Bakunin Quotes

The urge to destroy is also a creative urge.

If God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him.

If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.

But here steps in Satan, the eternal rebel, the first freethinker and the emancipator of worlds. He makes man ashamed of his bestial ignorance and obedience; he emancipates him, stamps upon his brow the seal of liberty and humanity, in urging him to disobey and eat of the fruit of knowledge.

We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.

I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation.

When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called the People's Stick.

The freedom of all is essential to my freedom.

The urge for destruction is also a creative urge!

People go to church for the same reasons they go to a tavern: to stupefy themselves, to forget their misery, to imagine themselves, for a few minutes anyway, free and happy. -- Circular Letter to My Friends in Italy

You know what a miracle is. Not what Bakunin said. But another world’s intrusion into this one. Most of the time we coexist peacefully, but when we do touch there’s cataclysm.

Crowned heads, wealth and privilege may well tremble should ever again the Black and Red unite!" -after the split between Anarchists and Marxists in 1872

The idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind both in theory and practice.

Real humanity presents a mixture of all that is most sublime and beautiful with all that is vilest and most monstrous in the world.

There is a theory going around that the U.S.A. was and still is a gigantic Masonic plot under the ultimate control of the group known as the Illuminati. It is difficult to look for long at the strange single eye crowning the pyramid which is found on every dollar bill and not begin to believe the story, a little. Too many anarchists in 19th-century Europe—Bakunin, Proudhon, Salverio Friscia—were Masons for it to be pure chance. Lovers of global conspiracy, not all of them Catholic, can count on the Masons for a few good shivers and voids when all else fails.

Do you want to make it impossible for anyone to oppress his fellow-man? Then make sure that no one shall possess power.

By striving to do the impossible, man has always achieved what is possible. Those who have cautiously done no more than they believed possible have never taken a single step forward.

From each according to his faculties; to each according to his needs

Human nature is so constituted that the propensity for evil is always intensified by external circumstances, and the morality of the individual depends much more on the conditions of his existence and the environment in which he lives than on his own will.

Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality

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.

The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual.

I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.

The passion for destruction is also a creative passion

A jealous lover of human liberty, and deeming it the absolute condition of all that we admire and respect in humanity, I reverse the phrase of Voltaire, and say that, if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.

Every command slaps liberty in the face.

Every government, no matter who controls it, is an instrument of oppression.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on Earth.

The real school for the people and for all grown men is life.

My personal freedom, confirmed by the liberty of all, extends to infinity.

The supreme law of the State is self-preservation at any cost. And since all States, ever since they came to exist upon the earth, have been condemned to perpetual struggle — a struggle against their own populations, whom they oppress and ruin, a struggle against all foreign States, every one of which can be strong only if the others are weak — and since the States cannot hold their own in this struggle unless they constantly keep on augmenting their power against their own subjects as well as against the neighborhood States — it follows that the supreme law of the State is the augmentation of its power to the detriment of internal liberty and external justice.

A person is strong only when he stands upon his own truth, when he speaks and acts with his deepest convictions. Then, whatever the situation he may be in, he always knows what he must say and do. He may fall, but he cannot bring shame upon himself or his cause. If we seek the liberation of the people by means of a lie, we will surely grow confused, go astray, and loose sight of our objective, and if we have any influence at all on the people we will lead them astray as well—in other words, we will be acting in the spirit of reaction and to its benefit.

In the large sense, I have to disagree with Bakunin, one thing austerity rhetoric has suggested is that when the people are being beaten with a stick, they are much happier if the media call it the People’s Democratic Stick.

Once more, the sole mission of science is to light the road.

There are times when creation can be achieved only through destruction. The urge to destroy is then a creative urge.

No state, however democratic,” Bakunin wrote, “not even the reddest republic—can ever give the people what they really want, i.e., the free self-organization and administration of their own affairs from the bottom upward, without any interference or violence from above, because every state, even the pseudo–People’s State concocted by Mr. Marx, is in essence only a machine ruling the masses from above, through a privileged minority of conceited intellectuals, who imagine that they know what the people need and want better than do the people themselves. . . .” “But the people will feel no better if the stick with which they are being beaten is labeled ‘the people’s stick

I am a passionate seeker after Truth and a not less passionate enemy of the malignant fictions used by the "Party of Order", the official representatives of all turpitudes, religious, metaphysical, political, judicial, economic, and social, present and past, to brutalise and enslave the world; I am a fanatical lover of Liberty; considering it as the only medium in which can develop intelligence, dignity, and the happiness of man;

A country bent on conquest is necessarily a country internally enslaved.

„If there is a State, there must be domination of one class by another and, as a result, slavery; the State without slavery is unthinkable – and this is why we are the enemies of the State.” Bakunin

Bloody revolutions are often necessary, thanks to human stupidity; yet they are always an evil, a monstrous evil and a great disaster, not only with regard to the victims, but also for the sake of the purity and perfection of the purpose in whose name they take place.

We revolutionary anarchists are the enemies of all forms of State and State organisations ... we think that all State rule, all governments being by their very nature placed outside the mass of the people, must necessarily seek to subject it to customs and purposes entirely foreign to it. We therefore declare ourselves to be foes ... of all State organisations as such, and believe that the people can only be happy and free, when, organised from below by means of its own autonomous and completely free associations, without the supervision of any guardians, it will create its own life.

There will be a qualitative transformation, a new living, life-giving revelation, a new heaven and a new earth, a young and mighty world in which all our present dissonances will be resolved into a harmonious whole.

Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult the architect or the engineer For such special knowledge I apply to such a "savant." But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the "savant" to impose his authority on me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting a single authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions and choose that which seems to me soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even m special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, the tool of other people's will and interests.

A rosszul megcsomózott kötél lecsúszott Pesztyelről, aki leesett, és nagyon megütötte magát. Az egyetlen mondat, amely elhagyta ajkát, miközben a hóhér új kötelet készített elő számára, ez volt: "Oroszországban még akasztani sem tudnak.

Real patriotism is, of course, a highly honorable sentiment, but it is at the same time a narrow, exclusive, anti-humanistic, often simply bestial one.

To my utter despair I have discovered, and discover every day anew, that there is in the masses no revolutionary idea or hope or passion.

If there is a state, then necessarily there is domination and consequently slavery. A state without slavery, open or camouflaged, is inconceivable—that is why we are enemies of the state.

Only on the surface, it seems to me. The only true atheists I’ve ever met were people in revolt. It wasn’t enough for them to coldly deny the existence of God—they had to refuse it, like Bakunin: ‘Even if God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him.’ They were atheists like Kirilov in The Possessed. They rejected God because they wanted to put man in his place. They were humanists, with lofty ideas about human liberty, human dignity. I don’t suppose you recognize yourself in this description.

If there is an undeniable fact, attested to a thousand times by experience, it is the corrupting effect produced by authority on those who manipulate it It is absolutely impossible for a man who wields power to remain a moral man....

The general idea is always an abstraction and, for that very reason, in some sort a negation of real life. And every time that scientific men, emerging from their abstract world, mingle with living creation in the real world, all that they propose or create is poor, ridiculously abstract, bloodless and lifeless, still-born, like the homunculus created by Wagner, the pedantic disciple of the immortal Doctor Faust.

The freedom of each is therefore realizable only in the equality of all. The realization of freedom through equality, in principle and in fact, is justice.

Beware of shearers, for where there is a flock there necessarily must be shepherds also to shear and devour it.

governmental despotism is never so fierce and so powerful as when it rests on the fictitious representation of a fictitious popular will.

He who is given power will inevitably become an oppressor and exploiter of society.

You know what a miracle is. Not what Bakunin said. But another world’s intrusion into this one.

Famously reversing Voltaire’s dictum, ‘if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him’, Bakunin declared, ‘if God really existed it would be necessary to abolish him’.

Yaşasın! Ne kadar da ideolojik yaklaşıyoruz birbirimize” … Bunun için kent nesnesi o bıçakla bakunin‘di deştiğim Ki ben devletin taş kestiğini en başından bilirdim İsa‘yı polise doğru Lttuğum zaman. Ellerini el olarak tutmak istiyor ellerim De ki bunun kaburgamdaki kiliseyle ilgisi yok değildir Zaten en az on iki kişiden biri haindir Ama gözlerimi öyle yırtma annem ilkokul öğretmeniydi benim! …

The modern state, in its essence and objectives, is necessarily a military state, and a military state necessarily becomes an aggressive state. If it does not conquer others it will itself be conquered, for the simple reason that wherever force exists, it absolutely must be displayed or put into action.

You know what a miracle is. Not what Bakunin said. But another world's intrusion into this one. Most of the time we coexist peacefully, but when we do touch there's cataclysm. Like the church we hate, anarchists also believe in another world. Where revolutions break out spontaneous and leaderless, and the soul's talent for consensus allows the masses to work together without effort, automatic as the body itself. And yet, sena, if any of it should ever really happen that perfectly, I would also have to cry miracle. An anarchist miracle. Like your friend. He is too exactly and without flaw the thing we fight. In Mexico the privilegiado is always, to a finite percentage, redeemed -one of the people. Unmiraculous. But your friend, unless he's joking, is as terrifying to me as a Virgin appearing to an Indian.

1872 the anarchist leader Mikhail Bakunin warned Karl Marx that Communists in power would be as oppressive as the aristocracy they replaced. After what has happened in Russia, can you honestly say Bakunin was wrong?

In 1872 the anarchist leader Mikhail Bakunin warned Karl Marx that Communists in power would be as oppressive as the aristocracy they replaced. After what has happened in Russia, can you honestly say Bakunin was wrong?

Representative democracy, however, harmonizes marvelously with the capitalist economic system. This new statist system, basing itself on the alleged sovereignty of the so-called will of the people, as supposedly expressed by their alleged representatives in mock popular assemblies, incorporates the two principal and necessary conditions for the progress of capitalism: state centralization, and the actual submission of the sovereign people to the intellectual governing minority, who, while claiming to represent the people, unfailingly exploits them.

Thus, as I have already observed, materialism starts from animality to establish humanity; idealism starts from divinity to establish slavery and condemn the masses to an endless animality. Materialism denies free will and ends in the establishment of liberty; idealism, in the name of human dignity, proclaims free will, and on the ruins of every liberty founds authority. Materialism rejects the principle of authority, because it rightly considers it as the corollary of animality, and because, on the contrary, the triumph of humanity, the object and chief significance of history, can be realised only through liberty. In a word, you will always find the idealists in the very act of practical materialism, while you will see the materialists pursuing and realising the most grandly ideal aspirations and thoughts.

That is because no state, not even the most republican and democratic, not even the pseudo-popular state contemplated by Marx, in essence represents anything but government of the masses from above downward, by an educated and thereby privileged minority which supposedly understands the real interests of the people better than the people themselves.

freedom is not the negation of solidarity. Social solidarity is the first human law; freedom is the second law. Both laws interpenetrate each other, and, being inseparable, constitute the essence of humanity’ (Bakunin, in Maximoff 1953: 156).

The only difference between revolutionary dictatorship and the state is in external appearances. Essentially, they both represent the same government of the majority by a minority in the name of the presumed stupidity of the one and the presumed intelligence of the other.

The idea of humanity becomes more and more of a power in the civilized world, and, owing to the expansion and increasing speed of means of communication, and also owing to the influence, still more material than moral, of civilization upon barbarous peoples, this idea of humanity begins to take hold even of the minds of uncivilized nations. This idea is the invisible power of our century, with which the present powers — the States — must reckon. They cannot submit to it of their own free will because such submission on their part would be equivalent to suicide, since the triumph of humanity can be realized only through the destruction of the States. But the States can no longer deny this idea nor openly rebel against it, for having now grown too strong, it may finally destroy them. In the face of this fainful alternative there remains only one way out: and that is hypocrisy. The States pay their outward respects to this idea of humanity; they speak and apparently act only in the name of it, but they violate it every day. This, however, should not be held against the States. They cannot act otherwise, their position having become such that they can hold their own only by lying. Diplomacy has no other mission. Therefore what do we see? Every time a State wants to declare war upon another State, it starts off by launching a manifesto addressed not only to its own subjects but to the whole world. In this manifesto it declares that right and justice are on its side, and it endeavors to prove that it is actuated only by love of peace and humanity and that, imbued with generous and peaceful sentiments, it suffered for a long time in silence until the mounting iniquity of its enemy forced it to bare its sword. At the same time it vows that, disdainful of all material conquest and not seeking any increase in territory, it will put and end to this war as soon as justice is reestablished. And its antagonist answers with a similar manifesto, in which naturally right, justice, humanity, and all the generous sentiments are to be found respectively on its side. Those mutually opposed manifestos are written with the same eloquence, they breathe the same virtuous indignation, and one is just as sincere as the other; that is to say both of them are equally brazen in their lies, and it is only fools who are deceived by them. Sensible persons, all those who have had some political experience, do not even take the trouble of reading such manifestos. On the contrary, they seek ways to uncover the interests driving both adversaries into this war, and to weigh the respective power of each of them in order to guess the outcome of the struggle. Which only goes to prove that moral issues are not at stake in such wars.

There is not, there cannot be, a State without religion. Take the freest States in the world—the United States of America or the Swiss Confederation, for instance—and see what an important part is played in all official discourses by divine Providence, that supreme sanction of all States.

Bakunin's warnings about the "Red bureaucracy" that would institute "the worst of all despotic governments" were long before Lenin, and were directed against the followers of Mr. Marx. There were, in fact, followers of many different kinds; Pannekoek, Luxemburg, Mattick and others are very far from Lenin, and their views often converge with elements of anarcho-syndicaIism. Korsch and others wrote sympathetically of the anarchist revolution in Spain, in fact. There are continuities from Marx to Lenin, but there are also continuities to Marxists who were harshly critical of Lenin and Bolshevism. Teodor Shanin's work in the past years on Marx's later attitudes towards peasant revolution is also relevant here. I'm far from being a Marx scholar, and wouldn't venture any serious judgement on which of these continuities reflects the "real Marx," if there even can be an answer to that question.

In fact, I should say to begin with that the term anarchism is quite a range of political ideas, but I would prefer to think of it as the libertarian left, and from that point of view anarchism can be conceived as a kind of voluntary socialism, that is, as libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist or communist anarchist, in the tradition of say Bakunin and Kropotkin and others. They had in mind a highly organized form of society, but a society that was organized on the basis of organic units, organic communities. And generally they meant by that the workplace and the neighborhood, and from those two basic units there could derive through federal arrangements a highly integrated kind of social organization, which might be national or even international in scope. And the decisions could be made over a substantial range, but by delegates who are always part of the organic community from which they come, to which they return and in which, in fact, they live.

More pertinent, however, is that capitalism tends to stultify the worker’s creativity, his human urge for self-expression, freedom, mutually respectful interaction with others, recognition of his self-determined sense of self, recognition of himself as a self rather than an object, a means to an end. Karl Marx called it “alienation.” Capitalism alienates the worker—and the capitalist—from his “fundamental human need” for “self-fulfilling and creative work,” “the exercise of skill and craftsmanship,”8 in addition to his fundamental desire to determine himself (whence comes the desire to dismantle oppressive power-relations and replace them with democracy). Alternative visions of social organization thus arise, including Robert Owen’s communitarian socialism, Charles Fourier’s associationist communalism, Proudhon’s mutualism (a kind of anarchism), Marx’s communism, Bakunin’s collectivist anarchism, Kropotkin’s anarchist communism, Anton Pannekoek’s council communism, and more recently, Murray Bookchin’s libertarian municipalism, Michael Albert’s participatory economics, Takis Fotopoulos’s inclusive democracy, Paul Hirst’s associationalism, and so on. Each of these schools of thought differs from the others in more or less defined ways, but they all have in common the privileging of economic and social cooperation and egalitarianism.

To be free ... means to be acknowledged and treated as such by all his fellowmen. The liberty of every individual is only the reflection of his own humanity, or his human right through the conscience of all free men, his brothers and his equals. (...) I am not myself free or human until or unless I recognize the freedom and humanity of all my fellowmen.

Si Dieu est, l'homme est esclave ; or l'homme peut, doit être libre, donc Dieu n'existe pas. Je défie qui que ce soit de sortir de ce cercle; et maintenant, qu'on choisisse.

El hombre nace libre, responsable y sin excusas.

No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world, I cleave to no system, I am a true seeker.

The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!

Convençuts que llibertat sense Socialisme és privilegi i injustícia i que Socialisme sense llibertat és esclavitud i brutalitat.

The glory and grandeur of a nation lie only in the development of its humanity. Its strength and inner vitality are measured by the degree of its liberty.

A Russia of the people is inconceivable without Polish freedom and independence.

Look into yourself and tell me truthfully: are you satisfied with yourself and can you be satisfied? Are you not all sad and bedraggled manifestations of a sad and bedraggled time? — are you not full of contradictions? — are you whole men? — do you believe in anything really? — do you know what you want, and can you want anything at all? — has modern reflection, the epidemic of our time, left a single living part in you; and are you not penetrated by reflection through and through, paralyzed and broken? Indeed, you will have to confess that ours is a sad age and that we all are its still sadder children.

By nature mutually antagonistic and utterly irreconcilable, states can find no other grounds for joint action than the concerted enslavement of the masses who constitute the overall basis and purpose of their existence.

Oroszországban nehéz, sőt majdnem lehetetlen megállnia a hivatalnoknak, hogy ne váljék tolvajjá. Először is mindenki lop körülötte, s a szokás neki is természetévé válik, ami azelőtt rosszallást keltett, utálatosnak tűnt, hamarosan természetessé, elkerülhetetlenné, szükségszerűvé lesz; másodszor az alárendelt sokszor maga is kénytelen valamilyen formában sápot adni följebbvalójának; végül pedig azért, mert ha valaki fejébe veszi is, hogy becsületes ember marad, társai és főnökei gyűlölni fogják: először kikiáltják csodabogárnak, barbárnak, összeférhetetlennek, és ha nem javul meg, még liberálisnak, veszedelmes szabadgondolkodónak is; addig nem lesz nyugtuk, amíg teljesen el nem tapossák, és el nem söprik a föld színéről.

And since it has been established that all peoples, past and present, have believed and still believe in the existence of God, it is clear that those who have the misfortune to doubt it, whatever the logic that led them to this doubt, are abnormal exceptions, monsters.

Slavery may change its form or its name—its essence remains the same. Its essence may be expressed in these words: to be a slave is to he forced to work for someone else, just as to he a master is to live on someone else's work In antiquity, just as in Asia and in Africa today, as well as even in a part of America, slaves were, in all honesty, called slaves. In the Middle Ages, they took the name of serfs: nowadays they are called wage earners. The position of tins latter group has a great deal more dignity attached to it, and it is less hard than that of slaves, but they are nonetheless forced, by hunger as well as by political and social institutions, to maintain other people in complete or relative idleness, through their own exceedingly hard labor. Consequently they arc slaves. And in general, no state, ancient or modern, has ever managed or will ever manage to get along without the forced labor of the masses, either wage earners or slaves, as a principal and absolutely necessary foundation for the leisure, the liberty, and the civilization of the political class—the citizens.

The people are committed to ruinous policies, all without noticing. They have neither the experience nor the time to study all these laws and so they leave everything to their elected representatives. These naturally promote the interests of their class rather than the prosperity of the people, and their greatest talent is to sugarcoat their bitter measures, to render them more palatable to the populace. Representative government is a system of hypocrisy and perpetual falsehood. Its success rests on the stupidity of the people and the corruption of the public mind.

Is it necessary to point out to what extent and in what manner religions debase and corrupt the people? They destroy their reason, the principal instrument of human emancipation, and reduce them to imbecility, the essential condition of their slavery. They dishonor human labor, and make it a sign and source of servitude. They kill the idea and sentiment of human justice, ever tipping the balance to the side of triumphant knaves, privileged objects of divine indulgence. They kill human pride and dignity, protecting only the cringing and humble. They stifle in the heart of nations every feeling of human fraternity, filling it with divine cruelty instead.

For behind is our animality and before us our humanity; human light, the only thing that can warm and enlighten us, the only thing that can emancipate us, give us dignity, freedom, and happiness, and realize fraternity among us, is never at the beginning, but, relatively to the epoch in which we live, always at the end of history.

Yeah, in my opinion the heart of the problem is Marxism-Leninism itself―the very idea that a "vanguard party" can, or has any right to, or has any capacity to lead the stupid masses towards some future they're too dumb to understand for themselves. I think what it's going to lead them towards is "I rule you with a whip." Institutions of domination have a nice way of reproducing themselves―I think that's kind of like an obvious sociological truism. And actually, if you look back, that was in fact Bakunin's prediction half a century before―he said this was exactly what was going to happen. I mean, Bakunin was talking about the people around Marx, this was before Lenin was born, but his prediction was that the nature of the intelligentsia as a formation in modern industrial society is that they are going to try to become the social managers. Now, they're not going to become the social managers because they own capital, and they're not going to become the social managers because they've got a lot of guns. They are going to become the social managers because they can control, organize, and direct what's called "knowledge"―they have the skills to process information, and to mobilize support for decision-making, and so on and so forth. And Bakunin predicted that these people would fall into two categories. On the one hand, there would be the "left" intellectuals, who would try to rise to power on the backs of mass popular movements, and if they could gain power, they would then beat the people into submission and try to control them. On the other hand, if they found that they couldn't get power that way themselves, they would become the servants of what we would nowadays call "state-capitalism," though Bakunin didn't use the term. And either of these two categories of intellectuals, he said, would be "beating the people with the people's stick"―that is, they'd be presenting themselves as representatives of the people, so they'd be holding the people's stick, but they would be beating the people with it.

The real school for the people and for all grown men is life. The only grand and omnipotent authority, at once natural and rational, the only one which we may respect, will be that of the collective and public spirit of a society founded on equality and solidarity and the mutual human respect of all its members. Yes, this is an authority which is not at all divine, wholly human, but before which we shall bow willingly, certain that, far from enslaving them, it will emancipate men. It will be a thousand times more powerful, be sure of it, than all your divine, theological, metaphysical, political, and judicial authorities, established by the Church and by the State; more powerful than your criminal codes, your jailers, and your executioners.

It is not true that the freedom of one man is limited by that of other men. Man is really free to the extent that his freedom, fully acknowledged and mirrored by the free consent of his fellowmen, finds confirmation and expansion in their liberty. Man is truly free only among equally free men; the slavery of even one human being violates humanity and negates the freedom of all.

For the people, the church is a kind of celestial tavern, just as the tavern is a sort of celestial church on earth. In church and tavern alike they forget, at least momentarily, their hunger, their oppression, and their humiliation, and they try to dull the memory of their daily afflictions, in the one with mindless faith and in the other with wine. One form of intoxication is as good as the other.

Bakunin, on the other hand, considered himself a revolutionist of the deed, "not a philosopher and not an inventor of systems, like Marx." He adamantly refused to recognize the existence of any "a priori ideas or preordained, preconceived laws." Bakunin rejected the view that social change depended on the gradual maturation of "objective" historical conditions. On the contrary, he believed that men shaped their own destinies, that their lives could not be squeezed into a Procrustean bed of abstract sociological formulas. "No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world," Bakunin declared. "I cleave to no system, I am a true seeker." Mankind was not compelled to wait patiently as the fabric of history unfolded in the fullness of time. By teaching the working masses theories, Marx would only succeed in stifling the revolutionary ardor every man already possessed—"the impulse to liberty, the passion for equality, the holy instinct of revolt.

I am a convinced advocate of economic and social equality because I know that, without it, liberty, justice, human dignity, morality, and the well-being of individuals, as well as the prosperity of nations, will never amount to more than a pack of lies. But since I stand for liberty as the primary condition of mankind, I believe that equality must be established in the world by the spontaneous organization of labor and the collective ownership of property by freely organized producers' associations, and by the equally spontaneous federation of communes, to replace the domineering paternalistic State.

En el fondo, la conquista no sólo es el origen, es también el fin supremo de todos los Estados grandes o pequeños, poderosos o débiles, despóticos o liberales, monárquicos o aristocráticos, democráticos y socialistas también, suponiendo que el ideal de los socialistas alemanes, el de un gran Estado comunista, se realice alguna vez. Que ella fue el punto de partida de todos los Estados, antiguos y modernos, no podrá ser puesto en duda por nadie, puesto que cada página de la historia universal lo prueba suficientemente. Nadie negará tampoco que los grandes Estados actuales tienen por objeto, más o menos confesado, la conquista. Pero los Estados medianos y sobre todo los pequeños, se dirá, no piensan más que en defenderse y sería ridículo por su parte soñar en la conquista. Todo lo ridículo que se quiera, pero sin embargo es su sueño, como el sueño del más pequeño campesino propietario es redondear sus tierras en detrimento del vecino; redondearse, crecer, conquistar a cualquier precio y siempre, es una tendencia fatalmente inherente a todo Estado, cualquiera que sea su extensión, su debilidad o su fuerza, porque es una necesidad de su naturaleza. ¿Qué es el Estado si no es la organización del poder? Pero está en la naturaleza de todo poder la imposibilidad de soportar un superior o un igual, pues el poder no tiene otro objeto que la dominación, y la dominación no es real más que cuando le está sometido todo lo que la obstaculiza; ningún poder tolera otro más que cuando está obligado a ello, es decir, cuando se siente impotente para destruirlo o derribarlo. El solo hecho de un poder igual es una negación de su principio y una amenaza perpetua contra su existencia; porque es una manifestación y una prueba de su impotencia. Por consiguiente, entre todos los Estados que existen uno junto al otro, la guerra es permanente y su paz no es más que una tregua. Está en la naturaleza del Estado el presentarse tanto con relación a sí mismo como frente a sus súbditos, como el objeto absoluto. Servir a su prosperidad, a su grandeza, a su poder, esa es la virtud suprema del patriotismo. El Estado no reconoce otra, todo lo que le sirve es bueno, todo lo que es contrario a sus intereses es declarado criminal; tal es la moral de los Estados. Es por eso que la moral política ha sido en todo tiempo, no sólo extraña, sino absolutamente contraria a la moral humana. Esa contradicción es una consecuencia inevitable de su principio: no siendo el Estado más que una parte, se coloca y se impone como el todo; ignora el derecho de todo lo que, no siendo él mismo, se encuentra fuera de él, y cuando puede, sin peligro, lo viola. El Estado es la negación de la humanidad.

Human labor, in general, is still divided into two exclusive categories: the first—solely intellectual and managerial—includes the scientists, artists, engineers, inventors, accountants, educators, governmental officials, and their subordinate elites who enforce labor discipline The second group consists of the great mass of workers, people prevented from applying creative ideas or intelligence, who blindly and mechanically carry out the orders of the intellectual-managerial elite This economic and social division of labor has disastrous consequences for members of the privileged classes, the masses of the people, and for the prosperity, as well as the moral and intellectual development, of society as a whole.

The people, unfortunately, are still very ignorant, and are kept in ignorance by the systematic efforts of all the governments, who consider this ignorance, not without good reason as one of the essential condition of their own power. Weighted down by their daily labor, deprived of leisure, of intellectual intercourse, of reading, in short of all the means and a good portion of the stimulants that develop thought in men, the people generally accept religious traditions without criticism and in a lump. These traditions surround them from infancy in all the situations of life, and artificially sustained in their minds by a multitude of official poisoners of all sorts, priests and laymen are transformed therein into a sort of mental and moral habit, too often more powerful even than their natural good sense.

El hombre, en tanto que individuo animal, como los animales de todas las otras especies, desde el principio y desde que comienza a respirar, tiene el sentimiento inmediato de su existencia individual; pero no adquiere la conciencia reflexiva de si, conciencia que constituye propiamente su personalidad, más que por medio de la inteligencia, y por consiguiente sólo en la sociedad. Vuestra personalidad más íntima, la conciencia que tenéis de vosotros mismos en vuestro fuero interno, no es en cierto modo más que el reflejo de vuestra propia imagen, repercutida y enviada de nuevo como por otros tantos espejos por la conciencia tanto colectiva como individual de todos los seres humanos que componen vuestro mundo social. Cada hombre que conocéis y con el cual os halláis en relaciones, sean directas sean indirectas, determina más o menos vuestro ser más íntimo, contribuye a haceros lo que sois, a constituir vuestra personalidad. Por consiguiente, si estáis rodeados de esclavos, aunque seáis su amo, no dejáis de ser un esclavo, pues la conciencia de los esclavos no puede enviaros sino vuestra imagen envilecida. La imbecilidad de todos os imbeciliza, mientras que la inteligencia de todos os ilumina, os eleva; los vicios de vuestro medio social son vuestros vicios y no podríais ser hombres realmente libres sin estar rodeados de hombres igualmente libres, pues la existencia de un solo esclavo basta para aminorar vuestra libertad. En la inmortal declaración de los derechos del hombre, hecha por la Convención nacional, encontramos expresada claramente esa verdad sublime, que la esclavitud de un solo ser humano es la esclavitud de todos.

Boris Souvarine, hombre clave en el gran éxito del bolchevismo, que ha sido y es la conquista de París como centro de la propaganda comunista, fundador del PCF y que conoció personalmente a Lenin antes de convertirse en uno de los grandes anticomunistas de la historia, expresó así su propia experiencia: Los bolcheviques han heredado esta concepción (la del terrorismo del «hombre nuevo» que teorizaron Netchaev, Bakunin y Chernichevski, retrató Dostoievski en Los demonios y asumió Lenin), adaptándola a sus necesidades y a su época. Para ellos, el mundo se divide en dos: el partido y los demás. Ser expulsado del partido equivale a ser arrojado del planeta. Para permanecer en su seno están dispuestos a todas las bajezas, de acuerdo con su moral amoral; dispuestos a envilecerse, a darse golpes de pecho en público con reservas mentales, a delatarse mutuamente, a jurar obediencia y sumisión perinde ac cadaver, sin perjuicio de reanudar sus maquinaciones tan pronto como les sea posible. El «hombre nuevo» del comunismo está tomado, evidentemente, del «hombre nuevo» del cristianismo. Por eso tantos cristianos y judíos, cuya conciencia de culpa proviene de un airado Jehová o del Pecado Original —que es el origen de clase, burgués o pequeñoburgués, de sus militantes—, se sienten teológicamente en casa al avistar el paraíso social, el comunismo. Hay que sacrificarse, hacer penitencia para merecerlo. Pero el partido tiene una ventaja sobre el Evangelio: obliga a hacer penitencia a los demás. Este aspecto, a la vez expiatorio y coercitivo, masoquista y sádico, otorga un aura especial al militante: la de los inquisidores y los monjes guerreros, que pueden ser también procesados por herejes o caer víctimas de los infieles, pero cuya salvación personal está asegurada por la lucha para la e

La Biblia, que es un libro muy interesante y a veces muy profundo cuando se lo considera como una de las más antiguas manifestaciones de la sabiduría y de la fantasía humanas que han llegado hasta nosotros, expresa esta verdad de una manera muy ingenua en su mito del pecado original. Jehová, que de todos los buenos dioses que han sido adorados por los hombres es ciertamente el más envidioso, el más vanidoso, el más feroz, el más injusto, el más sanguinario, el más déspota y el más enemigo de la dignidad y de la libertad humanas, que creó a Adán y a Eva por no sé qué capricho (sin duda para engañar su hastío que debía de ser terrible en su eternamente egoísta soledad, para procurarse nuevos esclavos), había puesto generosamente a su disposición toda la Tierra, con todos sus frutos y todos los animales, y no había puesto a ese goce completo más que un límite. Les había prohibido expresamente que tocaran los frutos del árbol de la ciencia. Quería que el hombre, privado de toda conciencia de sí mismo, permaneciese un eterno animal, siempre de cuatro patas ante el Dios eterno, su creador su amo. Pero he aquí que llega Satanás, el eterno rebelde, el primer librepensador y el emancipador de los mundos. Avergüenza al hombre de su ignorancia de su obediencia animales; lo emancipa e imprime sobre su frente el sello de la libertad y de la humanidad, impulsándolo a desobedecer y a comer del fruto de la ciencia. Se sabe lo demás. El buen Dios, cuya ciencia innata constituye una de las facultades divinas, habría debido advertir lo que sucedería; sin embargo, se enfureció terrible y ridículamente: maldijo a Satanás, al hombre y al mundo creados por él, hiriéndose, por decirlo así, en su propia creación, como hacen los niños cuando se encolerizan; y no contento con alcanzar a nuestros antepasados en el presente, los maldijo en todas las generaciones del porvenir, inocentes del crimen cometido por aquellos. (...)

We have already observed that by excluding the immense majority of the human species from its midst, by keeping this majority outside the reciprocal engagements and duties of morality, of justice, and of right, the State denies humanity and, using that sonorous word patriotism, imposes injustice and cruelty as a supreme duty upon all its subjects. It restricts, it mutilates, it kills humanity in them, so that by ceasing to be men, they may be solely citizens—or rather, and more specifically, that through the historic connection and succession of facts, they may never rise above the citizen to the height of being man We have also seen that every state, under pain of destruction and fearing to be devoured by its neighbor states, must reach out toward omnipotence, and, having become powerful, must conquer. Who speaks of conquest speaks of peoples conquered, subjugated, reduced to slavery in whatever form or denomination. Slavery, therefore, is the necessary consequence of the very existence of the State.