An example of how to make an antinomy out of structure and spontaneousness:
“Writing on AlterNet last week, two student activists from the City University New York argued that the lesson to import from Quebec lies in the importance of institutionalizing student power: “We believe that if students in the United States hope to have the kind of impact on our universities that we witnessed in Montreal, we will need to first establish radical, federated student unions here at home, organizations capable of replacing our currently weak systems of student participation.” For many student organizers, this will be the take-away from Quebec. I want to urge a different lesson entirely. Vajda noted, “Many students did not think at the outset that they would be sacrificing the semester worth of work, tuition, fees, but I think increasingly it is becoming clear that the stakes are high and those sacrifices can create leverage to work toward shaping a different future that will not follow the neoliberal model of debt-fueled education.” Crucially, the increasingly radical strike has been — and continues to be – a daring experiment for those involved, far surpassing the assumed remit of the original student walkout. The conviction and strength of the strike, according to Vajda, grows every day as people continue to meet and act in the streets. Law 78 only served to galvanize and generalize this experimental dissent. The powerful message from Quebec, for me, is not the importance of strong student leadership. Rather, it is that thousands of individuals have taken risks, broken with their daily routines and found each other in the streets (despite numerous social and political divisions) to engage in a radical political experiment with no clear endpoint. One of the main Twitter hashtags relating the Quebec actions is #manifencours, an abbreviation of “manifestation en cours, meaning simply “demonstration in the streets.” As the proliferation of the phrase suggests, the situation in Quebec is no longer just about negotiating tuition fees; it’s a manifestation with an open trajectory.” (Natasha Lennard)
Why are structure and spontaneity seen as being separate?
What if having more structure is the thing that allows for a “radical political experiment with no endpoint”?
Also, notice how (in a typical Ultra-Leftist move, and the other side of the Marxist-Leninist coin), “organization” becomes “the importance of strong student leadership.”