It seems that most stories or history books about the period of, say 1890-1920 always seem to mention anarchists as a separate, radical and violent/terrorist group, throwing bombs everywhere or plotting assassinations (there's even an anarchist, or anarchist wannabe, in Agatha Christie's Death on the Nile). But from the 1930s onward, they seem to have disappeared. What happened to this movement?
The ideal of a life without rulers goes back about as far as human thought, but what we refer to as modern anarchism starts in the nineteenth century. William Godwin and Max Stirner both had clear anti-State stances, although Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first person to self identify as an “anarchist.” Anarchism’s development into the popular movement seen in the early twentieth century is due in no small part to Mikhail Bakunin. The First International Working Man’s Association was formed in 1864, and naturally Karl Marx rose to become the most influential member, excepting Bakunin. Marx believed the proletariat needed the State to turn the tables on the current ruling class - that a “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” was needed to transfer into socialism, and that ultimately the State would disappear along with all class distinctions (this is fully realized Communism). Bakunin, on the other hand, believed even the working class would be corrupted by the power of the State and would would lead to a new ruling class and authoritarianism. The organization split in 1872 as a result of the conflict, and was dissolved in 1876. Bakunin had been involved in revolutionary activities for a considerable time, and had helped form various clandestine revolutionary groups. One of Bakunin’s ideas he called “Propaganda by the deed.” This concept simply means that action can be just as if not more effective than rhetoric. Food not Bombs is a good example of contemporary propaganda of this type: they distribute free meals to illustrate what a new society could look like (and to feed the hungry, of course). Many others (and Bakunin wouldn't have disagreed with this interpretation, though it is limiting) took “propaganda by the deed” to mean assassination and bomb throwing. In many cases these were small groups or individuals, but overtime various larger organizations flying black or black and red flags came to prominence.
In 1917, the Russian Revolution began and, in my view, shortly confirmed all of Bakunin’s fears about a dictatorship of the proletariat. At first, encouraged very much by Peter Kropotkin’s work, the anarchist movement was quite strong, and worked with the Bolsheviks for the revolution. But, ‘wartime concerns’ led to severe repression of the successful anarchist collectives in the Ukraine and the centralization of power and resources that were formerly held in large part by the autonomous Soviets (the decentralized councils for which the Soviet Union was named). Had Lenin listened to the anarchists, perhaps we would have avoided Stalinism altogether and you would certainly be hearing about anarchy a lot more. So that was one dream smashed.
By about this time, anarchism had achieved a massive following in Spain, along with Communism of course. José Pierat describes this time and the lead up to the Spanish Revolution (alternatively, the Spanish Civil War) in thorough detail in The CNT in the Spanish Revolution. There were many factions on both sides of the convict, the working people had various communist unions and parties, but one of the largest was the Anarcho-Syndicalist CNT. Various business interests, alarmed by the growing power of the Unions, began arming and paying vigilantes to torment and assassinate many anarchists and communists. The anarchists felt the need to shoot back, and before long there was a “Dialog of Pistols” in Barcelona. The civil war proper began in 1936. Francisco Franco’s Fascist force, backed by Hitler and Mussolini was a formidable opponent, but perhaps the working class forces would have won had they not also been betrayed by Moscow. The USSR lavishly supplied certain groups who were in line with Comintern policy, and insured that the anarchist militias never saw a single Russian bullet. George Orwell, who fought with the POUM in the war (communist, but ‘Trotskyist’ therefore also condemned by the USSR) has several examples of this in Homage to Catalonia, and Ernest Hemingway, who was also in Spain for the war, depicts this collusion between certain communist groups and Moscow in For Whom the Bell Tolls. Orwell’s book is good first hand journalism, I mention the second for illustrative purposes not a source of fact. At one point, the revolutionary government and various militia members were actively fighting each other in Barcelona, and Orwell claims that several British destroyers appeared in a position to bombard the city, but retreated when the provisional government (firmly under Russian influence) brokered a peace. Of course, Franco won before long.
All of this violence had left anarchists thoroughly branded as erratic terrorists, when, in my view, little of this violence was initiated by anarchists. In other cases, as with Alexander Berkman’s attempted assassination of Henry Clay were responses to systemic violence, so it not justified per se they were at least consistent. And of course, not every ‘anarchist shooting’ was committed by anarchists. With, at this point terrible PR and two failed revolutions (from the anarchist perspective) and shortly after WWII and the Cold War drowning out all dissent, anarchists didn't appear in the news much anymore. I don't need to get into media bias here, but that may have had something to do with it.
Rest assured, that anarchism is still very much alive, though. I would look into Rojavan Democratic Confederalism, the Greek Anarchists, and even the Occupy movement. Anarchist philosophy and critique has remained very active all along as well!
Sources: What Is Property? -Pierre Joseph Proudhon Marxism, Freedom, and the State - Mikail Bakunin Trotsky’s history of the Russian Revolution José Pierat’s history of the Spanish Revolution Demanding the Impossible - Peter Marshall
I'll gladly cite more sources as requested and answer any follow ups to the best of my ability.
TL;DR anti-authoritarians are quickly branded as bomb throwing terrorists by the State, and the anarchist dream never panned out like the communist one due to failures and betrayals in both the Russian and Spanish revolution.
I have not gotten into any specific books about anarchy in that time, but it's been a theme in a number of books that I've read recently, and I think there are a number of rends that helped shape the era.
First, mechanization in industry drew a lot of people off the farms into cities, where they became dependent on wage labor for their livelihoods. During the 90s, there were a number of financial crises that caused dislocation in the labor pool, which made it hard for people to make ends meet. This created a receptive audience for anarchism and communism, with their focus on workers' rights and economic justice.
One of the advantages that anarchism had was that there was a low bar for entry into the group. You declared yourself an anarchist and you were, no organization necessary. The anarchist idea of "propaganda of the deed", which politicized violence became an easy excuse for many people predisposed to violence as justification of their actions.
The Bonnot gang in the first decade of the 20th century claimed that they were anarchists, but there was little to distinguish them from the bank robbers in the American mid-West of the 30s, like Bonnie & Clyde or Dillinger. McKinley's assassin, Leon Czolgosz, heard Emma Goldman talking one day and set himself on the path that lead to shooting the president. Joseph Vacher, a serial killer in France active during 1894-1897 claimed that he was an anarchist, and used it to justify his killing. In each of these cases, these was little outside the individuals' claims to connect them with anarchism.
There were many cases where the authorities used the idea of anarchism to justify their oppression of political dissidents. The Haymarket Affair is the classic example, with the police arresting speakers who had already left the square when the violence erupted. They also blamed anarchists on the explosion in Wall Street in 1920, though there was no conclusive evidence. Then there were the Palmer Raids, which focused on anarchists and labor organizers.
Shortly into the 1920s, anarchism became less and less the face of fear in newspapers and literature. It still existed, but it no longer seemed to be the existential threat it was for the previous decades. Wikipedia suggests that bombings tapered off because of the success of the Russian Revolution and the increase in the successful repression of anarchist movements by government authorities. It is also highly likely that it was an effect of WW1. Millions of young men died, and, just like after the Black Death centuries before, that made labor much more valuable. People were able to find work and support their families in that decade, which lessened the number of people whose anger against the system lead to violence.
Sources:
The Crimes of Paris by Dorothy Hoobler & Thomas Hoobler (2009)
The Killer of Little Shepherds by Douglas Starr (2010)
The President and the Assassin by Scott Miller (2011)
I would propose three reasons:
World War One: in addition to killing off the rest of the Lost Generation, the war killed off a lot of would-be anarchists too. It was inherently a young man's movement (at least in terms of the sorts of violent expression mentioned in the question), and those young men were either dead, injured, or sick to death of violence. Alone this would not explain it, but it does provide important context.
The Russian Revolution, and the subsequent rise of the Soviet Union: Although commonly believed to be different ideologies, anarchism is historically properly understood as a left-wing phenomenon. Prior to the Russian Revolution, the revolutionary socialists (this is, distinguishable from mainline socialists willing to work within existing systems) and anarchists of the left were on equal footing: they were both on the outside, trying to effect change from the ground up. After the Russian Revolution, socialism got a major step up in the form of the full resources of the former Russian Empire, as well as the rapidly-burgeoning broadcast medium of radio with which to spread their message. As no less an authority than Josef Stalin put it,
"Socialism is divided into three main trends : reformism, anarchism and Marxism...Some people believe that Marxism and anarchism are based on the same principles and that the disagreements between them concern only tactics, so that, in the opinion of these people, it is quite impossible to draw a contrast between these two trends...This is a great mistake. We believe that the Anarchists are real enemies of Marxism. Accordingly, we also hold that a real struggle must be waged against real enemies. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the "doctrine" of the Anarchists from beginning to end and weigh it up thoroughly from all aspects."
In the face of that and the opposition of the USSR, what few anarchical voices as still had the energy to fight the good fight after the Great War simply couldn't compete.
Between those three factors, an environment was created in which no new members were being added and the old ones were dying off or aging out (it's hard to maintain that kind of political energy much past 40). And so it was more or less done by WWII.
what does this question mean? are you asking what happened to terror and assassinations by individual anarchists? or is the question why the view of what anarchism is changed in the media? or do you not know anything but anarchism and think that it is what you read in books and that anarchism in general disappeared in the 30s?
what does this question mean? are you asking what happened to terror and assassinations by individual anarchists? or is the question why the view of what anarchism is changed in the media? or do you not know anything but anarchism and think that it is what you read in books and that anarchism in general disappeared in the 30s?