Add new comment

Though the spontaneity and the initiative that’s conveyed in the insurrectional tendency’s principles (strategy, assumption, hypothesis, assertion?) is similar to what is embraced in the nihilist approach, there are some differences.

Without the nihilist qualifier, the insurrectional approach does not necessarily preclude war-like strategy or war logic. It’s curious some of the insu tendency’s precedents were anti-war efforts.

Either way, the insurrectional approach seems to always be geared towards an ultimate goal. Be it immersed in “class struggle”, eco-defense, anti-war, etc., it seeks to attack to “escalate conflict” to a level of “insurrection”.

It may also take the assumption that can look like: attacks-> unrest-> riot-> insurection -> insurrections -> revolution (meaning overthrow of state and capitalism from an area). Achieving this end goal would be their best-case scenario.

They may also take the assumption that there is a sort of contagious quality in attacks, and that these will “spread”
if carried out, as long as they’re visible and easy to replicate. So though not and organization, or mediated, it still requires numbers of people and attacks to approximate their best-case scenario.

This would be contrary to a strictly nihilist approach, which ostensibly would not have ultimate goals. The attacks carried out by a nihilist, if at all, are not part of a larger campaign, but it could be for any number of things: necessity, reflex, fun, humor, hatred, convenience, a mistake, a slip up, curiosity, an experiment, revenge, etc. all very personal.

Unless I misunderstood, best-case scenario for a nihilist is living a life they do not regret.

I don’t know if stoicism and cool detachment in the face of worst-case scenarios is intrinsic in nihilism, or just comorbid, or if it’s the complete opposite. I’m that clueless in this regard.