What lessons can modern anarchists learn from the successes and failures of the anarchist terrorists you study?

Thanks for doing the AMA, Dr. Jensen. I've personally studied Mexican anarchism and its legacy in modern libertarian socialist movements, so I'm interested in what you have to say.

I'm not entirely clear on the limits of your study. Are you focused mainly on the "propaganda of the deed" type actions taken by individual anarchists and small cells of anarchists, or do you also look as mass mobilizations by anarchist communists and syndicalists? Has your work touched on the role of anarchists in the Mexican Revolution or in the Russian and Spanish civil wars?

Given the persecution of anarchists following the 1886 Haymarket massacre and the crack-down on anarchist and other leftist groups in the First Red Scare, how much of state action against anarchists in the United States would you say was directed at suppressing political groups in the interest of stability, as opposed to the ostensible goals of stopping "terrorists"? Also, given that much of the crackdown on anarchists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was tied to their efforts in labor organizing, do you find that (in the countries of your study) anarchist terrorism was used as a byword to move against the labor movement?

You bring up in your pre-discussion topics a comparison between anarchist groups in your period of study and modern Islamic extremist groups. I was wondering what kind of parallels you draw in your research. The comparison seems weak to me, but I see that your specialty is in Italian anarchism, which I know comparatively little about, so I'm interested in your reasoning.

How did the ideology of anarchist terrorists shape the way that they functioned and ways that governments countered them? Would anarchist terrorists behave differently than terrorists driven by communism, religion or separatism and would a government respond to the anarchists in a different way?

Dr. Jensen, thanks for the opportunity for the AMA. I'm not too acquainted with the subject, but here goes...

1. What is "terrorism" exactly? What distinguishes terrorism from other forms of political violence? Is the term "state terrorism" useful considering state already monopolizes violence?

2. There is one line I remember from an article I once read discussing today terrorism (paraphrased), "injustice rarely breeds violence, but a deep perception of injustice does it often." Does such analysis apply to anarchist terrorism?

3. What kind of deradicalization programs were implemented back then in 1878-1930s when dealing with anarchist terrorists? What can be learned for dealing with today terrorism?

For the record, the name on my book is: Richard Bach Jensen

Hello Dr. Jensen. It is my absolute honor to speak to you through this medium and I hope that I will be able to purchase your book within the foreseeable future. I am very excited to be able to ask this.

My question has to do with the combating of anarchist terrorism and that of intelligence. In modern counterinsurgency, the use of local and shared intelligence can be decisive in the fight against insurgents - how was intelligence on possible anarchist terrorism collected by different police forces during 1878 and the 1930's? Was it shared between different nations and how effective did it end up being?

1. What made you switch your focus from American history to 19th Century Italy?

2. Why do you think Anarchism has diminished so much in influence?

3. Would you rather live in Minot, North Dakota, Sumter, South Carolina, or El Centro, California? (We've gotten dinner together in all those places, if you can guess who this is!)

Hello, Dr. Jensen! Is it proper to call Leon Czolgosz an anarchist?

Also, in my research, I've noticed plenty of references to socialist agitation in Alaska during the last decade of the 19th century and first decades of the 20th century ... but few references to anarchism (usually in the context of newspaper editorials saying it's a bad thing). Was anarchism primarily an urban thing? Are you familiar with any links to Alaska?

What is the legacy of anarchist terrorists today?

When was the word terrorism first used and for what?

1. I once read an article discussing the definition of suicide terrorism which made the claim that most anarchist assassinations could be viewed as a form of "suicide terrorism," as the close-range nature of their methods (knives, pistols, bombs thrown by hand) meant that the anarchist carrying out the mission was almost always killed or captured. Would you agree with that assessment?

2. Did any anarchists receive formal training in the way that both leftist revolutionary groups and Islamic extremists have been known to do?

A few questions for you!

• As far as I recall reading, everyone seems to have different thoughts on the matter, but what is your opinion on the truth behind the Haymarket Massacre?

• The conventional wisdom is that "Propaganda by the Deed" was a counter-productive strategy. Do you feel that this holds true, or were there any appreciable gains that the movement got out of it?

• Why did Anarchism seem to have such little gains in the UK? It was big on the Continent, and there were even some prominent Americans, but in my reading I recall next to nothing about Anarchist groups having any appreciable presence in Britain during the turn of the century.

Dr. Jensen, quite an honor to speak to you!

Got a question relating to the methods of terrorism, and the considerations of it.

When conducting these acts, would anarchists often consider collateral damage in their calculations? Did they seek to maximize casualties, even among civilians, or were they loath to hurt anyone besides a specific target, and how did this factor into their ideology? I recognize this might be broad, so if it varies then that's fair, just wondering if there was a trend despite the lack of organization.

Also, how did the backlash you mentioned in another question manifest? Were there public demonstrations against anarchist movements? How did the people react, in general, to their actions?

Thanks in advance!

What ritualised or rhetorical aspects characterised the cycle of rancor and reconciliation between anarchist terrorist groups and state groups?

Was this the point when political violence, at local level, could be said to have moved from seeking redress or vengeance for determinable and definable injuries into a less effable ideological and possibly unattainable ideal?

Did anarchist terrorist movements ever look back to the various 'peasant movements' for inspiration, validation, or tactics?

how did anarchist terrorist motivate themselves or in other words how did they boost morale?

Did any states ever fund any terrorism at all before World War 2? Also obligatory thanks for the AMA.

This is about a specific person, so it's a bit more narrow than the issues in the OP, I hope that's okay.

What did later revolutionaries think about Sergey Nechayev? From what I've read it seems like both his former comrades and the rest of the movement disliked him strongly around the time of his imprisonment. Did that change in the decades after his death?

Dr. Jensen, leading government ministers and monarchs seem to have been the primary (or at least the most-remembered) targets of anarchist violence. Were private citizens or low-level governmental officials ever targeted by anarchist groups during the 1870s to 1930s?

How much did the anarchism movement influence the Bolsheviks in their lead up to the Russian Revolution.

Thank you for this opportunity Dr. Jensen. My question are as such: Do you believe that there exists the socio-economic conditions for a resurgence of anarchist terrorism (or an anarchist movement at all) similar to that of the start of the 20th century, or comparably so? In the light of the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, do you see any factors which could lead to the larger anarchist movement which would pose a threat to democracy?

I take it that anarchist terrorism has largely disappeared? If so, why? What are some of the lessons for counterterrorism today?

Was terrorism effective at (i) spreading anarchism and strengthening anarchist movements (ii) achieving the stated political objectives of the anarchists?

A lot of political science research indicates that terrorism is ineffective at achieving the stated political objectives of terrorist groups but that terrorism is effective at (i) achieving utility for the individuals who use terrorism (ii) increasing the strength of the organization that uses terrorism. How would your research on anarchist terrorism fit into the "terrorism effectiveness" debate?

Hello Dr. Jensen.

Was there an anarchist group in the 20th or 19th century that achieved their objective? Or were all of them unsuccessful.

Thank you.

Regarding The first point, how did the efforts to repress anarchist terrorism between 1878 and the 1930s affect the ideology and tactics of anarchists worldwide throughout the next several decades?

Achieving a sort of "utopia through chaos" is commonly perceived to be a dominant ideological strategy in your field of study. However, highly disruptive political action is not always limited to extremists—the Cloward-Piven Strategy was designed to incite crisis non-violently. Has this approach ever proven itself a viable way to enact lasting political change, for better rather than worse?