Here we are again with the problem of robbery thrown in our faces as we suddenly find ourselves confronted with a problem that has been isolated from reality as a whole—which as continual movement defies the logic of dissection and historicism—and everyone feels obliged to express themselves on the subject.
The lens of judgement focuses on a couple of anarchists following a bank robbery, and from that moment on time imposes itself on those who had simply gone out that day for their own reasons, without consulting law books or asking anyone for their approval. And so begins a transformation in symbol, in history, a transformation in thing.
And when free activity is obstructed by the counterpart and the law imposes itself, civic consciousness is re-enforced to the detriment of the individual and their dreams and desires, no matter how confused and repressed these might be. What are the man and woman lurking in every zealous citizen really condemning? Perhaps not the robbery as such, but its failure? Who does not rejoice in their heart of hearts when anonymous robbers succeed in sackaging a bank, emptying a security van or lightening a jeweller of some of his booty? Without loss of blood and, why not, with a bit of style? In the last analysis everyone backs a winner. We feel recompensed in some way for the injury suffered throughout the whole of our lives. On the contrary, when such attempts fail, the logic of judgement takes over.
And could it not be that the same thing happens in the anarchist movement? All anarchists are in favour of certain things, in theory. So long as everything remains within the anonymous flux of life, we all agree that the bosses are thieves, judges assassins, journalists liars and fabricators of images for spectacular representation. What matters is that everything proceed discreetly without creating any fuss.
But when comrades feel they are confronted with the need to openly take sides, obliged to do so by a specific event—one that has failed to boot—the turgid waters of opinionism divide. And who knows whether behind some of the silence, the outright condemnation or the gossip, the same thing does not happen. Couldn’t these guys have been more discreet... of course they could have done what they liked... After all expropriation is part of our History... but they might at least have got away with it, without stepping on other people’s toes, without defiling the noble History of the movement.
Anyone who accepts the crystallisation of parts of reality does so because that is the way they themselves live and perceive reality. And a foiled robbery here, a foiled robbery there, things begin to get heavy for those who work for the History of the movement. But where are the heroes of yesteryear? Poor Anarchy!
The same thing can happen in the opposite direction, through a mythisisation of armed robbery as thing in itself. And so we end up with the logic of supporters—those for, and those against.
On the other hand, anyone who does not believe in history and has their own projectuality as life in movement, does not fear, or rather does not recognise, the concept of failure. They recognise comrades’ individuality in a projectual context. They see their attempts as an affirmation of this individuality. They work with them to prevent it from being impaired, opening up new, different moments for its expression.
They continue to act against the enemy, thus reaffirming their own individuality, with one more reason for doing so. Each according to their own choices and methods, not for History, but against the existent.
In freedom, for freedom.
The robbery itself is a false problem.