Anarchism, Violence and Insurrectionism.

A discussion of how anarchists view the use of violence and insurrectionist strategies to achieve and defend working class gains. To be used as a lead off for a RAG open meeting.

Both in the past and present, anarchism has been closely associated with violence, chaos and disorder by our political enemies and their allies in the media. In the past, anarchists have often been labelled as bomb-throwers as a direct result of both successful and failed assassination attempts on ruling-class figures and capitalists. The relationship between anarchism and the use of violence, however, is not clear-cut. Within both historical and contemporary anarchist movements, the use of violence has been contested, rejected, condemned and praised all at different times. As modern anarchist communists living in an increasingly repressive capitalist society, a revaluation of violence as a means to achieving (and defending) change must be evaluated through a comprehensive analysis of anarchist theory and our material conditions in 21st-century Britain.

Anarchists as bomb throwers - Historical anarchist perspectives on insurrections and violence.

Since the development of Anarchism in the First International alongside Marxism, many anarchists have sought to use violent acts and means to help destroy the state and capitalism. Towards the end of the 19th century, a current emerged within anarchism that sought to use violent acts, like assassinations and bombings, to initiate working-class revolts that would overthrow the state and pave the way for anarchism.

This current became known as insurrectionist anarchism. According to Anarchist historian Zoe Baker, insurrectionism is categorised by several features, including opposition to formal anarchist organisations (trade unions, platformist groups, etc), a rejection of struggles for immediate reforms and a commitment to using propaganda of the deed to trigger a chain reaction of working-class revolts to begin the social revolution¹. Several notable anarchists supported insurrectionist anarchism, including Carlo Cafiero² and Luigi Galleani³.

Some other anarchist communists resorted to insurrectionist methods, including Russian-American anarchist Alexander Berkman⁴. From the late 19th to early 20th century, several anarchists and groups used propaganda of the deed to assassinate high-profile ruling class figures and capitalists, including prime ministers, kings and governors.

Insurrectionist strategy and opposition to formal anarchist organisations were partly developed due to widespread state repression of anarchist groups in nations like Italy. This led theorists like Cafiero to prefer small federated groups of individuals who could use their initiative more freely than in established trade unions and specific anarchist groups (these small groups were often known as affinity groups), while also making police infiltration less likely than in larger and more formal anarchist federations and trade unions.

In a short text titled “The Organisation of the armed struggle”, Cafiero argues that the strength of revolutionary groups lies in “its antithesis – the doctrine of opposites”. By this, he meant revolutionaries should oppose the centralised state with a decentralised and anti-authoritarian force.⁵ Zoe Baker argues in her chapter on Insurrectionist Anarchism that the strategy can be divided into two main phases, the first of which began in the 1880s.

The first phase of the insurrectionist strategy was categorised by groups of anarchist militants/radical workers launching revolts and rebellions against the ruling classes. Some notable examples occurred in Lyon (France), Italy, and Spain throughout the latter part of the 19th century.

These insurrections universally failed, mainly due to a lack of numbers (of anarchists), the state being aware of the plots and a lack of participation from the working class. These insurrections then brought harsh repression from the state, and it cracked down on anarchist organisations and newspapers.

The harsh repression faced by anarchists contributed to the second phase of insurrectionist strategy, which saw a transition towards individual acts of violence committed by anarchist militants. This phase began in the 1880s and continued largely until the First World War, with anarchists from several different nations using bombs, guns and daggers to attack the ruling class.

The idea of creating spontaneous insurrections via acts of propaganda of the deed did not prove successful; the assassination of an Austrian Empress led to the convening of an international Conference in Rome, which was dedicated to the establishment of surveillance organisations which were tasked to monitor anarchist activity.

Insurrectionist anarchism was largely unsuccessful in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, despite the killing of many ruling-class figures; no major working-class revolts occurred as a result. Insurrectionism was also not universally agreed upon as a strategy among anarchist theorists. Mikhail Bakunin, for example, in a letter sent to two Russian political activists/socialists, rejected the idea that you could end oppression simply through the assassination of a ruling class figure. He discussed this point concerning the potential assassination of the Russian Tsar:

“Like you, I think that no good can come of regicide in Russia, and I am even ready to agree that it would be definitely harmful, for it would arouse a reaction favourable to the Tsar, but I am not at all surprised that not everybody is of this opinion, and that in the stress of the present situation, which may well be intolerable, a man has come forward who is less philosophically sophisticated and therefore has more energy than we have, and who imagines that the Gordian knot can be cut with one stroke”⁶

Past the First World War, revolutionary violence has been a staple in many revolutions (almost exclusively non-anarchist social revolutions). In Russia, for example, the Bolsheviks used violence and state repression extensively against both the white forces and the Russian proletariat and peasantry. However, within the anarchist movement, there have been many theorists who have advocated for the primary use of non-violent methods of struggle rather than armed violence.

A brief history of anarchist violence in Britain (+ police involvement):

The anarchist movement in Britain had begun to consolidate by the 1880s, with many foreign anarchists and English anarchists alike forming into socialist clubs across London. The formation of the Social Democratic Federation in 1881 saw many English radicals, including anarchists like Frank Kitz and Charles Mowbray, join under Henry Hyndman (a former conservative turned Marxist). In 1884, however, Hyndman’s authoritarianism led to a split within the SDF, resulting in the formation of the Socialist League. After a power struggle between parliamentary socialists and anti-parliamentary socialists (+ anarchists), the organisation came to be anarchist-dominated, including the group’s paper “The Commonweal”. Despite relative unity on most organisational and theoretical issues, one key issue came to divide the Socialist League - Bomb Throwing. Around the same time as this split was the epidemic of bomb throwing in France and Spain, in which many anarchists were responsible for attacks on various people and buildings using explosives. Two main instances caused heavy debate among the movement - The Walsall Anarchist bomb plot and the Hyde Park bombing.

The Walsall Anarchist bomb plot was a successful attempt by police agent provocateurs to arrest and frame several foreign anarchists for making bombs which were to be exported to Russia for use against the ruling class. Throughout this process, anarchists such as David Nicoll were responsible for uncovering the police's role in framing several innocent anarchists. Despite the apparent police involvement in trying to frame the anarchists as violent bomb throwers, several prominent anarchists in Britain engaged in serious debate over the validity of this strategy to achieve revolution.

As a result of the Walsall anarchist affair, the Commonweal's editor at the time, David Nicoll, was arrested and jailed, which led to the editorship being taken over by an insurrectionary anarchist named H.B Samuels. His editorship and stringent advocacy of violence against the ruling class led to the anarchists becoming widely unpopular among the British working class. Samuels’ role in the Hyde Park bombing further tanked the view of the anarchists due to the Hyde Park bombing, resulting in the accidental death of a fellow comrade.

Ultimately, the anarchist movement's shift towards a violent trend did not accurately reflect the attitude of the working class at the time. Many within the movement did not see a direct correlation between acts of individual violence and the downfall of the state and capitalism. One of the final results of the anarchist swing towards violence was the collapse of the Commonweal newspaper and the ultimate fall of the Socialist League. From the mid-1890s onwards, the anarchists in Britain largely dropped insurrectionism and acts of violence as a strategy, with a return to working-class agitation and propaganda being preferred up until the run-up to the First World War.

Non-violent (pacifist) anarchists and their role in the movement:

Within anarchism, a strand has existed that has been labelled anarcho-pacifism, which rejects the use of violence to achieve social change; instead, it advocates the use of non-violent revolutionary means to achieve social change. Some key anarchist theorists, most notably the Russian Christian anarchist Leo Tolstoy, subscribed to this view⁷⁸. Whether comrades agree that “anarcho pacifism” is a valid label is another discussion in and of itself (as it could imply that all other anarchists are inherently violent people…)

However, it is not as simple as categorising anarchists as either violent or non-violent; there is much more nuance when it comes to discussing this topic. A core part of the anarchist tradition is the opposition to unjust hierarchies, which are supported by the use of organised violence and militarism (usually via the state and its arms of power, e.g. the army and the police). Alongside that commitment, anarchists wholeheartedly support the sovereignty and freedom of individuals. As a result, anarchists strongly oppose violence to prevent individuals' freedom. This position is neatly summarised by Errico Malatesta, who argues that the:

“ [The] main plank of anarchism is the removal of violence from human relations”⁹

However, being opposed to organised violence does not make non-insurrectionist anarchists completely pacifist by default. Malatesta continues by arguing that the case for revolutionary self-defence (violence) is justified by the fact that the working class is being forcibly kept in a state of slavery by the organised violence of the state. He therefore argues that any violence directed towards the oppressor is not an unjustified act of savage violence but instead an act of self-defence and liberation.

On the other side of this point, a prominent Dutch anarcho-syndicalist called Bart De Ligt argued against the use of revolutionary violence during a revolutionary period. He instead called for the use of methods that are “worthy of men.” These include non-violent disobedience, refusal of military service or tax payment, and boycotts. De Ligt went on to argue that the coordinated use of these tactics by the working classes of periphery states could result in a state of affairs where “no power on earth can resist them [periphery/colonial working classes]”¹⁰

Throughout anarchist theory and history, we have consistently argued and pointed out that the modern state has a monopoly on violence used to enforce the laws and will of the governing class, even if this organised violence is not being used openly the working class is still dominated by the state as violence can be unleashed at any time to crush those who seek to alter and destroy the status quo. Malatesta defines the state clearly as follows:

“the sum total of the political, legislative, judiciary, military and financial institutions through which the management of their own affairs, the control over their personal behaviour, the responsibility for their personal safety, are taken away from the people and entrusted to others who, by usurpation or delegation, are vested with the power to make laws for everything and everybody, and to oblige the people to observe them, if need be, by the use of collective force”¹¹

As a result of the nature of the state, the working class are reduced to the position of the oppressed class who are forced to sell their labour to a minority class who use that labour to acquire profit, which is in turn defended by the state and its armed forces. If we as anarchists believe this to be true, then it is not illogical to say that any action taken against the state and the capitalists is not some savage form of violence, but instead an act of liberation which reclaims what the working class has always rightfully had (the means of production and distribution)¹²

This is not to say it is acceptable for the working class to employ uncontrolled violence to bring forth anarchism and the collapse of the state and capitalism; anarchists are firm believers of means and ends. Because of this belief, it would be wrong to employ excessive amounts of violence to achieve our aim of a society without coercion, violence and unjust authority. On the flip side of this point, however, anarchists in the 21st century are not naive enough to believe that a revolution can be made entirely without employing some levels of violent revolutionary self-defence. The CNT, for example, would not have succeeded without mobilising workers’ militias in Barcelona (1936) to prevent a fascist takeover in the city¹³.

Because of the state's inherently violent nature, the anarchist belief in means and ends, and the theoretical conception of revolution as non-violent, I would argue that 21st-century anarchists can use violence proportionally in revolutionary and non-revolutionary situations. But what do I mean by this?

The proportional use of violence and revolutionary self-defence in 21st-century anarchism:

It is clear from the history of anarchism in the mid-to-late 20th century that the insurrectionist strategy is defunct, mainly, with the vast majority of groups committing to strategies like social insertion and syndicalism to build towards revolution. Instead, I would argue that the vast majority of contemporary anarchists view the social revolution as a largely non-violent affair that seeks to break the cycle of violence that has plagued prior revolutions, alongside the abolition of the social relations prevalent under capitalism.

In a revolutionary situation, the proportional use of violence is the use of self-defence against those who seek to crush the social revolution to reinforce the state and capitalism. What exactly self-defence involves cannot be stated at this moment, as we have no idea how any social revolution may play out. However, as anarchists, it is our obligation to reject the “logic of the guillotine” which many on the radical left fetishise; we would be naive to think that any social revolution will play out without any casualties on both sides. We can, however, commit fully to minimising our violence to the bare minimum while avoiding giving in to the instinct for bloodthirsty revenge that many may have.

As anarchists, we seek to change the social relations that are practised in society fundamentally. We strive for a world in which nobody can dominate or coerce one another, and instead, we practice values of solidarity, mutual aid, and democratic participation. To resort to the use of the guillotine (or similar killing machines) would be detrimental to our aims because it is the same method that the state and its arms of power use to reinforce their interests.

Using the same organised violence that the state uses cannot produce the social relations that we seek to establish:

“Here we see the essence of the state: it can kill, but it cannot give life. As the concentration of political legitimacy and coercive force, it can do harm, but it cannot establish the kind of positive freedom that individuals experience when they are grounded in mutually supportive communities.”¹⁴

One of the key dangers of party socialism is their fetishisation of groups like the Bolsheviks who were notorious for using state violence to perpetrate mass murder against the Russian population, this fetishisation of violence and revenge can appeal to those in society who feel powerless and victimised by the current system who then seek out a powerful idea and leader to rally behind who can exact revenge on their behalf (the so called workers state). Instead of believing in enacting a violent and bloody social revolution, it is necessary for anarchists (despite all the difficulty) to fight out of an optimistic belief that humanity can be better than what it is now.

Often, the most common argument against a non-violent revolution is “Well, violence is necessary to prevent and crush counter-revolution!” Leninists, for example, adore this argument as it allows them to defend the idea that bloodthirsty killing is a revolutionary value which should be cultivated. At no point in history did anarchists ever say we won’t protect a revolution; quite the opposite. As I have tried to stress here, however, mindless killing and the use of excessive violence are not a one-way ticket to achieving anarchist communism. At what point did the mass killings of peasants and workers in Russia advance the cause of the revolution? Did the killings of the Spanish clergy assist the social revolution in Spain?

The answer is no! All mass killings have done is provide more ammunition for the counter-revolutionaries to use against us. At the same time, defenders of capitalism and the state are happy to overlook the violence of the state; they are keen to jump on any acts of violence committed by revolutionaries for their use. By refusing to kill our enemies in acts of organised violence, not only do we retain the moral high ground, but we take a monumental step towards changing the social relations of society. The same applies when looking at how we can spread anarchist ideas; this cannot be done via the gun and sword.

The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk in Utah all but validates this point. Despite the killer being apolitical (and not being left-wing at all) before the assassination, the right wing and the state have used this assassination to further repress the radical left, with antifa now being a proscribed terrorist group in the United States.

When seeking to spread anarchist ideas during a revolution, people will not be convinced when they have a gun at the back of their head; they will become convinced when they see anarchists working to build towards a positive future by interrupting the reproduction of capitalist social relations. Unlike the modern capitalist state, we seek our future society not to be based on violence and coercion but instead on mutual aid, solidarity and the sovereignty of the individual!

1. Baker, Z. (2023) Means and Ends: The Revolutionary Practice of Anarchism In Europe and the United States. Chapter 6: Insurrectionist Anarchism, pp 175-211. Available at AK Press: https://www.akpress.org/means-and-ends.html

2. Cafiero, C. (2011) Action. pg 1-5. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/carlo-cafiero-action

3. Galleani, L. (1982) The End of Anarchism?. Chapter 7: Propaganda of the deed, pp 69. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/luigi-galleani-the-end-of-anarchism

4. Berkman, A. (2009) Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist. Chapter 4: The Attentat, pp 25. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-prison-memoirs-of-an-anarchist

5. Cafiero, C. (2021) The Organisation of Armed Struggle. Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review, Volume One No. 3, Autumn 1977. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/carlo-cafiero-the-organisation-of-armed-struggle

6. Bakunin, M (2014) Michael Bakunin Selected Writings. From a letter of Bakunin to Herzen and Ogarev, pp 61-62. Available at: https://libcom.org/article/michael-bakunin-selected-writings

7. Tolstoy, L (2021) Letter to the peace conference. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-letter-to-the-peace-conference

8. Tolstoy, L (2011) On Anarchy. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-on-anarchy

9. Richards, V. (2015) Malatesta: Life and Ideas. Section 5 “Anarchism and Violence”, Page 40. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-malatesta-life-and-ideas

10. De Ligt, B. (2023) The Conquest of Violence. Chapter 8 (VIII) “Violence and the revolution” page 162. Available at:https://archive.org/details/de-ligt-bart-the-conquest-of-violence/page/n21/mode/2up

11. Malatesta, Errico (1994) Anarchy. Page 4, Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/errico-malatesta-anarchy

12. The Anarchist FAQ (2024) Section A.3.4 “Is anarchism Pacifistic?” Available at: https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionA.html#seca219

13. Richards, V. (2019) Lessons of the Spanish Revolution. Chapter 2 “The Militarists Uprising of July 1936”, page 23. Available at: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vernon-richards-lessons-of-the-spanish-revolution#toc7

14. CrimethInc (2019) Against the logic of the guillotine. Available at: https://crimethinc.com/2019/04/08/against-the-logic-of-the-guillotine-why-the-paris-commune-burned-the-guillotine-and-we-should-too