With regard to this question, if you run a search on the noted works of "Gongniu Fenbian", I think you will find some interesting results.

Aside from my speculative interpretation of this text, as it relates to what people take for free expression, mostly what I was interested in talking about and the reason for me positing in the Philosophy of Art forum, a partial reason for my bringing it up is because of their opposition to whom they call the "pro-revolutionaries".

There are a lot of allusions to and even explicit mentions of Communization in that text. Communization is the theory that insurrectionaries should forgo every form of transitional program whatsoever and immediately establish communist society after waging a global revolution. Tiqqun, Endnotes, and Theorie Communiste are just simply delusional. They actually think a liberal global communist society will be established "at the level of a social totality". They've effectively applied Marxist determinism to a quasi-eschatological project that is supposed to manifest as the culmination of the historical process. A global spontaneous, referring to both the concept of revolutionary spontaneity and that it would just sort of be a serendipitous event, revolution would mean that most of the world would have to just up and decide to flood the streets at the same time. It is not within the realm of the possible. There are other people within both the far-Left and Anarchist movement who know this and are merely using such quote unquote praxis to rope people into doing all sorts of things like cultivating a certain social capital, aiding and abetting some of their lifestyle choices, or ultimately engaging in their plan of action in living out some sort of Godardian fantasy as an adventurist terrorist. Because so many young people became so taken by rioting, these people have an extraordinary influence over the Anarchist movement, enough so that I eventually had to leave in protest.

Cultivating a good social environment and focusing upon specific issues is what is both effective and best for any protest movement. When people become convinced that they will be let to play the stand-in for Napoleon in A Pigeon Sat on a Branch Reflecting on Existence, however, reason, wisdom, and common sense just fly out the window.

There were kind of a lot of things that you could critique of the alter-globalization movement, but it had kind of begun to get activists generally together well and could have developed a lot better until there became such an influx of fanatics from any number of cult pathologies concerning the so-called "Black Bloc". I get that rioting is kind of just like shoplifting or something, which is to say kind of a teenage kick that I'd almost be willing to celebrate, but, as I had to leave the Anarchist movement as an Anarcho-Pacifist in protest of its general proclivities towards crypto-Fascism and political violence, which I'm no longer quite so concerned with now that Joe Biden is in office, I think that I do have the case to make that the social ecology from the far-Left to the "radical Center" has disintegrated to some extent, when, kind of from the publication of Empire, it could have ameliorated.

This is probably only really relevant to me, though, and, so, here's to hoping that someone else out there finds these ramblings.

I kind of doubt that anyone else is interested in talking about this, but what I take away from this text is that avant-garde chic is often mistaken for genuine free expression because of a diffuse malaise generated by that there exist various sets of classes. The tendency that people in the arts have to form cliques is a symptom of their socio-political and economic situation. This situation creates a paradox for anyone concerned with the abolition of class as the most effective thing that you can do is to deconstruct it through détournement, an aesthetic praxis that relies upon that you become adept at transmuting its regime of signs. Such praxis relies upon that you not only cultivate an extraordinary knowledge of them, but also an in-depth understanding of how their order is maintained. High culture can only exist if people are subject to the pathology that there exists art which is of an objective aesthetic quality that is of more value than other works of art. To use an example from my own life, if you were to attempt to decide what filmed production of Hamlet were objectively the best, you would realize that this is entirely absurd. The appreciation of art is an entirely subjective experience. Aesthetic valuation, particularly that which maintains certain classes, however, relies upon common misconceptions regarding things like aesthetic paragons or quintessential art. To effectively deconstruct such valuation, one must engage within high culture so as to show others how to disengage from it. Luchino Visconti's Ludwig is a decadent film. Were I so inclined to deconstruct aristocratic decadence, I would have to create another decadent film about the aristocracy. Visconti's life and work already has subverted aristocratic decadence. It took an actual aristocrat to make a set of points about the decadence of the aristocracy. It, then, seems as if we are consigned to become so much at the level of a social totality that which revolt against so as to destroy everything that is like it, but thought to be "imperfect". What people mistakenly call this is "authenticity". I rebel against this state of affairs. I feel the urge to take my rebellion outside and picket nature. Any personal riot against the Absurd is better than a culminate form of social violation in the form of an excess of so-called "character". I do not wonder why Varg Vikernes set fire to Fantoft Stave Church. It holds not fascination for me any longer. I would prefer, now, to discover what freedom is and what is all the more further "out there".

This will be my last attempt at explaining this, but there's a certain poignancy to something that the character, Seymour, says to Les in J.D. Salinger's Seymour an Introduction. I fear that talking about this will vitiate the relationship that anyone has to the text, but will do so nonetheless. Seymour talks about being let to ride a nickel-plated bicycle on stage. You'll just have to read it to get an understanding of his sentiment, but upon being asked if he remembers doing so, he says to Les, "he wasn't sure he had ever got off Joe Jackson's beautiful bicycle." What I think is tragic of the Postmodern condition is that people take living as a form of protest and experimental theatre for the revolution of everyday life. I, myself, don't know what lies outside of existence as such. I have merely shared this section of this text and written these posts so as to declare that I should like to find out.