>>119>maybe you should actually do something other than shitpost your smug bullshit about insurrectionism if you've clearly never read anything at all about it
I've actually read The Coming Insurrection, Debord, several anarcho-nihilist texts (I'm pretty certain I was the first to mention Monsieur Dupont on Leftypol), and I'm familiar with the most prominent scholar on insurrectionism/situationism in Eastern-Europe, G. M. Tamás, and I'm also familiar with Socialisme ou Barbarie group's main ideas and its later splinters, but from these mostly with Castoriadis and Lyotard.>opposed to formal, permanent organizations
Yeah, but, you know, in theory
at least, communists are against permanent organizations as well, since we want to abolish the proletariat as class. Your rant seems to indicate that you'd deny this as well.>organizations based on affinity, which can be spontaneous and small or can be large and long-lasting
I look at at the organizational ideas (communes, affinity-groups) and practical aims (sabotage, terror) laid down by the Invisible Committee with sympathy, but the group's subsequent attempts and ultimate failure (and probably abandonment of the project altogether), not to mention the (sorry for my
leftypol term) anarchokiddies pointing at them and doing nothing more than carnivals, destruction of property at protests and clashes with the popo, was all predictable if one knew criticisms of individualism and Utopian-socialism.>organization that doesn't just end up [delegitimizing] anyone who is outside the organization.
(So, hold on to your pooper bag, it's my time to accuse you of bad things.) It seems to me that you are not familiar with the dynamics of 20st century communism, and I'm thinking specifically about the history of the communist internationals. If you look at Lenin's proposals at the third ("Twenty-one Conditions") you'll see him doing two things: building adhesion and introducing a line of differentiation. You could interpret this as an attempt at delegitimization (of socdems, anarchists et al.) and sectarianism, but I think that the "Leninist truth" in these moments is the discarding of the fantasy of unprincipled unity, of "anything goes" politics, of the idea that politics proper doesn't require a line drawn in the sand -- a fantasy I keep detecting from anarchists, when they valorize consensus, temporal affinity, and so on. If I really had to use your terms, I could say that there's no proper politics without legitimizing one side and delegitimizing the other.>my smug bullshit about spontaneity
This comes from me following the activities of groups like Crimethinc. and the reports from Submedia.tv. Spontaneity is
a big thing in post-left/insurrecto circles, and it would be futile to deny it. If you don't have more permanent structures, lasting affinities, what fills in the gap is spontaneity, improvisation, and this would lead back to my criticism of aestheticization.