Sylvain Boulouque is a French historian and political scientist specializing in the history of radical movements, particularly anarchism, the far left, and political violence. He published Meurtres à la Grange-aux-Belles, Éditions du Cerf, in 2024.

What if we discussed anarchism at the beginning of the 1970s? Which brings me to my first question—can anarchism be equated with nihilism?

SB: It depends entirely on which form of anarchism you’re referring to. I often describe anarchism as something like a Spanish inn—everything is there. It encompasses a wide range of currents. Some anarchists align with trade unionism, others advocate insurrection against the bourgeois order, and still others pursue alternative lifestyles, believing that if each person “cultivates their own garden,” a different society might emerge.

There is indeed a strand—though marginal—that leans toward total destruction, the idea that everything must be dismantled before anything new can be built. One might think of the character Souvarine in Germinal as emblematic of that impulse. But this is a very minor current, especially in the 1970s. Nihilism exists within anarchism, but it is far from dominant.

So would you say that 1970s anarchism differs from earlier forms, like Russian anarchism, in that it is less nihilistic and more constructive?

SB: Yes, broadly speaking. While there were isolated individuals or small publications—some even explicitly invoking destruction—that was not the main trend. The dominant dynamic in the 1970s was constructive. Groups sought to build revolutionary movements using various forms of action.

Some withdrew to rural communes to experiment with alternative ways of living. Others engaged in trade union activism, sometimes moving toward forms of self-management that influenced broader labor structures. Across these tendencies, the emphasis was more on building than destroying.

And what about the relationship between anarchism and terrorism during that period? Were anarchists significantly involved?

SB: Very marginally. Most terrorist groups of the time were not rooted in anarchist traditions. Take Action Directe, for instance. Only a small number of its members—such as Jean-Marc Rouillan—had anarchist backgrounds. The majority came from Maoist or Marxist-Leninist circles.

If you examine their communiqués, they bear little resemblance to anarchist thought. Instead, they reflect a neo-Leninist, anti-imperialist rhetoric. There’s a clear ideological shift.

Similarly, in Italy, anarchist circles were generally hostile to the methods of groups like the Red Brigades. Practices such as kneecapping—shooting individuals in the knees to permanently disable them—were widely condemned within anarchist movements as counterproductive and morally unacceptable.

So anarchism, even when radical, maintained certain ethical boundaries?

SB: In most cases, yes. Historically,........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)