The anarchist companionship is the relationship system of the anarchist movement in Western Europe and a part of the world from the end of the 19th century onwards, encompassing both formal and informal anarchist networks guided by shared values such as hospitality and financial or practical aid to fellow companions. These networks also engaged in supporting other social struggles of the period, even those that were not explicitly anarchist.
This transnational network, lacking a real nerve center or central authority, allowed anarchists of the time to meet, consult, and undertake joint actions while providing them with significant mobility across Europe. The companions shared a set of structuring elements that united them: common values, a shared commitment to the anarchist struggle, and a collective imaginary, particularly shaped by the anarchist press and songs of the period.
Born as a response to state repression in Europe, this shifting and decentralized network proved difficult for authorities to control. They portrayed it as the result of a vast international anarchist conspiracy and as a new Black International (1881–1887), an interpretation that does not reflect the reality of anarchist companionship. Attempts to suppress it generally failed due to its elusive nature.
After the Ère des attentats (1892–1894) and the growing distinction between individualist anarchists and anarcho-communists, anarchists turned to other forms of action and coordination, particularly anarcho-syndicalism. Although anarchist companionship evolved and took on new forms, strong markers remain, including the terms 'companion' or 'friend', making it an anarchist counterpart to the more communist-linked term of 'comrade'.
Terminology
The term companion literally means 'bread fellow, messmate'. The term replaced citizen among anarchists in France in the early 1880s for several reasons, some of which were noted by the Boulangist newspaper La Cocarde in 1888:
Anarchist companionship { "type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 4.832819, 45.758392 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 3.89705, 43.609632 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 4.861243, 45.525977 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 5.373996, 43.305594 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 7.681264, 45.073715 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 8.92224, 44.414557 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 9.18676, 45.466488 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 8.954759, 46.012987 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 6.629407, 46.521454 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 6.11979, 46.196183 ]
},
"type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ 3.683344, 43.398861 ]
] }
Typology of companionship During this period, companions were generally men, although women could also be part of the movement. Contrary to the view upheld in earlier historiography of the movement, companions were not necessarily young, celibate men. In the French Nord department, for instance, among male companions, 67% were between 20 and 35 years old, 27.7% were over 35, and only 4.8% were under 20, which presents the image of a movement primarily composed of militants in their 'age prime'. Moreover, police reports on companions indicate a relatively equal number of married and single men, without accounting for free unions or cohabitation, which also existed.
In France, a certain number of companions were foreigners, mainly Italians, Russians, Polish, Belgians, Spanish, or British people. However, sources on them are difficult to analyze, as they belonged to circles that were challenging for the French authorities to infiltrate, making precise details hard to determine. From a socio-economic perspective, companions were predominantly involved in manual work, but far from all of them were artisans. Additionally, their professions varied greatly depending on location, while one city might have a majority of artisans, another might have mostly factory workers, making the composition of the movement quite diverse.
Among the various types of anarchists of this period, Bouhey identifies, for example, the gyrovague anarchists, characterized by great mobility and a deep penetration of the (at least European) territory through their travels and contacts; these allowed them to serve as 'liaison agents' within the companionship and thus helped to unify the movement's action and thought.
General principles and practices
The term companion gave its name to anarchist companionship, the structural network of the anarchist movement in Western Europe at the end of the 19th century. This network, composed of anarchists who self-identified as companions, had no real nerve center. However, contrary to what La Cocarde claimed, describing it as carrying no obligations, being a companion actually entailed a series of duties toward others. First and foremost, being a companion meant being socialized among anarchists. This socialization primarily took place through meals and dinners organized by certain groups. These gatherings allowed anarchists to meet, introduce one another, coordinate, assess the reliability of different individuals, in short, they helped unify the movement.
The duties of companions were quite demanding. Firstly, they were expected to demonstrate total hospitality toward fellow companions and, in some cases, toward those in need. This hospitality extended beyond simply offering food and shelter to passing anarchists; it also involved hiding and assisting individuals sought by the authorities, helping them evade capture. In some cases, hospitality even went as far as helping the hosted companion find employment.
Furthermore, companions provided financial assistance to one another. They organized fundraising efforts to support imprisoned companions or those in financial distress. In these fund collections, such as the case of companion Faure and her children, who received financial support from the anarchist movement when her husband was imprisoned, distance was not an obstacle. Parisian companions, for example, could organize fundraising efforts for companions located across France or even in other countries.As state repression increased, groups of companions became increasingly closed off, to guard against police informants, any newcomer to a group was closely monitored for a period of time by the companions. This included following the individuals or comparing the declared and actual financial resources of a given individual. If the information uncovered raised suspicions about someone, they could be publicly accused during a meeting and confronted by others, potentially leading to their exclusion from the movement. Such use of non-state intelligence was noted by state intelligence services, who wrote in France, for example:
The companions also helped each other carry out actions. For example, Sante Geronimo Caserio, an Italian companion who did not speak a word of French, arrived in Lyon with the plan to assassinate Sadi Carnot, who was responsible for major repressions against the anarchist movement. Unfamiliar with the city, he met some companions and was placed along Carnot's route, at the precise location where the assassination could take place. Bouhey considers this a likely example of mutual aid among companions, even between militants from different countries who did not speak the same language.
The companionship system could be used for terrorism, as in this case, but the actions carried out by companions were highly diverse. They included political propaganda, organizing public readings for illiterate militants or those seeking education, and holding public meetings to promote their cause. Companions could also coordinate public disturbances or engage in individual reclamation, stealing property from bourgeois targets to redistribute it. For instance, Louise Michel was accused of organizing, alongside her companions, the looting of Parisian bakeries in 1883. She allegedly used these networks to meet and encourage other anarchists to help her incite a popular uprising, aiming to seize bakeries in protest against the high price of bread.
Finally, companions were generally well integrated into the social struggles of their time, to which they attached great importance. However, their stance toward the workers' movement was ambiguous, as they saw strikes, political parties, and even unions as, at best, useless. Nevertheless, they believed they had to take part in these struggles despite their reservations, and companions sometimes supported broader non-anarchist causes.
Despite these duties, companions could be tolerant toward one another and their practical compromises with capitalism. In that regard, Faure wrote:
Territorial carving, 'leaders', and results The anarchist movement was structured around a carving of territory, with groups carving out local areas without regard for administrative distinctions or national borders. This was a multi-layered carving, as groups sometimes overlapped in the same geographical space. For example, some official groups dedicated to propaganda were connected to clandestine and semi-clandestine groups in the same areas. This allowed the companions to engage in local actions that aligned with anarchist theories, creating numerous hubs of anarchism. As a result, many cities were affected by the movement, and a relatively significant portion of the population became politicized and joined.