ and the State" so maybe that's the only type of religion he's really referring to, in which case it'd be nice if he was clearer about that.

He just kind of erases other peoples, other people's histories, and other people's experiences. To be kind, I'd call it outdated and mired in its historical context, but given the sweeping way he writes and the implications of his call to action on other people, I dunno if it deserves kindness. Maybe it does? I hate that style of writing that isn't grounded and upfront about the author's standpoint. I appreciate the passion, though! It is really stirring.

Thanks for the background links, abclaret, I'll try to check them out. I am coming to this with very limited context I think.

"I don't see how Bakunin's description of historical inevitability, the linear movement of evolution from "inferior to superior," "simple to complex," which only confirms his own belief system, is any more logical than a belief in creation and a higher power."

I think he's simply playing with dialectical reasoning to provoke 'right hegelians' into appreciating that God is the negation of humanity. Dialectics is simply a form of reasoning that was challenging the dominate school of empiricism at the time, which unlike empiricism can help us understand change and metamorphosis. Models can be as simplistic or as taxing as we want to make them, but like Aristotelean logic it need to start basic. You can't make a plant grow faster by pulling at it, has my Kungfu instructor once told me.

Its difficult to circumscribe the motivation behind the piece, but I can't forsee that Bakunin actually thinks abolishing God is actually a contestable aim. To guess him I would argue he's either arguing for the removal of God from materialist logic, or hes on about abolishing God in the purely political sense, in the same way The Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of private property, i.e. its removal as a societal form.

Finished the second chapter. Much harder slog than I thought. Lots of tangents and as a more scatter-gun approach to reasoning and constructing an argument.

Contains gems like this;
"I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him."
but generally alot of repetition is employed throughout.

Takes an account centrally against idealism/theism, on mainly two points which is singled out well in this quote;
"It is evident that the essential condition of theoretical or divine idealism is the sacrifice of logic, of human reason, the renunciation of
science. We see, further, that in defending the doctrines of idealism one finds himself enlisted perforce in the ranks of the oppressors and exploiters of the masses."
So I think my earlier points about the piece being mainly about dialectics and secularism are still valid.

He expands at length on the nature of logic, law and science, and how it is distorted by religion. All of course from a materialist perspective. Against this there is the proposition for the 'authority of science' but there is a precursor bit about the dangers of technocracy! And rulership by experts. He argues clearly about the free development of ideas and interests. All laudable stuff.

I did get hints of positivist thinking in some of the arguments but nothing particular stuck out like the parody some like to paint of marxism and anarchism. Reason and logic, sometimes carries with it cultural and imperialist baggage, think about 'Clash of civilisation' logic of recent imperialism which thinks its fighting anti-modernist currents in the form of radical islam. Clearly Bakunin believes science is a counter to the ideology of the state, which may well have been the case in his time, but less so ours I would have thought.

Bit I had a problem with, aside the silly reference to Greek and Roman history (also Italy and Germany) was that where Marx seems to see religion, politics etc. as part of the ideological superstructure for defending the base class and economic interests, Bakunin seems to have developed a really obtuse and clumsy reading of the function of religion. The state surely bolsters religion. I would have contested religions are groups wedded mainly to the status quo, but whose interests can ebb and flow like any other institution. Refuge support, anti-war stuff and community outreach are all stuff I have encountered. People use them for good and bad, whatever you feel of their view on the existence of god. Clearly as materialists we should approach things as atheists though, for the reasons Bakunin suggests.

Also liked this nugget on the suggested social order and response to criminality;
"The men most ready to commit crimes rarely dare to defy it, to openly affront it. They will seek to deceive it, but will take care not to be rude with it unless they feel the support of a minority larger or smaller. No man, however powerful he believes himself, will ever have the strength to bear the unanimous contempt of society; no one can live without feeling himself sustained by the approval and esteem of at least some portion of society. A man must be urged on by an immense and very sincere conviction in order to find courage to speak and act against the opinion of all, and never will a selfish, depraved, and cowardly man have such courage."

Abclaret: good point that religion is not a vacuum, and that the dialectic can affect it.

So how is it possible to explain stuff like Catholic Worker or even Liberation Theology if religion is reactionary?

Well, let’s try to use the dialectic here?

The conflict between material reality and spiritual idealism should annihilate religion in the same way that capitalism is supposed to be annihilated by socialism. But since we know there is such as thing as reform which extends capitalism, 'progressive' religions extend the life of religion in the same way. Religion is the opium of the masses and will always exist as long as capitalism does.

Consequently, since religions have often had progressive movements, that doesn't mean religion is inherently progressive anymore than when the welfare state was created to save capitalism means the state is inherently progressive.

millicent: I can see Bakunin bugs you...

How is Bakunin's description of historical inevitability, the linear movement of evolution from "inferior to superior," "simple to complex," which only confirms his own belief system, any more logical than a belief in creation and a higher power?

I don't think that all systems are equally logical. And I would have thought Marxism is far more logical than belief in a higher power (which is not logical, it is faith-based). One of Marx's big contributions is that he inverts Hegel... permanently. I think Bakunin is just continuing down similar lines.

Also, I don't think Bakunin was interested in embracing or acknowledging all world-views here. He was intent on using his very Western methods of reason to critically analyze what he thought a correct world-viewpoint on God would be. Unsuccessfully, offensively or not. But it is worth mentioning, since we are on the topic of respecting worldviews, he certainly wasn't against antagonism as so many leftists are today. We need to recall this was during full-blown industrial capitalism, and probably amongst the worst working conditions and highest working hours in world history. The class antagonism (more like open warfare) at this time was far more out in the open than now and raving against religion was probably fairly compelling at the time (religious feudalism was not at all a distant memory and the Tsar was still in power in Russia).

As far as being outdated, I don't know...at least not at a populist level... Richard Dawkins makes very similar arguments in the hugely popular The God Delusion: a book very offensive for idealists. And Marxism is on comeback, while anarchism is by far the top leftist movement worldwide (and Bakunin probably the most consistently named father figure).

Maybe this book is not the best introduction to Bakunin though, especially considering it is an unfinished work. I wonder if anyone knows of a more general book on Bakunin’s ideas?

Finished the remaining parts of the book. These seem to concern themselves with science being rendered to liberty and not to be a means of themselves, addressing religion and Christianity as an anthropological subject and the subsequent growth of Christianity and the reactionary nature of religion in Bonaparte France.

Already looked discussed the logical and ideological aspects of the book, but they come out again in the preceding chapters.

For example on logic;
"It should be added that, in general, it is the character of every metaphysical and theological argument to seek to explain one absurdity by another."

and on the ideological oversight;

"There is not, there cannot be, a State without religion."

"In this respect Protestantism is much more advantageous. It is the bourgeois religion par excellence. It accords just as much liberty as is necessary to the bourgeois, and finds a way of reconciling celestial aspirations with the respect which terrestrial conditions demand"

I have already mentioned Engels, but its probably worth reading this to contrast with The German Ideology which would try and show how political ideas are guided by class interests rather than a series of assertions against religion in general.

Interested in this passage, because I think its not applicable to all religions, particularlly Islam.

"The great honour of Christianity, its incontestable merit, and the whole secret of its unprecedented and yet thoroughly legitimate triumph, lay in the fact that it appealed to that suffering and immense public to which the ancient world, a strict and cruel intellectual and political aristocracy, denied even the simplest rights of humanity. Otherwise it never could have spread. "

Miquixote wrote: "Well, let’s try to use the dialectic here?

The conflict between material reality and spiritual idealism should annihilate religion in the same way that capitalism is supposed to be annihilated by socialism. But since we know there is such as thing as reform which extends capitalism, 'progressive' religions extend the life of religion in the same way. Religion is the opium of the masses and will always exist as long as capitalism does.

Consequently, since religions have often had progressive movements, that doesn't mean religion is inherently progressive anymore than when the welfare state was created to save capitalism means the state is inherently progressive. "

Religions aren't going to abolish themselves though are they? If they follow dialectal ideas, I can forsee themselves muting certain parts of what we consider to be their cannon but our concern should be removing religion from the public sphere. That is how 'abolishing god' should be understood IMO. In private people should be able to entertain any number of ideas, and this would be true also of a post-capitalist society.


Miquixote wrote: "As far as being outdated, I don't know...at least not at a populist level... Richard Dawkins makes very similar arguments in the hugely popular The God Delusion: a book very offensive for idealists. And Marxism is on comeback, while anarchism is by far the top leftist movement worldwide (and Bakunin probably the most consistently named father figure).

My understanding is that Isaiah Berlin concepts of freedom (positive and negative) are lifted from Bakunin but he is not credited.

Miquixote wrote: Maybe this book is not the best introduction to Bakunin though, especially considering it is an unfinished work. I wonder if anyone knows of a more general book on Bakunin’s ideas?

There is a pamphlet called Basic Bakunin which is a summary of his political ideas. Accessible and short. Also his biography,Bakunin is very good.

Long haul to the end of this at 3am and by the end it really became a haul. He starts to ramble. Let me see how I can jump in here.

I don't have much to add because this book felt like witnessing an argument to which I'm not a part. Though I enjoyed some of his rousing anger, the book felt kind of irrelevant.

Part of that is probably because... idealism, Hegel, materialism, dialectics, hell even Marx... I'm really in over my head in this conversation & this book. I love it when y'all define or give some context or a link on all this philosophical jargon & historical references.

Re: science & belief in absurdity
I liked how Bakunin built science up in his takedown of god/religion only then to subvert not just scientists ("savants") but also science itself. I was trying to make a point above about how a lot of feminist scholarship challenges the hegemony of Science, since it's generated and funded within a particular power structure and therefore functions to support particular interests. Impartial scientific facts are in reality quite partial; standpoints and experiences matter as much and in different ways than objectively deduced logic or carefully tested conclusions. Bakunin calls for popular science-- In the modern anarchist movement I think of street medics funneling expensive EMT and Wilderness First Responder course material into first aid workshops, bike co-ops in which mechanics help you fix your own bike, and groups like the Rhizome Collective experimenting with urban agriculture. I think of social justice blogs & tumblr contributing to the body of social theory.

Bakunin also made room for student movements. I thought this line might help ease some of the navel-gazing guilt that tends to overtake college students as they become conscious of privilege:
Last of all, a portion of the youth - those of the bourgeois students who feel hatred enough for the falsehood, hypocrisy, injustice, and cowardice of the bourgeoisie to find courage to turn their backs upon it, and passion enough to unreservedly embrace the just and human cause of the proletariat - those will be, as I have already said, fraternal instructors of the people; thanks to them, there will be no occasion for the government of the savants. =)

Otherwise, I didn't get a lot from this. The opening of the second chapter really challenged state power, but it's been done better and without all the digression. I'm interested in the discussion y'all had about Bakunin's relevance. Any further thoughts welcome. Is Bakunin a big deal because of how new his ideas were at the time he wrote (like in juxtaposition with Marx), or maybe because other things that he has written are powerful commentary today? Or just a convenient name to cite because all political movements feel like they need to celebrate hard to read intellectual heroes to be taken seriously? I don't know... this writing really doesn't seem necessary or clearly connected/contributing to anarchism in its contemporary form. I mean, in challenging power as he knew it, he was reinforcing other forms of power, and there's lots of newer writing that instead challenges all. So, maybe a bigger question is why is he cited so much and what are we really supposed to learn here? What makes him such a great figure and who if anyone is overlooked because of it?

Also!

Millicent wrote: "Bakunin calls for popular science-- In the modern anarchist movement I think of street medics"
When Marx and Bakunin talk about science, as far as I can figure out they are talking about logic, reason and possibly ideology not hard science. Because they talk about proletarian and bourgeois science, which I just take to mean a coherent set of ideas and themes.

Millicent wrote: "I'm interested in the discussion y'all had about Bakunin's relevance. Any further thoughts welcome. Is Bakunin a big deal because of how new his ideas were at the time he wrote (like in juxtaposition with Marx), or maybe because other things that he has written are powerful commentary today? Or just a convenient name to cite because all political movements feel like they need to celebrate hard to read intellectual heroes to be taken seriously? I don't know... this writing really doesn't seem necessary or clearly connected/contributing to anarchism in its contemporary form."

Well atheism and materialism is pretty central to class struggle anarchism as far as I can see. So the ideas if not the book still as an important resonance.

Bakunin's position of prominence, is based on, firstly him articulating mass action and strikes where as Marx wanted a political programme based on wrestling supremacy of the state. Marxists would only advocate mass strikes early in the 1900's when Luxembourg and Lenin took up the position with not a great deal of popularity and then it was pretty opportunist. Secondly he advocates very antagonistic politics, which avoid the compromises and reformism that mires most of the left and thirdly he offers a clear critique of Marx.

Coupled with Proudhon's ideas of collectivism, its easy to see why the early anarchists made successive headway in Spain and latin america upto WWI. But its not really fair to say anarchism (or anarchist communism) is Bakunin's baby. Its anti-dogmatic and its means and ends (prefigurative) trajectory allow it to absorb alot of ideas, not all necessarily good :|
Kropotkin, Rocker, Goldman and Makhno are equally as influential. And Bakunin had periods where he was interested in pan-slavism and secret cells.

In his collected works on 'The Reaction in Germany' he fleshes out his dialectics and contains the classic "the urge to destroy" quote which he gets by distorting the ideas of Rousseau and the nearest thing to an anarchist programme is detailed in 'The Programme of the International Brotherhood'. (I can't find the full works online though). The previous link on Basic Bakunin is the best and most concise summary of his ideas you will find.

And while were on about reductionism...