I was very interested to read about Bakunin and anarchism as it seemed to be a political philosophy that, on the face of it, was entirely negative and destructive and I wondered if this was really the case. This book is subtitled 'a biography', which to be fair it is, but the reader should be aware that the biographical details of the life of Bakunin are relatively brief and large sections of the book are concerned with the development of the anarchist views of Bakunin; their origins, and their differences to those views propounded by Marx and other political thinkers of the day. Bakunin had an unusual domestic life, involving a menage-a-trois, but we are only furnished with the barest of details.
The influence of the philosophy of Hegel and the German Idealists on the ideas of Bakunin is carefully explained. The development of socialist philosophy and thought and the gradual parting of the ways of Marx and Engels, first from William Weitling and subsequently from Bakunin and the Proudhonist anarchists are painstakingly dealt with by the author. In fact, in some ways, too painstakingly described, because the reader is treated to many pages of philosophical discussion elucidating these developments and differences and on occasion this can become repetitive to the point of tedium, especially in the closing chapters. The book immediately gains pace and interest when Leier returns to actual life events and relationships rather than critical analysis of publications. The author could have provided a service to the reader if he had presented some of Bakunin's work in a more concise and condensed form rather than reproducing some unpolished and rambling texts.
Given the author's interest in describing in detail the very significant differences between the political ideas of Marx and Bakunin, particularly with regard to authoritarian socialism and anarchism, it comes as quite a shock for him to suggest in the closing pages that perhaps, after all, their views were not so very different.
Leier sprinkles his text with Americanisms, (it is an American book), slang, and references to present day politics and entertainment which can be quite amusing when you get used to it but will serve to confuse readers in a few years time. It was irksome in the biographical sections that the author chose to omit specific dates of events and meetings.
Despite these criticisms the book is well worth reading and is very enlightening even if a little hard going at times. To answer my own first question, I found that anarchism of Bakunin was not entirely negative or destructive, but does not resolve into a coherent programme for reasons that are explained.