contrast between the two men may be envisaged as the contrast between anarchism and socialism.
First of all it is essential to bear in mind that Marx and Bakunin both went through a developmental process, that both men modified their opinions as time passed. Further, in making the comparison, we must differentiate between Marx and Marxism, and must not overlook the distinction between socialism and social democracy.
Turning from these methodological preliminaries to consider the immediate question under review, we cannot fail to find it significant that the opposition between Marx and Bakunin endured for many years.[1] This suffices by itself to justify the conclusion that the difference of outlook was based (even though not invariably) upon essential differences in point of principle.
In philosophy, both Bakunin and Marx started from the same point, from Hegel–Feuerbach and the Hegelian left; both learned from Proudhon and the French socialists; both were positivists and materialists; the two men lived for a considerable time in similar circumstances and in the same localities; both participated in the revolution; both had to suffer from the same reaction and from its effects upon personal safety and freedom.
But under the influence of German philosophy Bakunin remained subjectivist and individualist, whereas Marx (and all that is said here applies equally to Engels) was much more influenced than Bakunin by French and English positivism, passed on to extreme objectivism, and came to regard history and the social totality as the determining influences in social life. Bakunin, too, abandoned the extremer forms of subjectivism and individualism (Introduction to Hegel's Gymnasial
- ↑ In the year 1848 Marx was annoyed at the ill-considered rising in Baden of which Herwegh was the leader. At the time Bakunin defended Herwegh, but subsequently agreed that Marx had been right. In the same year, in the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung," Bakunin was accused of being a Russian agent, the accusation being based upon the alleged testimony of George Sand. Marx published the contradiction of this piece of gossip. In 1849 Marx animadverted against Bakunin's panslavist policy, but here, too, there was no serious difference upon matters of principle. Such a difference was first displayed during the struggle in the International. Marx was doubtless right in considering that the foundation of the Bakuninian second International was a tactical error. Bakunin appealed in justification to the difference between the Latin and the Teutonic lands. Marx was right, too, in respect of Nečaev, but the behaviour of Bakunin's opponents was not altogether above criticism.
