Why
I Read This Book
I’ve been
interested in 19th Century radicalism for a long time now, so when I saw this
new (relatively—pub. 2010) book on the shelves, I snatched it up.
The
Review
On the
whole this is a very interesting and readable book.
It’s
not without its flaws, however, and I’ll start out by addressing the flaws.
The
primary problem with this book is that it’s juggling too many characters, and
too many different stories. As one
Amazon reviewer put it, about every couple of pages a new character is
introduced. This is
one of those books where you are constantly having to go back to the index to
keep track of everyone. (There is a Dramatis Personae at the beginning of
the book which lists all the major characters and summarizes their life, and this
is a helpful resource to flip back to.
But the fact that it was necessary in the first place means the author
is probably juggling too much. There’s
103 names listed in the Dramatis Personae.)
The
second major problem, related to the first, is that it’s not at all clear what
the focus of the book is. If it is about
anything, this book seems to be about anarchist terrorists during the period
from 1870 to 1914. But the problem is
that during this period not all anarchists were terrorists, and not all
terrorists were anarchists. Some of the
most prominent anarchists during this period, such as Kropotkin, were not
connected to terrorism. And many of the
most infamous terrorists during this period, the Nihilists, the People’s Will,
The Socialist Revolutionaries, and the Irish Fenians, were not connected to
anarchism. And yet all these stories and
groups are included in the book.
And
then the book goes off on all sorts of other tangents—we get treated to the
development of the democratic socialist parties in England—absolutely nothing
to do with terrorism, and only a minor part of the international anarchist
story—but the author apparently thought it was interesting. Also we hear about religious utopian
communities in the United
States (and some of the Russian exiles who
were attracted to them). Victor-Henri
Rochefort is one of the main characters in this book, even though he doesn’t
really fit in to the terrorists or anarchists themes. And the author also takes several digressions
to focus on the life of notorious hoaxer and prankster Gabriel Jogand-Pages.
As
another Amazon reviewer put it, the focus of the book seems to have just been
whatever the author personally found interesting
To
add to the frustration, there’s a lot of things that should have been included
in the book, but weren’t. The author
goes into some detail about the rise of the early democratic socialist movement
in England (something
arguably not connected with his topic), but then completely neglects the most
famous act of anarchist violence in England—The Sidney Street Shoot-out
(W), something directly connected with his topic. The book ends with the death of Malatesta in
1932, implying that this was the end of anarchism. In fact, anarchism enjoyed tremendous support
in Spain
up through the end of the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s. But the growth of anarchism in Spain
is barely mentioned in this book. The
book is also Euro-centric. Anarchism
movements were flourishing in China,
Korea and Japan during this period, but they are never once mentioned. (Although the Communist Party eventually won out in China because of its superior organization, there was a period around 1900—1920 when anarchism was more of a dominant force than communism among young Chinese radicals).
So,
all of that is on the negative—too many characters to keep track of, and an
unclear focus.
On
the positive side, the book is decently well written, so if you can keep track
of all the characters, it’s an enjoyable read.
Not
everyone agrees with me on this point—again, to quote from other Amazon
reviewers as has been pointed out by other reviewers is the incredible bloated writing. One reads a prolix sentence and when arriving at the end, forgets what the subject was. The constant use of ten dollar words when fifty cent ones will do is also annoying.A good editor could have reduced the size of this book by half and not lost any important fact listed. A struggle to get through.
(Several other reviews on Amazon are of similar opinion).
(Several other reviews on Amazon are of similar opinion).
Okay,
so it’s not exactly perfect, but I found it readable enough. I’ll quote from a section to illustrate my
point.
A light drizzle was slanting down on the
night of 4 May 1886, when Mayor Harrison arrived in Chicago’s Haymarket Square to reassure himself that
the demonstration he had authorized was passing off in good order. The city was on edge, but having satisfied
himself as to the ‘tame’ character of the gathering, Harrison left at around
half-past seven, advising the police to stand down. Ignoring the mayor’s
instructions, Bonfield merely withdrew his men to positions of concealment in
side streets nearby. Throughout the
evening a steady flow of informants and plainclothes policemen shuttled between
the demonstration and Bonfield’s post, relaying updates on the speeches, right
until the moment when the last speaker, Samuel Fielden, mounted the wagon that
was being used as a podium. “Defend yourselves, your lives, your futures,” he
urged those anarchists who remained. “Throttle
it, kill it, stab it, do everything you can to wound it,” was his recommended
treatment of the law and its protectors, who even as he spoke were lining up,
180 strong in rows four deep, just out of sight. (from p. 207).
Granted,
some of the sections of the book read smoother than others, and some of the
sentences are a bit awkward. But on the
whole, I found the book highly readable.
In fact, I enjoyed this book enough that I’m going to add it to my list of my favorite narrative history books.
Agent
Provocateurs and Conspiracy Theories
After
reading this book, it’s hard not to become a little bit paranoid about the
police and governments.
One
of the main themes of this book is that a lot of the anarchist violence was
actually organized by the police to either discredit the anarchist movement, or
to manufacture an excuse to arrest known anarchists.
This
is not to say that all of the anarchist violence was police orchestrated. There was, as the author makes clear, a
genuine violent element within the anarchist movement itself. But a number of the actual bomb plots in the
1880s and 1890s were actually the work of double agents and agent provocateurs
in police pay.
Much
of this is now a matter of established history, as records have been
declassified and former police agents have confessed.
However,
a fair amount of what went on in the secret world of conspiracies, spies, and provocateurs
is still unknown and will probably never be known. (As the author points out, many of the
official police records from this period have been destroyed). So there are many more points in the book
where author Alex Butterworth suspects the police may have been involved in
provoking violence, but can only hint at suspicious circumstances.
How
much of this is going on today is difficult to say of course. But it’s hard not to feel a little bit
paranoid after reading a book like this.
(Of
course, push this paranoia too far, and you get these ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are surprising popular among large numbers of
otherwise rational people. At some
point, there’s a discussion to be had about how to maintain a healthy
skepticism of the government without completely losing your grip on
reality. But I’m not going to get into
all of that right now—that discussion will have to be saved for another post.)
Connections
with Other Books I’ve Read
(Warning: I always enjoy linking the books
I’m reading with previous books I’ve read, but this is probably only of interest
to me. Feel free to skip this last
section).
Since 19th
century radicalism has long been an interest of mine, this book connects with
many other books that have been on my reading list.
* The first several chapters of this book
were all about the - Paris - Commune, about - which - I’ve - read - several - books. (Although the fact
that the whole history of the Paris Commune is crammed into a few short
chapters is emblematic of how this book is attempting to
cover way too much material in way too short a space.)
* Louise Michel, one of the few leading
figures of the Paris Commune lucky enough to survive and go on to take a
leading part in radicalism for the remainder of the 19th Century, is one of the
main figures in this book. The details
of Louise Michel’s life that I learned from Alex Butterworth largely match what
I learned from the biography of Louise Michel by Edith Thomas. (Somewhat curiously though, Edith Thomas’s
biography of Louise Michel doesn’t show up on Alex Butterworth’s bibliography.)
* Victor-Henri de Rochefort is another
leading figure of the Paris Commune lucky enough to survive bloody week.
Rochefort’s
name has popped up in a number of books I’ve read on the Paris Commune, and as
he was a friend of Louise Michel, he also figured as a minor character in her
biography. But I never really got a
clear idea of who he was until I read The
Fall of Paris by Alistar Horne. (I mentioned this in my original review, but The Fall of Paris is the best book I’ve read on the Paris Commune
in terms of helping the reader to keep track of who all the various players are.)
Anyway,
I’ve known more or less who Rochefort was ever since I read The Fall of Paris, but I never had any
idea of his life after the Paris Commune until now. Alex Butterworth follows Rochefort’s story
and shows that although Rochefort was always controversial, he was not entirely
politically consistent, and later in his life he sided with far right causes
such as the becoming a Boulanger supporter and an anti-Dreyfusard.
Some
Amazon reviewers have complained that the inclusion of Rochefort’s story is emblematic
of the problem this book has with a lack of a clear focus, since Rochefort wasn’t
even really an anarchist. This is probably a valid criticism actually,
but I have to confess I personally didn’t really mind. I was curious to hear Rochefort’s story, so I
forgave the fact that it probably didn’t fit the theme of the book.
* Interestingly enough, one of the little
historical asides in this book ties in with the events of The Three Musketeers. When describing Rochefort’s imprisonment in
the city of La Rochelle,
Butterworth writes on page 71 that Rochefort must have been “imagining himself the romantic heir of the
Calvinist rebels three centuries earlier, who had held out there against an
interminable Catholic siege. (The siege of La Rochelle is one of the historical events described in The Three Musketeers ).
* Another former radical turned arch
conservative is Georges Clemenceau, who is also a minor figure in this
book. He started out as a friend (and
financial supporter) of Louise Michel, but ended up becoming a conservative
Prime Minister of France who crushed labor and socialist movements. Much of the information presented in this
book was in line with the mini-biography I read of Clemenceau some years back.
* The book starts out in 1870, when the
generation of 1848 were approaching their twilight years. So Marx and Bakunin are in this book, but
only as old men approaching the end of their lives.
* The portrait of the elderly Bakunin in
this book—as an old, washed-up, tired revolutionary—is very similar to the
picture of Bakunin painted in Bakunin, An Invention by Horst Bienek, and further seems to cement the idea
that being a anarchist revolutionary is a young man’s game.
* Marx also appears near the end of his life, and Alex Butterworth draws
from Francis Wheen’s biography of Marx, which I’ve also read. (Bakunin’s virulent anti-Semitism, which does
much to discredit Bakunin in his battles with Marx, is also recorded by Francis
Wheen, and Butterworth cites Wheen’s research on this.)
* Allan Pinkerton, who founded the infamous
Pinkerton Detective Agency, is a character in both this book, and Flashman and the Angel of the Lord.
The
ironic thing about Allan Pinkerton is that he was a radical leftist unionist
back in England, but when he
fled to the United States
he founded an agency which would become famous for suppressing unions. The impression I got from Flashman and the Angel of the Lord was
that the Pinkerton detective agency only became horribly repressive after
Pinkerton’s death, but as Alex Butterworth shows in this book, this was not the
case. Allan Pinkerton himself was very
active in his detective agency’s anti-union campaigns.
What
caused Allan Pinkerton to suddenly change sides is never explained at all in
this book. But then this book is filled
with so many stories of people changing sides (aristocrats becoming radicals,
and radicals becoming conservatives) that I suppose it would be impossible to
try to analyze every single instance.
* Another major anarchist figure in this
story is Emma Goldman. The story of Emma
Goldman presented in this book (and some of her associates: Alexander Berkman,
Johann Most) is very much in line with what I learned from Emma Goldman’s autobiography.
* The story of the People’s Will and the
assassination of Tsar Alexander II is also included in this book, and it was something
I had previously read about, in a slightly fictionalized form, in Andrew William’s To Kill a Tsar.
* The time frame of this book (largely
1870-1914, with an epilogue to the end of the 1930s) is concurrent with another
historical event—The Scramble for Africa. Although the rise of radicalism and the
colonization of Africa are not directly connected, both stories take place
against the background of each other and there are occasional references to
what was going on in Africa at the time.
Italian
Anarchist Errico Malatesta’s possible involvement with the Egyptian nationalist
movement is mentioned briefly. Gordon at
Khartoum is
mentioned a couple of times, as well as one incident when anarchists heckled
the famous explorer and colonizer of Africa Henry Morton Stanley. Thus this book ties in somewhat with The Scramble for Africa and Three Empires on the Nile.
* Vera Zasulich was one of the founders of
the Social Democratic Party with Lenin in 1903, and she was one of the main
characters in the first few chapters of Conspirator: Lenin in Exile before her split with Lenin. From Alex Butterworth’s book, however, I got
a bit better picture of her during her early days.
* The works of Jules - Verne are
referenced frequently in this book, making me much more curious to track down
and read some other Jules Verne books.
From Alex Butterworth, I learned that Jules Verne collaborated with
radicals such as Paschal Grousset (the ex-foreign minister of the Paris
Commune) on some books like The Begum’s
Millions.
* In my review of Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev, I complained that Ivan Turgenev based the whole story off of a non-existent political philosophy: the Nihilists. Since then, one commenter has told me I might be wrong on this, and that the Nihilists actually did exist in 19th Century Russia.
Alex
Butterworth mentions Fathers and Sons
only in passing, but he claims that the label of Nihilist was meant to be
satirical when Ivan Turgenev wrote the novel, but afterwards was adopted by
Russian youths after the publication of the novel.
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky (2014) on "Scottish Independence"
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky (2014) on "Scottish Independence"
No comments:
Post a Comment