Bakunin: A Biography

by Mark Leier

" Bakunin not only reassesses this fascinating and important character but also provides the biography of the forgotten ideology of anarchism itself."—Simon Sebag Montefiore, author of The Court of the Red Tsar

The passion for destruction is a creative passion," wrote the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin in 1842. Since then, the popular image of anarchism has been one of violence and terror. But this picture is wildly misleading, and the media has done more to obscure anarchism than to explain it. Focusing on the street fighting and confrontations with police, mainstream commentators are unable to understand what anarchism is or why a philosophy with roots in the nineteenth century has resurfaced with such power at the dawn of the new millennium. To understand anarchism, it is necessary to go beyond the caricature presented by the media. In this new biography of Mikhail Bakunin, Mark Leier traces the life and ideas of anarchism's first major thinker, and in the process revealing the origins of the movement.

There was little in Bakunin's background to suggest that he would grow up to be anything other than a loyal subject of the Russian Empire. Instead, he became one the most notorious radicals of the nineteenth century, devoting his life to the destruction of the tsar and feudalism, capitalism, the state, even God. In the process, he became a historical actor and political thinker whose ideas continue to influence world events.

Bakunin is of keen interest these days, though the attention paid to his image continues to obscure the man and his ideas. Using archival sources and the most recent scholarship, Leier corrects many of the popular misconceptions about Bakunin and his ideas, offering a fresh interpretation of Bakunin's life and thoughts of use to those interested in understanding anarchism and social change. Arguing for the relevance and importance of anarchism to our present world, Leier sheds light on the nineteenth century, as well as on today's headlines, as he examines a political philosophy that has inspired mass movements and contemporary social critics.

Mark Leier shows that the "passion for destruction" is a call to build a new world free of oppression, not a cult of violence. He argues that anarchism is a philosophy of morality and solidarity, based not on wishful thinking or naïve beliefs about the goodness of humanity but on a practical, radical critique of wealth and power. By studying Bakunin, we can learn a great deal about our own time and begin to recover a world of possibility and promise. It is often said that we are all anarchists at heart. This book explains why.

Genres: History, Biography, Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Russia, Activism

367 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Mark Leier is a Canadian historian of working class and left-wing history. He is the director of the Centre for Labour Studies at Simon Fraser University, where he is also a Professor of Canadian History and the history of Marxism.
Politically anarchist, Leier's books have mostly reflected on British Columbia's rich history of labour radicalism. His first book, Where the Fraser River Flows: The Industrial Workers of the World in British Columbia (1990) deals with the famous syndicalist, working class rebels, while his second, Red Flags and Red Tape: The Making of a Labour Bureaucracy (University of Toronto Press) deals with the institutionalization of a non-revolutionary labour movement. In Rebel Life: The Life and Times of Robert Gosden, Revolutionary, Mystic, Labour Spy (1999), Leier examines the life of an Industrial Workers of the World member (or "Wobbly") turned police labour spy. His fourth book, Bakunin: The Creative Passion is a biography and political chronicle of the 19th century Russian anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin and is being published in paperback by Seven Stories Press.
As part of the Graphic History Collective, he helped produce May Day: A Graphic History of Protest," available through the SFU History Department.
A former folk singer, Leier is also known for bringing a banjo to his history classes.

Reviews

[Erik · Rating 5 out of 5]

A really tremendous read. Anarchist histories tend not to be well-written, and certainly tend not to fall into that category of historical works characterized as 'judicious.' But without sacrificing an ounce of passion, Leier makes Bakunin jump off the page. He doesn't spare him (and there are areas in which Bakunin does not deserve to be spared), but nor does he simply roll over and accept the multitude of silly arguments and demonizations that have been launched against the man for well-nigh over a century.

Leier does an especially good job of destroying to psycho-social readings of Bakunin's life and politics that have hitherto dominated treatments, and produces a fantastic chapter which runs from the thought of Ficthe through Hegel without once being boring (and that, my friends, is worth the price of admission on its own).

[Frank Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

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 ...

[Paul Ataua · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great read! A welcome informal biography that finds a good balance between Bakunin’s life and the philosophical underpinnings of his anarchism. I’m no follower of Bakunin, but it was good to see him looked at in the age he lived with the influence of Fichte and the Hegelian left. It was also interesting how the author spent time considering the difference between his and Marx and Engels’ approach to change, and the different views of the large number of revolutionaries who were just wandering Europe at the time. There were times I felt the opinions were a little skewed, but following the words of Tony Wilson of Factory Records fame, “When you have to choose between the truth and the legend, choose the legend.” Totally informative and enjoyable.

[James Hartley · Rating 5 out of 5]

I came to this book knowing nothing of Bakunin apart from his name and his connection to Anarchy. After reading this I realise I knew even less than I thought, especially about Anarchy as a political movement and idea.
First, a gripe: this is largely a defence of Bakunin. The author might not phrase it as such but bar his anti-semitism it largely sets out to defend or explain Bakunin and occassionally this can be a wee bit tiresome, or at least I found it so. I guess from reading between the lines, that most coverage of Bakunin is negative, so I suppose this book is an attempt to right the equilibirum. I didn't like it, but maybe it was necessary.
But, having said that, it is a cracker and you can't help getting pulled into the arguments and parallels with our own time the author clearly wants you to draw. There are some jarring but amusing turns of phrase on offer here which humanise what can be some pretty dry material. You can't help but come away, though, with admiration for big Bakunin and with a lot of food for thought re Anarchy and the world today. Anyway even vaguely interested in the history of human ideas will find this book enriching, whether you are pro, contra or too cool for school.
For me - and this will sound incredibly callow to most people, I suppose - it placed Anarchy and Capitalism and Marxism in context, in the sense of what they were designed to do and who they were designed for. That the 'west' has now achieved some kind of political representation and universal suffrage - not to mention our love of 'things' - might explain away the fact that our current police states operate so seamlessly. But then there's that other thing: that these days we are part of the ruling class and it's the rest of the world whom we lock out of our party as we exploit. Let's hope they don't read this book!

[Michael Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm torn about this book. It is a very good intellectual history of Bakunin, thoroughly researched. The detraction is that on occasion the author becomes an advocate and on others a critic of contemporary politics or specific politicians. While most of those contemporary criticisms and analogies I agree with I think it would be preferable not to include them.

[Emma Wong · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really loved this book. As a bit of background, Mikhail Bakunin was an anarchist / anarcho-communist who lived in the 19th Century. He and his followers fought with Marx and Engels for control of the First Communist International. They leveled some pretty stinging critiques of Marx, which turned out to be true - i.e., first, you can't really overthrow capitalism without violence, you are more likely to be successful in getting people to support communism in near feudal states (i.e., 19th Century Russian and China) than in late-stage capitalist states (i.e., England), and if you don't dismantle the state as part of the process, you will just wind up creating a new nobility of bureaucrats to replace the landed aristocracy of feudal times or the capitalist bourgeoise.

You will like the book a lot more if you know something about the time period and what Bakunin and Marx were arguing over. But even if you don't, and just want to read a book about a dude who lead a pretty wild life in the 19th Century, this book is written in a very accessible and entertaining way. The author tries (and succeeds) in making what would otherwise be pretty dry subject matter witty and entertaining.

If I were to level any criticism, it would be that I don't think the author sufficiently fleshes out evidence of Bakunin's antisemitism or the moral implications of his advocacy of political violence. He basically dismisses the latter by suggesting that: (i) all political parties justify violence under certain circumstances; and (ii) any "bad" or "amoral" violence can be attributed to his brief alliance with Sergei Nachaev. It seemed like more exposition was in order here.

I would also offer the potential reader this caution . . . the author is clearly an apologist for Bakunin. So you should read other books for a more balanced perspective. Nevertheless, this was a very entertaining and edifying read.

[Aonarán · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think I stopped reading this book about 2/3 of the way through. At first I was really excited about such a sizable, dense, new biography on Bakunin, but after dragging myself through whole chapters of the book, I thought I should set it down for a while. I guess I feel like Bakunin's been regarded as more of a doer than a writer or propagandist or academic - I think I even had this image of him being nursed by a she-bear as a child and taught to hate authority and society - and this book really beat me over the head with in-depth analysis of almost all his major writing. I mean a lot of the Leier's analysis of Bakunin's work was WAY, WAY longer than the original text he was analyzing. I also got the impression Leier was some sort of liberal college professor who fancies himself a radical (possible an anarchist) but whose politics shine through pretty readily as Bakunin's life is passed through his liberal-college-professor-lense.

I did, however, enjoy having all the information about Bakunin at my fingertips, and I do plan on reading the last 1/3 at some point.

3.2

[Matthew Antosh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bakunin: the Creative Passion is one of the most through biographies of Bakunin I have ever read, although one must consider the fact that I have not read any other biographies of Bakunin other then Mark Leiers. The book takes an approach that is heavy in modern day pop culture and deep in 18th century theoretical philosophy, which makes parts of the book quick to read, and at times a little hard to slog though. While I realize it is important to understand the philosophy of Hegel to understand the development of Bakunin's thoughts, I think at time Leier focuses too much on theory and not enough on the anecdotes of living Bakunins life. Still, for someone who is wanting to understand the theoretical basis of the development of anarchist thought, as well as learn about the life and times of the father of modern anarchism, this book is the beginning.

[Kris · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic. Must-read for anyone who believes we can attain a better, more free and equal world than we live in today. Or even for those who have become disillusioned with such hopeful thoughts. The author does a superb job in not only giving a biography of Bakunin and describing his ideas, but also skillfully places it all into the broader historical context.

[Cody Bolce · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is best understood less as an ordinary biography than as an effort to correct widespread misconceptions about Bakunin and his politics. Rather than start from a blank slate and building its architecture from scratch, the book uses those misconceptions as the scaffolding on which to build his story. This critical analysis is somewhat unusual for a biography, but warranted by the ubiquity of misinformation about Bakunin. With this in mind, the book is appropriately sympathetic, without veering into pure hagiography.

It skillfully tells Bakunin’s story while setting the record straight on Bakunin’s politics and ideas, mostly through Bakunin’s own words. For example, Bakunin is often thought of as being committed to violence and terrorism. But, as the author shows, Bakunin rejected Jacobinism
and believed revolution could not be accomplished through violence, only through mass movements (though self-defense against violent reaction may be necessary).

The author also correctly situates Bakunin not merely as revolutionary who penned a few memorable quotes, but as a rigorous and serious thinker whose ideas are worthy of further examination. The book does gloss over some problematic elements of Bakunin, such as a handful of writings that express an anti-Semitic sentiment. But those are quite limited and I’m not sure what there is to say about that.

Overall, I found this to be an extremely entertaining and informative book. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested left politics or European history.

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Entering college, I planned a Russian history major with a focus on the non-Bolshevik left prior to 1917. This got me interested in Bakunin, leading me to read such as I could find by him. It wasn't much and a two-semester Russian history course with a rather conservative professor of Russian ancestry made me change my mind about majors.

Now, decades later, I encounter a formidable and sympathetic biography of the man written by an author of anarchist inclination. Reading it one not only learns of Bakunin's life and thought, but also something of the history of anarchism. A particular focus is on the conflict within the First International between Marx and Bakunin and their comrades. According to the author it was much overblown, the two having more in common than at odds. Indeed, according to him, Marx and Engels came over to some of Bakunin's views as regards the state and revolution after the organization disbanded.

Although scholarly, this book is also quite relateable, the author drawing parallels to the present and occasionally presenting his own views. All in all, a page turner!

[Alexis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bakunin and his theories (and anarchist theory in general) have been misunderstood, deliberately, by his contemporary foes, and proponents of different political and economic theorists since the end of the 19th century. Leier breaks down the world Bakunin lived in, his theories, and the feud w/Marx . Leier corrects misconceptions about anarchism, for example, propaganda of the deed does not equal violence or terrorism, w/excerpts of Bakunin's writing and explanations from Bakunin's life. I finished this book impressed that Bakunin was so ahead of his time, especially regarding the need for a social revolution to accompany any economic revolution, atheism, and his views on equality between the sexes- starting with his sisters. The parallels between then and now are many, this book is good for anyone interested in history, political theory, or as a tool for understanding our current situation.

[AHW · Rating 2 out of 5]

A piece of populist hackwork, written in a “greetings, fellow youths!” tone insulting to the reader. Rightly condemns Marx & Engels’s nationalist chauvinism, but excuses Bakunin’s, and fails to make the obvious connection between Bakunin’s Russian nationalism and his antisemitism. Insists that Bakunin & Marx were politically closer than either wanted to admit, which is true, but conveniently ignores that the high points of Bakunin’s moralistic political pronouncements - opposition to the state, to politics, to religion, to the division of labor - are integral inner aspects of Marx’s critique, drawn out through concrete scientific investigation rather than simply pointed to and condemned in loose polemic. Worst of all, this book is full of mealy-mouthed excuses for Bakunin’s love of crypto-statist solutions: first the “people’s dictator,” then the secret society. Leier is right that Bakunin (and figures like him) merits serious consideration. This book ain’t it.

[Titus Hjelm · Rating 4 out of 5]

A refreshing, sympathetic account of a revolutionary that is a nice counterweight to the numerous biographies that portray left leaders as monsters or has-beens. Sometimes the sympathy teeters on apology, but always in a self-reflexive way, as when the author condemns Bakunin's apparent anti-Semitism. Almost a third of the book tackles Bakunin's disagreements with Marx. Marx comes off as a 'reformist' in the anarchist reading, which I found surprising, but interesting--something you wouldn't see in more orthodox Marxist accounts. That said, the criticisms of Marx are mostly balanced, overall. There is little here for the reader interested in posthumous gossip. The focus is on the context of Bakunin's life and his ideas--although the latter feature rather lightly until the very end. All in all, a very enjoyable read.

[Bill Reynolds · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's nice to read something written by someone in sympathy with his subject, rather than so much that is written about anarchism that descends to the level of negative polemic (not the least from Marxists). At times the writer comes off as somewhat defensive, but the contexts he provides for what he sees as unfair attacks on Bakunin and his ideas are convincing. His explanations of theory are easy to understand, and he even summarizes Hegelian dialectic clearly in just a few pages. He helped me to grasp things that I'd been having trouble with. He doesn't, however, shy away from the problematic aspects of Bakunin's personality and ideas.

[Margaux Tatin Blanc]

As we are coming to the 150th anniversary of LA COMMUNE DE PARIS it was time to reread again the bio of Bakunin written by Mark Leier... It is all you ever wanted to ask about all the diverse versions of socialism, radicalism, anarchism, and everything political in the 19th century...
Quite dense... rather exhausting to read but you will come out of it so much more knowledgeable about all that came before and after Bakunin...
And for Bakunin and LA COMMUNE, well absolutely... he did go to Lyon to join the COMMUNE DE LYON...

[Toby Mustill · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolutely brilliant book on Bakunin and anarchism. Mark Leier does an excellent job of intertwining Bakunin’s personal history and that of his writings and his politics. A fascinating read and an absolute must for anyone trying to grapple with ideas around anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism.

[* · Rating 4 out of 5]

No longer using this website, but I'm leaving up old reviews. Fuck Jeff Bezos. Find me on LibraryThing: https://www.librarything.com/profile/...

This is a great introduction to Bakunin's ideas.

It is disappointing that Bakunin's biography is used only as a backdrop to describe his ideas. Had I known that this book's charge was not his actions per se, but what motivated those actions, I might have picked up a different book. Passing mention is given to the barricades of various insurrections all over Europe that Bakunin manned. Instead the book concentrates on ensuring that Bakunin's ideas are explained plainly to the reader, leaving the actual biography to past works about Bakunin (an example given in the first couple of pages of the book: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26...)

Dotted with references to pop-culture and witty comparisons to the modern day, the purpose of this book was to expound on Bakunin's philosophy, where it comes from, how it differs from other leftist philosophy (such as Marxism, or pre-Marxist socialism). I think it is a great work of popular philosophy (pop-philo?). For example, "Bakunin[...:]had a gift for reaching non-intellectuals. Unlike Marx, Bakunin would never be the target of a purge of the Poindexters." or, for a more biting example:

"As [Marx:] noted in the preface to the new edition of the Communist Manifesto, [...:]the machinery so well-adapted for the rule of the bourgeoisie could not provide the model for socialism.
"That's just what I've been on about!" Bakunin exclaimed. The old foes eyed each other warily until the realization sunk in. Then each extended his arms, crying out "Comrade!" as they embraced in a particularly hairy hug that, to be honest, left both men feeling a little awkward.[...:]Reconciled at last, they agreed to work together and use that dynamic tension that had so divided them to build a united socialist movement and well and truly launch humanity's history anew.
Perhaps in an alternate universe."

The truth revealed in this book is that Marx was a total douche. Back-stabbing, bad-jacketing, spiteful, vindictive, sectarian and jealous, Marx never drew the crowds of working people that Bakunin or Proudhoun did, and so therefore Marx despised them. A bookish nerd who compiled statistics while Bakunin raised black flags on top of European barricades, Marx never said a good word about his rival. Bakunin, on the other hand, was quite reserved in his criticism of Marx, ceding where his own philosophy was not as developed as that of Marx, and treating Marx like a comrade regardless of whatever ill will Marx had towards him.

Unlike Bakunin, Marx wrote himself and others of his social standing into the supposed revolutionary philosophy of the oppressed: "[Marxists:] remained the "most impassioned friends of state power," because without the state, the social revolution would simply sweep the intellectuals aside as the masses created their own free institutions and associations." Bakunin always insisted that the lived experiences of the working class were the most important factor in their revolutionary potential. Though other social classes could help build the liberatory workers' movement, the work had to be done by the workers themselves (himself discluded), and revolution mus be built on their experiences.

I'm really going to give this to my mom to read. I think she'll enjoy it.

[Michael Schmidt · Rating 5 out of 5]

As choking cement dust settled over Manhattan in the wake of 9/11, journalists pawing through the wreckage of history for a precedent came across the almost forgotten bombing of Wall Street by Lettish members of the Anarchist Black Cross in 1920 that killed 38 people and injured scores others.

It had been an era in which anarchism wore the mantle of most feared sect to the propertied classes (Interpol had its roots in international summits in Rome and St Petersburg in the 1890s to combat anarchism, and an anarchist loner had assassinated US President William McKinley in 1901), the master of disaster was presumed to be long-dead anarchist barricades fighter and counter-Marx polemicist Mikhail Bakunin.

Bakunin's tumultuous life, often on the run, often in the firing line, had the effect of both increasing his dangerous aura and the influence of his emergent anarcho-communist ideas on the trade unions of the First International - but also fragmenting his writings and so allowing for many distortions by his enemies.

With lively prose balanced by a judicious and ultimately fair assessment of Bakunin's life and ideas, his flaws and often fruitful engagements with Marx, Leier has produced the most accessable life of this giant figure of 19th Century socialism.

Bakunin's influence was mass-organisational: the splintering of the International in 1872 saw a tiny Marxist rump of perhaps 1,000 activists scattered internationally totally overshadowed by an enormous anarchist majority (sections in Spain boasted 60,000 members by 1873, and in Italy 30,000 members by 1874), which strength was replicated by further growth under the anarchist IWA's successor Anti-Authoritarian "Black" International, founded in 1881 (sections in Mexico boasted 50,000 members by 1882, and in Holland 188,700 members by 1895 - the year in which the famous French CGT merged with the Bourses du Travail to establish a model that would be replicated as far afield as Senegal and Brazil).

It is for that mass-organisational reason that all students of mass-line liberatory politics should read Leier, but for a more intimate perspective, I'll direct you to my brief comments on the female influences on Bakunin: http://www.anarkismo.net/article/24259

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mark Leier points out that the best way to analyse ideas is through dialectic - or in this case attacking anyone who has ever dared to criticise the anarchist intellectual Mikhail Bakunin. The fact that he does so decisively and with both verve and wit is much to his credit, as is his refusal to excuse Bakunin's anti-semitism which was troubling even for the times in which he lived.
To describe 'The Creative Passion' as an autobiography is both overstatement and misleading. Although Leier goes into some degree of necessary family history, little importance is placed on the life which Bakunin lived in comparison to his words and beliefs. As the final stop on a journey of the discovery of his ideas, this would be woeful but as an introduction it is essential. Leier's digressions are few but necessary in order to illuminate some of the more complex and obscure concepts brought to light. The author consistently manages this clearly and concisely without ever appearing patronising. I for one particular enjoyed his illumination of Nihilism.
Yes, Leier is clearly a fan and spends a good portion of the book bashing the living daylights out of Karl Marx, although he arguably has great reason to do so. Through it all, Bakunin emerges as a great, generous and warm spirit of exactly the type who could expand on the notions of Proudhon to synthesise a concept of Anarchy which embraces humanism, altrusim and collectivism. It was perhaps precisely this warmth (verging on naivete) which so often left him open to virulent attacks upon his character, exploitation, imprisonment and exile,
If Bakunin was an apocalyptic revolutionary then that version of the man does not emerge here, what is left then is a flawed soul but an inspirational one nonetheless who's vision of the future of humanity transcends the capitalist/socialist paradigm and may yet come to fruition.

[Dylan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the most enjoyable book I've read recently. The author provides a likable and human portrait of a figure who has been very poorly served by generations of historians and sectarian Marxists (not to mention Marx himself), who have distorted the anarchist's thought, misattributed the incendiary work of others to him, falsely accused him of espionage, and grasped at isolated passages of his writing as evidence of secret authoritarian intentions. After more than a century of these widely circulated falsehoods, it is a difficult task to restore Bakunin's rightful legacy as a passionate voice for liberation, but Leier has made a bold step in that direction.

This quote from the introduction was a hook for me: "The fundamental point of anarchism is critique. Anarchists have tried to show what is wrong with the world and why, but their message has been buried and distorted. Its resurgence at the 'end of history' is not surprising, for anarchism has often renewed precisely when we are told that this is as good as it gets and that happiness lies in adapting ourselves to the new horrors. When the lid of the box gets screwed down tight, people start to think and act outside the box."

And here's Bakunin himself, on capitalism, as true today as then: "The whole life of the worker is nothing other than a grievous succession of terms of legally voluntary but economically forced servitude, momentarily interrupted by liberty accompanied by starvation, and consequently a real slavery."

On the state, which history has yet to disprove: "The state cannot exist a single day without having at least one privileged, exploiting class: the bureaucracy."

[Sean Mccarrey · Rating 4 out of 5]

My initial disappointments with this book come from my false expectations of Bakunin, so I can't really judge this book for that. However, I did feel as though the author may have missed out on a more interesting aspect of Bakunin's life. Throughout the book, it seems as though Leier is using Bakunin's biography to explain the ways that he came about the various characters that Bakunin wrote back and forth with. I think that a more in-depth view of how not just the people, but places and events of Bakunin's life as well affected his work would bring this book to life in the way that Peter Kropotkin's memoirs did. I mean come on, the guy travelled around the world to escape exile in Siberia, I think that warrants more than a few pages. Leier might caution away from anything that verges on phsyco-history, but Bakunin did not live in an intellectual bubble (well for the most part).
With that being said, it was an amazing book. It really brought out the differences between anarchism and Marxism, and explained a lot of the intellectual ground work for the course of European history in the twentieth century. I think the book also effectively gave Bakunin a more human presence, when it seems like it would have been fairly easy to demonize the guy. With the relatively recent events of the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street (recent in comparison to the time scale we're looking at in this book) right now seems like an appropriate time to read this book.

[abclaret · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bakunin much like anarchism itself is widely misunderstood. Mark Leier in a similar vein to Francis Wheen tries to inject humour into an otherwise complex biography which weaves together philosophy, history, and a series of protracted personal disputes with Karl Marx all without being dry, the least bit academic or partisan. The last chapter tries in particularly to emphasise the proximity of Bakunin and late Marx after the fallout of the Paris Commune.

Considering the morass of silliness that is claimed against anarchism the author has done a sterling job in refuting slanders, psycho-babble and managed to put a human face to Bakunin, his eventful life and his political insights. A worthwhile and sympathetic read.

[Sean]

i was stranded in the jungles of southern naperville for an afternoon, so i moseyed my way on over to the public lib and found this interesting little gem to tie up an afternoon. particularly fascinating to me is the dramatic relationship between bakunin and marx, up to and including bakunin's expulsion from the first international. at one point marx's feelings are hurt cause bakunin doesn't respond to marx's gift of a copy of the recently published Capital, and bakunin has to respond in a letter assuring ol' karl that they are indeed friends and it had simply been an oversight. charming.
can't wait to get back into this one.

[The American Conservative]

'Mark Leier sets out to rescue not only Mikhail Bakunin, the great anarchist thinker, but the whole anarchist tradition, which he argues is a pertinent political force today: “The current interest in anarchism,” he writes, “is not misplaced or irrelevant.” He certainly accomplishes the former and does much to dispel the multiple canards that have surrounded this man, many of them fabricated by Marx and the Marxists, but I don’t think he makes much of a case for the latter.'

Read the full review, "An Enemy of the State," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

[D · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really good. Posited as one of the only, and certainly the best books on Bakunin, it doesn't leave much wanting. The focus is on Bakunin's ideas, not just his life, but a lot of time is spent on his long term quarreling with Marx, and also on dispelling the myths that abound when it comes to Bakunin. Highly recommended.

[Chuck · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview of Bakunin's life and political thinking. Very funny, as the author makes comparisons to contemporary pop culture to illustrate points. Contain several good overviews of concepts, including anarchism.

[Theshigen Navalingam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book but gets very repetitive in the middle. Due to mostly Bakunin's problems that keep repeating themselves in his lifetime. The book gets a lot more interesting near the end of the book. If you're feeling discouraged half way through the book, persevere and keep reading.

[Akshay · Rating 4 out of 5]

A satisfying walk through Bakunin's life and decent exploration of the state of affairs in Russia and Europe at the time. I am planning to use this as a sort of launch pad for my future explorations of Anarchism and Bakunin's thoughts

[Pablo Abufom · Rating 5 out of 5]

very well written, excellent documentation, very interesting approach. an insightful and contemporary review of a powerful and classical character.