This is a really terrific book, and so rich in 19th century context - historical, philosophical, socioeconomical - you would probably enjoy reading it even if you only have a passing interest in Bakunin or anarchism. It is also well-written and often funny, with many (quite good) little jokes thrown in there that, like the book itself, are always both enlightening and entertaining. It also knows how to connect the events in the book with the issues facing us today. Capitalism, for instance, is s

This is a really terrific book, and so rich in 19th century context - historical, philosophical, socioeconomical - you would probably enjoy reading it even if you only have a passing interest in Bakunin or anarchism. It is also well-written and often funny, with many (quite good) little jokes thrown in there that, like the book itself, are always both enlightening and entertaining. It also knows how to connect the events in the book with the issues facing us today. Capitalism, for instance, is still grinding us into whatever we are today, and Bakunin's critique of it still of use. This constant awareness is a big plus for me.



To be clear this is not an intimate personal biography, more a summary of Bakunin's ideas and a description of their evolution as events in his life progress. This is where the context comes in of course. Because for someone born in 1814's Russia, who would turn out to be a prominent European radical, you can and should ask: how did Napoleon's Continental System and 1812 invasion impact the political climate in Russia? What if any practical implications did they have for Bakunin's (noble) family and their running of an estate with serfs? How did the institution of serfdom prevent Russia from modernizing? How did the failed Decembrist uprising impact the political climate? How did this political climate impact our subject radical? What was the intellectual context of Bakunin's radicalization? What did the rise of industrial capitalism and liberalism mean exactly? What was the impact on Bakunin's thinking of encountering Proudhon, Weitling, Marx, 1848, Garibaldi and the Risorgimento, the birth the Second German Empire, the establishment of the First International, the Paris Commune, the promise of the United States (where capital had to compete for labor with plenty of affordable land) as a high-wage worker's paradise, etc? Thankfully, this context is adequately provided. And as a labor historian, Leier is well positioned to give it. Perhaps most impressively, the book also includes a somewhat lengthy (10 pages?) discussion of the relevant aspects (for understanding Bakunin) of the philosophies of Fichte and Hegel which is both helpful and fun to read if you can believe it.



And perhaps needless to say, but what makes it such a good idea to study the (political) thinkers of the 19th century - besides Bakunin also Marx and Tocqueville and many, many more or course - is that because they are first-hand witnesses of the rise and establishment of the political concepts that still dominate our 21st century world: capitalism, socialism, liberalism, conservatism, democracy, journalism, nationalism, parlements and constitutions. People in the 21st century can hardly know what these terms actually mean, for, as Nietzsche pointed out, it's only possible to concisely define a term if it has no history. Any accurate and adequate definition of a historical concept would have to include its earliest function(s) and the circumstanced in which they arose, and the evolution which shaped them from then on. This is why 'capitalism', for instance, is so hard to define for us 21st centurians. Ask a hundred random people on any random (internet) street today what capitalism means, and most would have absolutely no idea on how to even begin to define it. Even self-declared enthousiasts of capitalism would often give you a definition that is vague, incomplete, and/or outright false. (In fact it is my long-held belief that supporters of capitalism are necessarily and entirely clueless about what it is.) Thinkers of the 19th century know better what all these terms mean, because they were born into and witnessed a world without them. They have seen them come into being, watched their evolution from abstract principles into concrete realities, seen their real-world implications. They were also able to contrast places in which they were an established reality (such as in Britain or France) with places in which they were resisted (such as in Austria or Russia). They also, as Leier put it in his introduction, have the benefit of having escapted the massive campaign of propagandizing and normalization of capitalism that we were subjected to the last 170 years or so. This gives these thinkers a clearness of insight into modern life that we can only get second-hand, by studying them and their perspectives. This book is aware of this fact of and emphasises this practical aspect of studying the 19th century throughout, this is one of its many strong points.



'Bakunism' versus Marxism



For people interested in anarchism (and other kinds of socialism) there are more reasons to enjoy this book obviously, as Bakunin's disagreements and feuds with Marx and Engels are basically the potting soil in which anarchism as a modern philosophy and movement is rooted. Several points of disagreement jump out.



One is that Marx and Engels believed that, before socialism could arise, capitalism should establish itself and reach maturity first. Only thence socialism will come into being. This belief made them side with the progression of capitalism and imperialism in some cases, and side against the peoples oppressed by them. Famously the Slavs and the Mexicans, who according to Engels basically had to suck up their subjection by the Habsburg and US empires in the name of capitalist progress. Bakunin strongly disagreed and more consistently sided with the oppressed against their oppressors. Human liberty is always the goal according to Bakunin, any society can become freer, steps in that direction are always both attainable and worth fighting for. Even if these fights are doomed, they are still worth fighting for, as they will keep the torch of liberty lit and inspire the next fight.



Here Marx and Engels's 'historical materialism' (which is what they called their 'science' through which they divined these stages of historical development) clearly shows the danger that all forms of 'realism' suffer from: a tendency of turning into power-worship. The United States is stronger than Mexico, therefore it should dominate Mexico. Power becomes its own justification. Might makes right. Looking at it critically (if ungenerously) Marx and Engels even justify the ultimate establishment of socialism not based on principles of justice, but on the realities of power: a unified proletariat is stronger than the bourgeoisie, therefore they must necessarily win. The lesson here could be that any form of 'realism' should be adopted strictly as an analytical tool, never as a moral compass.



Another point of contention between Marx and Bakunin related to 'historical materialism' is over the respective roles of the proletariat, peasantry, and so-called 'lumpenproletariat'. According to Marx and Engels's historical materialism, only the proletariat would develop a class consciousness and fight for their interests in the form of socialism. Peasants live too insulated from each other, and as result will be intellectually too backwards for this process. Bakunin disagreed with this. People may lack higher learning and/or a sophisticated awareness of politics, but they aren't generally stupid, and they know when they're being oppressed. And when pushed, they will resist. And for Bakunin, several peasant rebellions in history have shown, especially Pugachev's in 1773-75, that this resistance of the peasantry has revolutionairy potential. Later examples of China and Vietnam have shown Bakunin was right about this potential.



This (not) taking serious common people's intelligence is another, more serious difference between anarchism and Marxism. Marxists tend to think the masses should be led, or at least educated, by the radical intellectuals. This authoritarian strain in Marxism is usually associated with Lenin, but it is clearly visible in Marx and Engels as well. Bakunin on the other hand emphasized that radical intellectuals "are not teachers of the people, only their precursors." Radicals do have a role to play, but they (in Leier's paraphrase of Bakunin) "must learn from the masses, not teach them." And not to lead the masses, but to serve them. Not telling people what they should think and want, but helping them to organize and achieve what they actually do think and want. Only that is called democracy. Therefore radical intellectuals should drop the "odious and ridiculous role of the schoolmaster" and realize people are not the means to the revolution, but its end.



Bakunin wasn't consistent on this point though. Women, for instance, should be the equals of men in political duties and rights. In the Russian peasant communes women were seen and treated less than equal (to put it mildly), and regarding this "patriarchal despotism", for instance, Bakunin did see a duty of radical intellectuals to educate.



Another (maybe less, but still very) important disagreement is over the role of political action (Marx) versus direct action (Bakunin). Workers in the more developed parts of Europe, such as France and Britain, tended to side with Marx, as the vote allowed them to win siginificant reforms in the political arena. Workers in especially Spain and Italy, who did not have the vote and therefore no means of political action, tended to favor Bakunin's approach. Reading Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, I always wondered where all these Italian and Spanish anarchists came from.* I now have a clue.



And then, of course, there is the defining question of state-power. Accoring to Marx and Engels, seizing state power is both a useful and necessary stage of revolution. A temporary 'dictatorship of the proletariat' will dissolve all class-differences, and then the state will eventually 'wither away'. Bakunin sees no reason why this will happen. According to him, power inherently corrupts. Even if you put workers in power of the state, they will cease to be workers then and there, and become liable to wishing to stay in power. Especially if they are in power for more than a couple of weeks, they will start to get used to their new privileges and, knowingly or unknowingly, will be inclined to extend the current arrangements, perhaps even reproduce them for their children. And if it aren't even workers who are put in power, but the radical intellectuals who have always considered themselves to be the superior schoolmasters of the people, this tendency is of course even stronger. In Bakunin's view means and ends must be aligned, they cannot contradict. Repression will never beget liberty, only libery can beget liberty.



In summary, I love this book and will try to force people to voluntarily read it.



_________

* historically I mean, not geographically ...