Talk:International Workingmen's Association

untitled

Definately a work in progress.. there isn't another article for this, is there? -- Sam

Later disputes between the majority led by Marx and a secret consipratorial faction led by Bakunin the anarchist leader led to a split with the latter. It was largely held responsible for the Paris Commune of 1971. Although this was not in fact true Marx did write a defence of the Commune. don't look NPOV but marxist vision. In the french version it's said that Marx put the anarchists out and the Ist International as it died. But the anarchists built it again in the Congress of Saint-Imier and the AIT exists now. Arno Lagrange 11:24, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Arno, plz reword "Marx put the anarchists out and the Ist International as it died". Perhaps "and" is a typo? Does it mean "Marx expelled the anarchists from the First International at the same time that the F.I. ceased to exist"? --Jerzy(t) 10:58, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

Second International was once a redirect to International Workingmen's Association:

20:53, 2004 Jan 30 . . Warofdreams (redirect to appropriate article)

M 13:29, 2002 Nov 8 . . Tzartzam (#REDIRECT International Workingmen's Association)

But i assume that was an undisputed error, and that the redirect from First International is accurate. If so, the article International Workingmen's Association needs to mention the name "First International" (but should not link to First International). --Jerzy(t) 10:58, 2004 Mar 7 (UTC)

The way the original article was phrased it was both "POV" (Marxist) and inaccurate. First the anarchists weren't "ejected" they left (rather disgusted I might add). And second there is not and there never was such a thing as the "Bakunists". Unlike the authoritarian communists (eg Marx) anarchists do not follow leaders, to describe the anarchists of the first international as Bakunists is a gross misrepresentation. As a matter of fact the main dispute between Marx and Bakunin was that Bakunin did not accept that the workers needed leaders or representatives and he maintained that the "representatives" of the workers would not anymore be part of the working class and would eventually become ruling class while Marx scoffed at this view which he thought exaggerated. One is tempted to say that history has shown Bakunin to be right.Dr Absentius 22:58, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Dr Absentius, care to reveal your sources? I have several that suggest that, like with most political movements, the Anarchists of the times had leaders/philosophers, and that the historical events as presented in the article fit with established history. As for who has been shown right, that's irrelevant to this discussion, so let's leave it out. --Improv 01:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You need sources for exactly what? That there are no "Bakhunists"? Why don't you mention one source in which such a term is used? I also would like to see a reference to the fact that the anarchists participating in the first International were referring to themselves as "Bakhunists". I have met many people that describe themselves as Marxists but I have yet to meet a person who describes themselves as Bakhunist, do you care to elaborate?

Of course the anarchists had and have philosophers and there were and are prominent figures among them but they don't have leaders in the same way that authoritarian communists do. I consider this to be so self-evident and well known that I really have hard time to understand what kind of reference you want, wouldn't any book about the anarchocommunism do? Try the [FAQ] for example.

Here is how Bakhounin speaks of the practices of Marx and the "church" around him as he refers to them. (See [Freedom and the State] at the Anarchy Archive at pitzer.)

"Living for very nearly thirty years, almost exclusively among German workers, refugees like himself and surrounded by more or less intelligent friends and disciples belonging by birth and relationship to the bourgeois world, Marx naturally has managed to form a Communist school, or a sort of little Communist Church, composed of fervent adepts and spread all over Germany. This Church, restricted though it may be on the score of numbers, is skilfully organized, and thanks to its numerous connections with working-class organisations in all the principal places in Germany, it has already become a power. Karl Marx naturally enjoys an almost supreme authority in this Church, and to do him justice, it must be admitted that he knows how to govern this little army of fanatical adherents in such a way as always to enhance his prestige and power over the imagination of the workers of Germany.

It is hard to imagine that somebody who talks like that about the "Marxists" would have a "church" of his own who would call themselves "Bakhunists". Furthermore in [Organization of the International] he states

"... we are convinced, that, if the International split into two groups-a big majority, and small minority of ten, twenty or more people-in such a way, that the majority were convinced blindly of the theoretical and practical sense of the minority, the result would be the reduction of the International to an oligarchy--the worst form of State. The educated and capable minority would, together with its responsibilities, demand the rights of a governing body. And this governing body would prove more despotic than an avowed autocracy, because it would be hidden beneath a show of servile respect for the will of the people. The minority would rule through the medium of resolutions, imposed upon the people, and afterward called "the will, of the people." In this way, the educated minority would develop into a government, which, like all other governments, would grow every day more despotic and reactionary.

The International only then can become a weapon for liberating the people, when it frees itself; when it does not permit itself to be divided into two groups--a big majority, the blind tool of an educated minority. That is why its first duty is to imprint upon the minds of its members the science, philosophy, and policy of Socialism."

Independently of whether he was proved right or not --which you are right it is irrelevant-- I think that these quotes show that not only he didn't consider himself to be the leader of a group, he vehemently opposed the very idea of leadership.

I don't want to get into any editing wars and so I am not gong to revert the changes hoping that we can reach a consensus. The phrasing of the article has a definitely Marxist POV. I mainly object to the use of the term "Bakhunist" (especially when used next to the term Marxist) and the derogatory phrasing "were ejected". I suggest that the first term be replaced by "the anarchists, with Mikhael Bakunin a prominent figure among them" or something similar. Also maybe instead of "were ejected" vs "they left" we should rewrite the sentence to refer neutrally to the split of the two groups and the main issues about which there was a disagreement.Dr_Absentius 01:24, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Many sorces use the word Bakuninist, whether or not all "Bakunists" would agree to the term is another question. Is there a reason why there isn't a list of parties?

• Where has the section for the "The Geneva Congress, 1866" gone?

Bismarck Quote

The fact is that as stated at the relevant page on Wikiquote, the quote has no original German source and seems to have popped up only in political rather than historical texts - including the current citation, which stands as a political piece rather than anything touched by a historian. Perhaps add a disclaimer about this status if not remove the quote? 2603:9001:5E02:276A:0:0:0:D83 (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

My attempt at editing this quote was met by a quick reversal, but the quote simply doesn't reflect historical reality. I have checked the source at https://archive.org/embed/capitalitsdiscon0000unse_m7t2 and, as we already knew because the quote isn't real, the quote is given without a source on a page where other quotes are sourced. This is because its unverifiable, and hearsay, another misattributed quote to the pile.

This is not up to Wikipedia's standard. We can not assume everything that has a source claiming its true makes it suitable for Wikipedia. The sources themselves must be put under scrutiny, and once we do so for this one, we find a lack of support for the quote. I will add a tag to the relevant sections, then whoever feels like verifying the Bismarck quotes can do so and remove the tags once the claim has been verified. Good luck!

Here's a link to the Disputed section of the wikiquote page for future reference: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Disputed 62.101.195.234 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)