RSS FeedRSS FeedLivestreamLivestreamVimeoVimeoTwitterTwitterFacebook GroupFacebook Group
You are here: Platypus /Archive for tag Bakunin

"How well Kautsky wrote [when he was still a Marxist]!" — Lenin, "Left-Wing" Communism — An Infantile Disorder (1920)

Platypus Leipzip lädt zum Ferienlesekreis über "Kautskys Marxismus".

Treff: ab 18. August immer dienstags 19 Uhr

Die Texte werden zu Hause gelesen und beim Lesekreis besprochen. Kein Vorwissen ist nötig. Neue Gesichter sind immer herzlich willkommen.

● vorausgesetzte Texte / + zusätzlich empfohlene Texte

Empfohlene Hintergrundlektüre:

+ Vernon Lidtke, The Outlawed Party: SPD 1878–1890 (1966)
+ Lidtke, The Alternative Culture: Socialist Labor in Imperial Germany (1985)
+ Carl Schorske, The SPD 1905-17: The Development of the Great Schism (1955)
+ James Joll, The Second International 1889–1914 (1966)

Einleitender Text:

• Monty Johnstone, “Marx and Engels and the concept of the party” (1967)
• J. P. Nettl, “The German Social Democratic Party 1890–1914 as a Political Model” (1965)
Spartakist-Broschüre, "Kautskyanertum und die Ursprünge der russischen Sozialdemokratie" Kapitel 1, Lenin und die Avantgarde Partei (1978)

Woche 1 | Lassalle und Marx

+ Karl Korsch, "Der Marxismus der ersten Internationale" (1924)
• Karl Marx, „Inauguraladresse der Internationalen Arbeiter-Assoziation“ (1864)
• Ferdinand Lassalle, Offenes Antwortschreiben an das Zentralkommitee zur Berufung eines Allgemeinen Deutschen Arbeiterkongresses zu Leipzig (1863)

Woche 2 | Bakunin und Marx

• Mikhail Bakunin, A Critique of the German Social-Democratic Program (1870)
Bakunin, "Marxismus, Freiheit, Staat" (1872)
Marx, "Kritik des Gothaer Programms" (1875)
Marx, "Einleitung zum Programm der französischen Arbeiterpartei" (1880)
+ Marx, Konspekt von Bakunins Buch "Staatlichkeit und Anarchie" (1874)

Woche 3 | „Das Erfurter Programm“

• Karl Kautsky, "Das Erfurter Programm" (1892)
+ Eugene Debs, "Competition versus Cooperation" (1900)
+ Hellen Keller, "How I became a socialist" (1912)
+ Eugene Debs, "How I became a socialist" (1902)

Woche 4 | „Die soziale Revolution“

Kautsky, Die soziale Revolution (1902): Teil 1 und Teil 2

Woche 5 | „Der Weg zur Macht“

Kautsky, "Der Weg zur Macht" (1909)

Woche 6 | „Die proletarische Revolution und der Renegat Kautsky“

• Vladimir Lenin, "Die proletarische Revolution und der Renegat Kautsky" (1918)
+ Debs, “The Day of the People” (1919)
+ Kautsky, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (1918)

Woche 7 | 3. Internationale

• Leon Trotzki: Manifest der Kommunistischen Internationale an das Proletariat der ganzen Welt
• First Four Congress of the Third International: Leitsätze über den organisatorischen Aufbau der kommunistischen Parteien, über die Methoden und den Inhalt ihrer Arbeit (1921)
• O. Piatnitsky: The 21 Conditions of Admission into the Communist International [HTML] (1934)

Der Ferienlesekreis beschäftigt sich mit der ersten Internationale und dem Verhältnis zwischen Anarchismus und Marxismus - u.a. bei Bakunin und Kropotkin.

A panel held at the Sixth Annual Platypus International Convention on Saturday, April 5, 2014 at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.


Jon Bekken (Anarcho-Syndicalist Review)
James Heartfield (
William Pelz (Elgin Community College)


The First International (1864 - 1876), or International Workingmen's Association, was founded in the long shadow of 1848, amidst Polish and Italian national liberation movements and the upheaval of the American Civil War. As an organization it pushed against the limitations of radical Republican politics (in both its European and American iterations). It was the first to present the need for an organized body of the international working class in order to develop the political forces capable of challenging industrial capitalism on the world's stage. The recognition of the global nature of capitalist society, coupled with a critique of radical democratic politics of the second half of nineteenth century -- both from an Anarchist and Marxist perspective -- make up the political content of the First International.

Any history of the First International in the present is necessarily informed -- consciously or unconsciously -- by the experience and assessment of the Marxist Internationals in the twentieth century. A critical history of the First International today would have to be part of a larger reflection on the origins of Marxism and the mid-nineteenth century shift in leftist political practice (the transformation of both its means and ends). In assessing this history, one discontinuity immediately presents itself: unlike the history of the Second, Third, and Fourth International, the First International was composed of largely heterogeneous political tendencies, including (but not limited to) British labor reformers (including Chartists), Polish radical republicans (in opposition to Russian Tzarism), Italian supporters of Mazzini (for national unification and the end of the papal state), German Lassallean radicals (followers of Ferdinand Lassalle), et. al; at the center of these ideological differences was the conflict between Marxism and Anarchism (with Marx and Bakunin in the foreground). While the First International is known as the moment of this infamous political split, it remains the task of leftists today to specify what this historical division on the Left might mean for the present. In this spirit, this panel asks: what is at stake in the history First International? And how might it help us advance an understanding of the tasks of the Left today?

The First International died "almost unnoticed" (as one historian has put it) four years after its transfer to New York. In 1924, when Karl Korsch raised the specter of the First International, it was to make sense of the shortcomings of the Second International. His mention of this brief organizational experiment provided the historical distance from which to reflect on both the theory and practice of Marxism. Today, the historical regression advanced in the twentieth century has left us with a diminished capacity to assess the historical tasks of the Left, thus limiting the imagination for a future emancipatory politics. In this impoverished present, the history of the First International, and its contribution to the problem of freedom in the Age of Capital, can help us deepen our understanding of the meaning and tasks of the Left today. Perhaps then we will finally be able to give the First International a proper burial.


1. What is the political climate at the birth of the First International? How was the organization's political horizon shaped by the revolutionary efforts in Europe 1830s onward? How did this climate inform the composition of the First International? What common vision of social revolutionary practice (if any) was shared by its members? Despite its ideological heterogeneity, what held the First International together?

2. A current trend on the Left today is a push for local engagement (sometimes presented as "think globally, act locally”, in light of such a development how do we understand the attempts by the First International to organize globally? How did this international scope help the First International advance a politics against capitalism? What if anything is left of this tradition? In what ways does it depart from its nineteenth-century iteration?

3. Does Anarchism in the nineteenth-century present us with a different set of problems than present-day anarchism? (If so, in what way?) How does the Marx-Bakunin split in the First International help us understand the content of Anarchist politics? What does it illuminate about the relationship between Marxism and Anarchism? What are the different perspectives of history and freedom held by Anarchists and Marxists (in what way are these meaningful)? Lastly, how were both Marx and Bakunin (and, we might add, Proudhon) critics of the radical democratic tradition in the nineteenth-century? And where do their critiques differ? How does this difference shape their political practice?

A panel held at the Sixth Annual Platypus International Convention on Saturday, April 5, 2014 at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago.


Dimitrios Roussopoulos (Transnational Institute of Social Ecology)
Tarek Shalaby (Revolutionary Socialists (Egypt))
Joshua Stephens (Institute for Anarchist Studies)


It seems that there are still only two radical ideologies: Anarchism and Marxism. They emerged out of the same crucible - the Industrial Revolution, the unsuccessful revolutions of 1848 and 1871, a weak liberalism, the centralization of state power, the rise of the workers movement, and the promise of socialism. They are the revolutionary heritage, and all significant radical upsurges of the last 150 years have returned to mine their meaning for the current situation. In this respect, our moment seems no different.

There are a few different ways these ideologies have been taken up. Recent worldwide square occupations reflect one pattern: a version of Marxist theory — understood as a political-economic critique of capitalism — is used to comprehend the world, while an anarchist practice — understood as an anti-hierarchical principle that insists revolution must begin now — is used to organize, in order to change it. Some resist this combination, claiming that Marxism rejects anti-statist adventurism, and call for a strategic reorganization of the working class to resist austerity, and perhaps push forward a “New New Deal”. This view remains wedded to a supposedly practical welfarist social democracy, which strengthens the state and manages capital. There is a good deal of hand waving in both these orientations with regard to politics, tactics, and the end goal. Finally, there have been attempts to leave the grounds of these theories entirely — but these often seem either to land right back in one of the camps or to remain marginal.

To act today we seek to draw up the balance sheet of the 20th century. The historical experience concentrated in these ideas must be unfurled if they are to serve as compass points. To see in what ways the return of these ideologies represent an authentic engagement and in what ways the return of a ghost. Where have the battles left us? What forms do we have for meeting, theoretically and practically, the problems of our present?


1. What do Marxism and Anarchism have to say to those politicized today? Do they instruct us as to how we might act, now? Must we return to these orientations? If so, how?

2. Many recent leftist groupings tend toward square occupation and leaderless horizontality, while retaining an unclear, even reformist, ideological orientation toward capitalism and the state. How do you understand the advent of these forms? Do they challenge traditional Marxist theory and ways of organizing? Are they affirmations of Anarchist modes of thinking and practice? In general, what forms of organization are necessitated by the theories we inherit and the tasks of today?

3. Can you briefly assess the most important splits and breaks between and within both traditions? Does the historical divide between Marxism and Anarchism still matter? What are the significant splits within Marxism and within Anarchism that continue to shape the context?

4. What are the inalienable values and the end goals of radical politics? Are Marxism and Anarchism ideologies of freedom? Of democracy? Of the working class? How do they handle the objective contradictions of realizing these principles under the conditions of capitalist life?

5. What should we fight for today - more state or less state?

6. Has history vindicated Marxism or Anarchism or neither at all?

In the history of the Left, anarchism has always played a strange and more or less underground part. Anarchism was there at the beginning, it has been a permanent (if small) force throughout the major events and crises of the modern period,