No, I think "anarchist" back in that era meant something more than "nihilistic bomb-thrower".
It was (and is) a genuine political movement, that calls for the abolishment of rulers, a form of leveling.
But all bomb-throwers were called "anarchists" because anarchism was a point of view that wasn't understood, and their behaviour was anarchic.
OTOH, if they threw bombs at kings and princes and presidents and potentates in order to rid the world of rulers, that might have been motivated by anarchism, but it wasn't terrorism.
Terrorists want to put themselves in charge but don't have armies so try to scare people into giving them what they want.
I think terrorism is effective in a country where the people are very oppressed by the rulers and want the rulers to go away, but because they are oppressed, don't have the power to fight the rulers head on, see, e.g., Algeria, also (ironically) the French Resistance.
That's why some people say "terrorist is another name for freedom fighter," some terrorists actually do use terrorism as a way to liberate their people.
But I don't think all terrorists have the support of their people or are fighting to liberate their people.
So, just being a terrorist doesn't make you a freedom fighter, but you might be. |
