Page:The New Europe - Volume 5.pdf/417

The expression “Social Democracy” started with Bakunin. Like Marx, he was for Communism; he merely wanted it to be organised on a federalist, not on a centralist basis. Marx sought to build up his society upon the mass of industrial workers—the proletariat—while Bakunin set greater hopes upon the peasants, especially in Russia. On the whole there is no such absolute conflict between Bakunin and Marx as their followers to-day would have us believe. Bakunin is more of an individualist than Marx, more revolutionary (revolution being conceived as instinct or “temperament”), and indeed more political; and this is due to the fact that he is not a logical historical materialist. Where Bakunin really differs from Marx, is in tolerating terrorism as an individual act and the expropriation of the individual. Marx merely appeals to the decisions of the mass, with the result that his whole policy thereby becomes riper, more fully thought out and more effective.

Bakunin is a revolutionary, Marx a statesman and tactician. Marx is more conscientious. . . . Nor must it be overlooked that Bakunin, especially in his second European phase, lived in the Latin countries, while Marx was in England. Both men involuntarily constructed the future and the organisation of society to a large extent according to the permanent impressions which they had received from their surroundings. Bakunin, everywhere the restless stranger, preferred to associate in the less organised workmen’s circles and reckoned with these, while Marx had English and German impressions.

On the progress of the Russian Opposition towards revolution, and especially terrorism, Bakunin had a strong influence; it was he, and not Herzen, to whom the younger generation of the ‘sixties and ‘seventies listened. There were many hundreds of Russian students in Switzerland in 1872–73, and many of them became followers of Bakunin and transplanted his teachings to Russia. His strange unrealism links itself with realism in Russia. The “destructive criticism” of Pisarev becomes Pan-Destruction, the Nihilist Word becomes the revolutionary Deed, and “Word and Deed” become more and more the revolutionary watchword.

As a man Bakunin was amiable, but naïve, thoughtless and undisciplined. He sought to realise his ideals in a logical manner, but dared the “Deed” and risked his life for it,