Anarchist ambivalence: Politics and violence in the thought of Bakunin, Tolstoy and Kropotkin
| Author | Kimberly Hutchings,Elizabeth Frazer |
| DOI | 10.1177/1474885116634087 |
| Published date | 01 April 2019 |
| Date | 01 April 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Journal of Political Theory
2019, Vol. 18(2) 259–280
!The Author(s) 2016
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1474885116634087
journals.sagepub.com/home/ept
EJPT
Article
Anarchist ambivalence:
Politics and violence in the
thought of Bakunin, Tolstoy
and Kropotkin
Elizabeth Frazer
University of Oxford, UK
Kimberly Hutchings
Queen Mary, University of London, UK
Abstract
There appear to be striking contradictions between different strands of anarchist
thought with respect to violence – anarchism can justify it, or condemn it, can be
associated with both violent action and pacifism. The anarchist thinkers studied here
saw themselves as facing up to the realities of violence in politics – the violence of state
power, and the destructiveness of instrumental uses of physical power as a revolution-
ary political weapon. Bakunin, Tolstoy and Kropotkin all express ambivalence about
violence in relation to political power. Instead of reading this ambivalence as a mark
of inconsistency, or of abdication of responsible judgement, we argue that it signals a
profound recognition of the dynamics of violence in both repressive and resistant pol-
itics. Kropotkin and Bakunin seek a cooperative collective political effort which is
negated by individual acts of violence although it cannot be committed to non-violence
as such. Tolstoy by contrast in his recognition of the organised violence of political
power, turns from politics to morality, from organisation to individual renunciation.
Tolstoyan non-violence is the opposite of Kropotkin’s mutual aid, and paradoxically
Tolstoyan renunciation has effects only when it is underpinned by violence. Tolstoy
leaves violence in its place, in his renunciation of it; and Bakunin and Kropotkin leave
violence in its place in their plans for its undoing.
Keywords
Anarchism, violence, politics, pacifism, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Tolstoy
Corresponding author:
Elizabeth Frazer, University of Oxford, Manor Road, Oxford OX13UQ, UK.
Email: elizabeth.frazer@politics.ox.ac.uk
Introduction
The question of violence is invariably a matter of controversy and dispute for
anarchists (Gelderloos, 2007, 2015; Graeber, 2009: 222–228; Miller, 1984: 109–
123; Pauli, 2015: 142). Anarchist means should prefigure their political and ethical
ends – and anarchy will be non-coercive (Graeber, 2009: 222; Miller, 1984:109).
Reception of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) often focused on his aversion to
violent revolution, appropriating him into the category of ‘utopian’ thinkers, in
contrast to Marxist realism. Tolstoy’s theory of state coercion can be traced to
Proudhon (Bartlett, 2013: 143; Rivett, 1988: 31). Subsequently there have been
engagements between anarchism and pacifism in the thought and practice of
Mohandas Gandhi (1869–1948), who was significantly influenced by Tolstoy.
But practices of non-violence have recently become contentious among anarch-
ists (Gelderloos, 2007, 2015; Pauli, 2015: 142–143). Anarchism is often associated
with violence, not only in popular imagination but also in its own frame (Miller,
1984: 109). The twentieth century Cercle Proudhon, inspired by Georges Sorel, read
Proudhon very differently and was associated with aggressive political programmes
and tactics (Darville et al., 1912; Navet, 1992). Anarchist activists and thinkers
argue for a distinction between the violence of the state, and violent actions by
those who oppose state oppression and work towards non-coercive social relations.
Gelderloos argues that anarchist activism must include a diversity of kinds of
action. Among these actions normally classified as violent – physical fighting, use
of weapons, destruction of property and even injury to persons – will figure. This in
part is because violence can be effective in situations where non-violence is inef-
fective. In any case the situation in oppressive exploitative societies enforced by
state authority is already violent, so violence is necessary (Gelderloos, 2007, 2015).
In this paper, we examine controversies and disputes about the place, meaning
and justification of violent action in anarchism focussing mainly on Mikhail
Bakunin (1814–1876), Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910) and Peter Kropotkin
(1842–1921). These three share a common aristocratic Russian education, and
the associated early career pattern of state service. They all dramatically dissented
from their social inheritance (Leier, 2006; Miller, 1976; Woodcock, 1977). Tolstoy
turned to art before his spiritual crisis further turned his writing to essays in which
he worked out a justified pattern of life and action that is best characterised as
Christian anarchism (Woodcock, 1962: 207–222 esp 215). Bakunin and Kropotkin
more directly jettisoned their aristocratic Russian duties and privileges for the lives
of international anarchist activists, engaged in propaganda and theory, and in
political organisation and campaigning (Leier, 2006: 7; Shatz, 1990: xv–xx;
Woodcock, 1962: 134–206). Both were centrally preoccupied with the antagonistic
relations between social democracy, developing Marxist communism, and
anarchism.
1
Focus on these nineteenth century Russian anarchists in their European political
context is justified by their continuing status as prominent figures in anarchist
political and intellectual history. Relatively close examination of their arguments
and positions allows us to trace complexities in the theory of violence, and to
examine the interactions of philosophy, practice and context. This avoids
260 European Journal of Political Theory 18(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial