Yes, the writings of both can be read with great benefit by today’s radicals – although, obviously, I would suggest Bakunin’s contribution was greater (in-so-far he correctly predicted the failures of Marxism and pointed to an alternative, more fruitful if harder, path for the labour movement). Yes, Bakunin was a grand synthesiser while Marx often wrote impressive works of scholarship. Yes, Marx and Bakunin had much in common both in terms of politics and life and, yes, those who are closest often fight the most, often over the most minor of differences. Yes, people can and should play different roles in the movement and this should be recognised (“helpers, organisers, rebels, educators,” following Bill Moyer and George Lakey). There is very little to disagree with in the pamphlet. Instead, it aims to learn from history rather than repeat it Unlike that book, it does not attempt to go into the details of that conflict between the syndicalist and social-democratic tendencies within the International (personified, for better or for worse, in Bakunin and Marx). It does not read that way, but the thought does cross the mind. Marx in the International Working Men’s Association , which raises the question whether this pamphlet is a (short) response to that work. It shares a cover picture with Wolfgang Eckhardt’s The First Socialist Schism: Bakunin vs. This pamphlet is by the author of the best biography of Bakunin, Bakunin: The Creative Passion, Mark Leier and covers the Marx-Bakunin conflict in the First International.