revolutionary associates. She also appears to have been unfaithful to Bakunin. Yet the marriage lasted nearly twenty years. During that time, Antonia endured embarrassing financial straits, dislocation, and a variety of other disappointments, apparently serving as a comfort to her husband until his death.

In 1861, Bakunin managed to escape his exile in Siberia and traveled to London via Japan and the United States. In London, he renewed his acquaintance with Herzen. Herzen, however, was alienated both by Bakunin’s political extremism and by his nearly complete disregard for the dictates of financial responsibility. In 1863, Bakunin tried to take part in the Polish insurrection, but got only as far as Sweden. The next year, Bakunin established himself in Italy, surrounding himself with a band of disciples and organizing a largely illusory network of secret revolutionary societies across Europe. In 1868, Bakunin relocated to Geneva, where he joined the First International, a federation of various working-class parties for world socialism. It was during this period that Bakunin quarreled with Marx, also a powerful member of the International. Though ideological disparities were undoubtedly a factor, much of the conflict was personal, with neither Marx nor Bakunin inclined to share power or the spotlight. In 1872, Marx managed to have Bakunin and his followers expelled from the International. The move ultimately destroyed the International and divided the revolutionary movement in Europe for decades.

Prior to this split, the Paris Commune was formed as a result of the Revolution of 1870. Bakunin played no direct role in bringing the Commune into existence, and its success was brief. Nevertheless, the Paris Commune constituted the peak of revolutionary achievement during the nineteenth century. In its rejection of conventional political organization, the Commune lent credibility to Bakunin’s ideal of an anarchistic order based on voluntary compliance rather than obedience to laws, no matter how democratically they might be derived.

The last years of Bakunin’s life, spent in Switzerland, were marred by his brief association with Sergey Gennadiyevich Nechayev, an unscrupulous opportunist and nihilist, who gained Bakunin’s favor. This association did little to improve the image of anarchists, and common usage often finds the words anarchist and nihilist treated as synonyms. Otherwise, Bakunin continued to work on a variety of projects, attracted disciples, and wrote. His health and financial situation grew worse, but Bakunin continued working, convinced that the Revolution, though it must wait a decade or two, would triumph eventually.

At the time of his death, Bakunin had written enough to fill volumes, but he never finished a single major work. The fragments that he left behind were ill organized and often unfocused. Thus, where Bakunin far surpassed his rival Marx in terms of direct political action, Marx clearly won the battle of theory, leaving an unfinished but nevertheless impressive body of written work that would inspire successful revolutionary movements as well as a broad array of scholars. Bakuninism also survived but was based more on legend than on the written word.

For Bakunin, the very essence of humanity lay in thought and rebellion. Thought, or science, allowed human beings to understand the world around them in a way that other animals could never approach. Rebellion, or freedom, allowed human beings to exercise thought rather than blindly follow external authorities. To accept religious or political authority was, for Bakunin, to be less than fully human. The full development of humanity, in turn, demanded thoroughgoing social revolution, which would erase all manner of legal tyranny, class domination, and privilege, opening the way for true community.

This mandated not only exposing the bogus foundations of religion and the state but also using mass violence to overthrow established governments once they had been discredited. Bakunin disagreed with Marx on the use of political power to consolidate the gains of revolution. Marx believed that a dictatorship of the proletariat would be needed temporarily (though just how temporarily he did not say) in order to avoid counterrevolution. Bakunin’s principled anarchism would not allow this compromise: All political power was tyrannical in Bakunin’s eyes, even that exercised in the name of the working class. Bakunin’s was a social or communitarian anarchism: Freedom and authority would no longer be at odds with each other. The result, according to Bakunin, would be a splendid harmony, featuring spontaneous cooperation rather than coercion.

Summary

During his lifetime, Mikhail Bakunin established himself as a charismatic and energetic figure, one who can truly be said to have devoted himself to social revolution. This involved extraordinary hardships. Bakunin risked his life repeatedly, spent years in prison, and, except for his highly sporadic efforts to please Antonia, disregarded material possessions. He was thoroughly impoverished at the end of his life, dependent on friends for his survival. In addition to this life of direct revolutionary action and the sacrifices it entailed, Bakunin wrote tirelessly, producing thousands of pages of treatises, polemics, and letters.

Yet, for all of this, Bakunin has left behind a rather small footprint. Though anarchist movements remained a force in Italy and Spain through the 1930’s, they rarely achieved major status and never achieved victory. Bakuninism never came to rival Marxism. Both have been overshadowed by nationalism, the greatest anathema of all to Bakunin’s prescriptions regarding political authority.

Why has Bakunin’s influence faded so completely? One reason is that he never achieved the theoretical depth or clarity that Marx did. Marx raised questions, in a systematic way, about history, economics, sociology, and politics which have remained vitally interesting to ideologues as well as to scholars. Bakunin’s fragmentary and undisciplined writings could not do the same.

Still, Bakunin’s accomplishments were considerable. He transformed a polite, drawing-room philosophy into a notable historical movement, raised pertinent questions about the unlimited power of revolutionary parties and regimes that have come to haunt twentieth century Marxists, and produced written work rich in imagery and ideas. Though they may strike many people as bizarre, these images and ideas reflect commonly held values extrapolated to uncommon lengths. Bakunin valued personal freedom, and he carried this value to a logical extreme. He also tried to honor his beliefs with a life devoted to unflinching action. In this respect, too, Bakunin was uncommon.

Bibliography

Avrich, Paul. The Russian Anarchists. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1967. Focuses on the fate of the Russian anarchists, Bakunin’s closest political heirs, from the Revolution of 1905 to the movement’s dissolution shortly after the triumph of Bolshevism in 1917.

Bakunin, Mikhail A. The Political Philosophy of Bakunin: Scientific Anarchism. Edited by G. P. Maximoff. New York: Free Press, 1953. Maximoff has carefully assembled a selection of Bakunin’s written work, organizing sections according to topic. The result is more coherent and comprehensive than anything produced by Bakunin during his lifetime. Includes a helpful preface, an introduction, and a biographical sketch by three different Bakunin scholars.

Carr, E. H. Michael Bakunin. London: Macmillan, 1937. A straightforward biography, innocent of any discernible ideological agenda. Provides a balanced account of the conflict between Bakunin and Marx. Carr does not examine Bakunin’s political philosophy in any detail.

Kelly, Aileen. Mikhail Bakunin: A Study in the Psychology and Politics of Utopianism. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1982. Kelly tries to reconcile the polar images of Bakunin as champion of liberty, on one hand, and dictatorial confederate of the cynical and despotic Nechayev, on the other. She does so by showing the psychological link between absolute liberty and absolute dictatorship.

Masters, Anthony. Bakunin: The Father of Anarchism. New York: Saturday Review Press, 1974. A sympathetic view of Bakunin’s life and work. Includes a chapter on the fate of Bakuninism in the hundred years or so following Bakunin’s death.

Mendel, Arthur P. Michael Bakunin: Roots of Apocalypse. New York: Praeger, 1981. A haunting psychohistory, which reveals the dark side of Bakunin’s revolutionary zeal, linking it to some very personal details in his life as well as the notion of Christian Apocalypse. Impassioned and controversial.

Pyziur, Eugene. The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin. Milwaukee: Gateway Press, 1955. Provides a clear and undoctrinaire exposition of Bakunin’s political and social philosophy.

Wolff, Robert Paul. In Defense of Anarchism. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Coming from a perspective far different from that of Bakunin, Wolff contends that, philosophically speaking, anarchism is defensible, since the authority of even a democratic state must come at the expense of individual autonomy. Most critics have considered the book subversively clever rather than profound, partly because Wolff lacks Bakunin’s commitment to action.