Download The World That Never Was: A True Story of Dreamers, Schemers, Anarchists, and Secret Agents djvu

I not only enjoyed reading this book but it has led me to again read the works of Joseph Conrad in light of the historical era they were written in.
Secondly I was also enlightened of the role in which police agencies steered the nihilistic/anarchist movements into crafted roles of violence and public's forming a false concept of these movements through state sponsored propaganda and the infiltration of the movement's newspapers.
It was of interest that the views of Marx and Engels were in conflict with the majority of anarchists, that there was a struggle for dominance within the movement and were in fact supported by those same police agencies in order to keep the movement divided and manipulated. Thus the birth of the Communist Party that shaped world politics and policies in the twentieth century was actually and secretly supported police organizations within Tsarist Russia.
Lastly that the police agencies involved with protecting the various governments were artificially creating a need/demand for their services. Job security.

This book certainly gives a deeper insight to how ditterent anarchist movements came to be linked to violence and the first modern terrorist movement. The involvement of the "agente provocateur", especially in the case of the russian tsarist ochrana, secret police department, is present from the first day and a way to influence west european governments who are challenged. The book gives evidence of very careful studies from archives, still today difficult to get access to.
You are tempted to further studies on subjects which have resemblance to todays political world.

Giving up on this one after slogging through a little over half of it. Might come back to it at some point but it's been frustrating me for so long now that I feel I have to move onto something else or I'll go mad.

It's a shame, really, since I feel like it fills a niche in the literature on anarchist history that confoundingly has never quite been filled. This is the only book I know of to focus specifically on 19th century anarchist terrorism. On top of that, it manages to tell the story of the terrorists themselves alongside the story of their pursuers in the various national intelligence agencies and secret police forces. This interweaving two-part structure is especially valuable for this topic, as it gives clear insight into how the movement was manipulated by the governments it opposed, undercover agents pushing the movement further and further toward violence which could then be used to justify even more violent repression.

Also interesting is the fact that Butterworth is an outsider to the ideology he's discussing (another rarity in anarchist lit being intelligent and evenhanded appraisals of the movement by non-anarchists). Because of that, he's able to cut straight through the thick cloud of sanctity and fawning reverence with which too many anarchist texts shroud their pantheon of saints and martyrs. Some of the portraits he paints are refreshingly critical. Malatesta, for instance, is depicted as somewhat of a bumbling revolutionary wannabe with a comically unshakable optimism and an "unblemished record of failed insurrections." Likewise, Bakunin at the tail end of his life is described as a "corrupt husk," burning through a young acolyte's inheritance in order to refurbish his estate. The credulous Malatesta only leaves the old man, writes Butterworth, after the "belated realization that hiring picturesque milkmaids and excavating an artifical lake was not wholly essential to the creation of a revolutionary headquarters". Kropotkin (along with Communard exiles Elisee Reclus and Louise Michel) is given probably the most sympathetic treatment. That's not to say Butterworth isn't sympathetic in general. One gets the sense he agrees with the goals of the anarchists but abhors their violent methods (which, he convincingly demonstrates, ultimately led to their downfall).

None of the positive features of this book can make up for its deficiencies, though. For one, Butterworth's accuracy is highly suspect. He freely admits that a paucity of records on certain figures and events has led him to do a little bit of papering over the gaps in his narrative. But some inaccuracies, such as the bewildering mistake of conflating Bakunin's "The Revolutionary Catechism" with Nechayev's "Catechism of a Revolutionary," can only be explained by sheer laziness and poor research skills. Written 4 years apart, the former is an anarchist manifesto, the latter a highly authoritarian manual for the formation of secret societies. Though Bakunin may have had input in Nechayev's text (the two had a tempestuous relationship), and despite the fact that it was reprinted in anarchist periodicals, its strong emphasis on hierarchy was in direct opposition to everything Bakunin stood for, and for Butterworth to think for an instant that it was a true collaboration between the two revolutionaries is enough to make me severely question everything else he has to say in the book. Oh and to top it off, the companion website where Butterworth claims his footnotes are located doesn't actually exist!

There's also the problem of the book's scope and complexity. Though placing the events in a general historical context is appreciated, Butterworth does a horrible job deciding which details to include, often selecting things because they're bizarre or funny rather than essential to plot or analysis. The title and cover of the book goes a long way in describing its tone - constantly invoking an atmosphere of a STRANGE AND OTHERWORLDLY TIME, even when completely inappropriate to do so. As you can imagine, it gets old fast. Far too much time is spent discussing the failed French Commune and a few other political situations, and the cast of characters is simply too large. Many of them could have avoided mention entirely. And why on earth is Henri Rochefort, who has only a tangential relationship with anarchism, a major character whose life is followed closely throughout? At times it seems as if Butterworth began writing a book about the fallout of the Paris Commune, only later decided to focus more concretely on anarchism, and then just left in all the superfluous chapters. The book probably would have benefited too from more photographs of the people involved (would have helped keep them straight in my head) and perhaps a timeline. It's simply too much info to keep track of.

The biggest issue is far simpler though: Butterworth is a bad writer. To be more specific, he's a pretentious, ostentatious writer. Others here have said it better than I can so I'll just quote them. One reviewer points out his "constant use of ten dollar words when fifty cent ones will do" - BINGO! Another writes, "the book clanks with long, convoluted, compound sentences that require more than one reading in many cases, but fails to provide the reader with a motivation to read them more than once" - BINGO AGAIN! I'm willing to bet Butterworth has read George Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" but what he probably should have been reading was George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"!!

great research of a period and area of history that is seldom given much attention. Very thoughtful analysis and Very well written.

What a fascinating time in history! What a dog's breakfast of a book! What an unnecessary slog! The enthusiasm expressed by other reviewers for the topic at hand cannot disguise the dire need for editing and some basic writing skills for this overblown, over-long and rambling mess of a book. In terms of the content, there is essentially no analysis of what occurred during this fascinating period, only the pervasive sense of the author's sympathies for his anarchists. There are numerous pointless, lengthy tangents and a general lack of discipline and focus in relating the story. Sad that Mr. Butterworth did not have a copy of "The Elements of Style" at hand. Sadder still that he evidently did not have an editor. Far too many sentences are four and five lines long, aided by his imaginative use of semi-colons, colons and dashes. Perhaps the book was dictated into a recorder and the good folks at Pantheon Press took it all down verbatim. Perhaps it was an exercise in anarchy in its own right;

I was greatly looking forward to this book, but there are better reads to be had on this subject. See "The Anarchists", for example.