Reproducibility , propagation of attack against power and some related points
February 2016 - Mexico
“ The media image of the ‘ terrorist ’ works together with the police to defend social peace . The citizen applauds or gets scared , but always remains a citizen , that is to say , a spectator . The ‘ armed struggle ’ presents itself as the superior form of social confrontation . The one who is militarily more representative – according to the spectacular effect of the actions – therefore constitutes the authentic armed party . The State from his side has every interest to reduce the revolutionary threat to some fighting organisations as to transform subversion into a pitched battle between two armies . What domination fears is generalised and anonymous revolt [...]”
“ One thing is that anarchists have weapons , a much different thing is to be an armed group . [...]”
On the 11 th of March 2009 , a video with the title 19 seconds of social war was anonymously uploaded to the web . Three anonymous fighters with their faces covered show the easiness and efficiency with which it is possible to attack those who destroy your life . To attack a bank in a few seconds , two hammers , a spray can and determination are enough . Maybe at the moment , the most notable aspect of the video was the acceptance it got on youtube , it was enough to look to the comments to have an idea of this . But actually , the most notable in our opinion , was the wave of sabotage actions that happened in the Mexican capital ( and certainly also in other regions ) after the spreading of this video . The propagation of sabotage had nothing accidental about it , it was due to the simplicity with which this symbol of domination was attacked and the facility by which certain means could be acquired , this means : reproducibility .
For long time , the majority of sabotage actions which flooded anonymously and informally – or some with claims – Mexico City and other regions of the country shared a characteristic that went beyond any claim . This characteristic was that the attacks were realised with easily reproducible means that are therefore accessible for any comrade , or for anybody who feels the need to attack what is oppressing and exploiting us . Also today , many attacks are realised in this way , which is strengthening their propagation .
In an insurrectional and informal struggle project that intends to propagate itself on a , let ’ s say , social level , but also amongst comrades , an as necessary as indispensable element is reproducibility . Concretely , reproducibility means that acts of sabotage are realised with means ( incendiary devices bombs , explosive weapons or other tools ) that can be easily made and used , and that can be easily acquired by anyone . The intention beyond this is that sabotage might be in reach for anyone , that each person might get access to attacking what is oppressing him or her and that one doesn ’ t have to go looking for an already formalised ( or sometimes spectacularised ) group to learn how to do thing . Reproducibility is about the individual himself or herself finding the means to act , meeting up with comrades in affinity with who he or she shares knowledge , discussing things trough and stepping on to action .
When we speak about informality , we are not only speaking about it as an organisational method of the anarchist struggle , we are also speaking about it as a means by which the individual acquires absolute autonomy and therefore doesn ’ t have to submit to the ideology of a group – groups that are often of authoritarian colours , but go well camouflaged as “ libertarian ” or “ autonomous ” and insert themselves in this necessity to pass on to the attack , taking over anarchist projects or individuals to later on submerse them in a logic of submission to a central apparatus . But it is precisely through discussion , thinking and critiques that the individual meets the need to converge with other singular individuals , or with other collectives that themselves are consisting of individuals . Reproducibility also encourages the radicalisation of the individual or collective acts of attack , extending to the maximum the autonomy amongst individuals and collectives , generating , when one desires , an informal coordination in which , outside of the logic of dependency or acceptance , one could also come to share the knowledge of each comrade concerning sabotage .
| 13 |