Anarchist concepts 1: Insurrectionist vs Mass Anarchism

This is the first in a series of short posts explaining concepts and debates in anarchist theory. It’s meant for readers who grasp the basics of anarchism as a political philosophy, but wish to understand some of the nuances of the tradition and its internal debates.

This one’s on perhaps the major recurring theoretical debate in anarchism- the issue of insurrectionist versus mass anarchist views. I personally am very much aligned to the mass camp, so my apologies for any bias.

Roughly, the insurrectionist believes in action which is:

1. Immediate

2. Of a high intensity (i.e. quite illegal)

3. Planned informally and through secret groups.

Particularly because of criteria 2, but in part due to 1 & 3, Insurrectionists tend to work in small groups. These are the folks that created the concept of propaganda of the deed.

Meanwhile Mass Anarchists believe in actions which are:

1. Judiciously targeted

2. Of a relatively ‘safe’ level of intensity, usually either legal or quasi-legal.

3. Planned through open and relatively formal groups

Additionally, but not always, Mass Anarchists often see the workplace as an especially important site for struggle, anarcho-syndicalism is the most famous form of Mass Anarchism.

Common insurrectionist tactics include property destruction, black blocs, sabotage, etc etc. Common mass anarchist tactics include protests, strikes, blockades and distributing propaganda. Note though that both sides of this debate will typically be willing to use the other sides tactics under the right circumstances.

Mass anarchists say that insurrectionists are vain-glorious wannabe heroes who do not understand that at this stage of the struggle their actions are counterproductive since the priority is to build strength, not show off. Further they allege that insurrectionists’ rejection of permanent and formal organisation would condemn anarchism to the status of an impotent minority within the revolutionary left.

Insurrectionist anarchists say that Mass Anarchists are little better than Leninist’s who like the colour black, and that their formal organisations are really hotbeds of authoritarianism. Further they claim that the mass anarchist’s aversion to high intensity tactics belies a secret liberalism and reformism.

There’s a lot of quite interesting dynamics to the debate. For example, in their theoretical writings mass anarchists generally claim that insurrectionists are silly but nonetheless genuine anarchists, whereas insurrectionists often claim that mass anarchists are not really anarchists at all, because of their embrace of organising techniques involving permanent and structured groups. In response to such complaints Mass Anarchists often say that it is informal political groups which carry the real danger of authoritarianism, as invisible leadership cliques based on charisma and connections tend to form.

Mass anarchists usually write about their ideas in quite a straightforward and unassuming way, while Insurrectionists have become notorious for their difficult to read (but admittedly often quite interesting and provocative) dense texts such as “The Coming Insurrection”.

In reality, this stuff matters a lot less than you might think. Most anarchists aren’t too bothered to pick one side or the other in this debate, and even partisans for a side find it relatively easy to work with the other, despite their posturing.

So why the division? What makes this such a fundamental debate within anarchism? Everyone on the revolutionary left (even non-anarchists) would most like high intensity actions involving millions of people- after all, that’s what a revolution is. In a non-revolutionary setting though we can only have one or the other, and our tactics will determine which we get. Poetically, the struggle between mass and insurrectionary anarchism represents two halves of a dream, the totality of which cannot yet be realised at once.


About timothyscriven

I study philosophy at Sydney University. In the grand scheme, I'm not very important.
This entry was posted in Anarchist concepts series, Political & far left theory and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Anarchist concepts 1: Insurrectionist vs Mass Anarchism

  1. RanDomino says:

    I disagree that “mass” means “open and relatively formal groups”. “Mass” as defined by “Anti-Mass Methods of Organization for Collectives” means a single huge group which is internally disorganized, if I understand it right; direct democracy among several thousand people would be “mass”. Occupy’s General Assemblies were “Mass” “‘organization”. I say “organization” in quotes because participants aren’t really organized if they’re in a Mass; in fact, there are many ‘fault lines’ of informal organization, and anyway a Mass has to be organized by a ‘vanguard’ which provides direction and handles logistics and planning.

    Insurrectionism seems to mean taking immediate action, rather than specifically being ‘disorganized’. The apparently non-organized nature of Insurrectionist groups might just be because of the security culture necessitated by carrying out overtly illegal actions. But I think you can have open, public, and above-ground Insurrectionist groups, which engage in direct action that isn’t illegal. Where the Insurrectionist focus on ‘immediatism’ snapped into focus for me was the story in one of the CrimthInc. zines about a girl who at first tries to escape an oppressive boarding school, but then attacks the clocktower that keeps the place running (iirc); the act is described as a “little insurrection”.

  2. Hey Ran.

    Terminology is fairly arbitary. No doubt there are some who use Mass anarchism to mean disorganisation. But the terminology my circles have always used to describe the opposition to insurrectionism is Mass Anarchism. The recently published “Black Flame” uses this same terminology and though I have problems with it, I think it’s scholarship on that point is reasonably authoritative.

    As for insurrectionism being disorganised, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that it’s informally organised. I’ve read stacks of insurrectionist works that specifically argue for informality, including many which take themselves to be introductions to anarchism, so this is part of the mainstream of insurrectionist thought.

  3. Also, like, the Anti-Mass zine you refer to is by proto-critics of the mass movement orientation, is it any wonder they claim it’s disorganised?

  4. I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own blog and was wondering what all is needed to get set up? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a
    pretty penny? I’m not very internet savvy so I’m not 100%
    certain. Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s