by NEZUMI, from HAPAX blog
When it comes down to it, there are two revolutions. The revolution which answers and the revolution which does not, or the revolution which answers and the revolution which questions. The revolution which is made to conceal even a millimeter of teleology, evolutionary theory, or program is the enemy. Caught between right wing and liberal, the old left, New Left, and even officially recognized anarchism (including mutations like anarcho-fascism) form a gradation. All of this amounts to nothing more than a struggle over governance. All that matters is severing ourselves from it.
The New Left branched from the old left, and from its best parts autonomia, or the hallway of “changing the world without taking political power”, derived “prefigurative politics”. So what does it mean for insurrectionary politics to have appeared after this? What matters here is not the radicalization of its tactics. It’s that it severs itself from governance, that the expression used for this severance is “insurrection”, that it’s communism. It goes without saying that this has nothing to do with the debate around the “ideal of communism”. Communism as a whole is rejected. It’s because it’s been left in fragments that collectivity arrives. This is nothing more than what’s already been said in Theses on the Philosophy of History. It’s this that we’ve named our “unconditional revolution” [無条件革命], but you could also read it as a “revolution without conditions” [無様相革命 - that is, without aspects or structure]. Here, instead of the “ideal of communism” it is the “body of communism” that comes into question.
translation by anarchist news