I still feel bad for trying to get folk to be part of the STO online reading group then bailing on it. Ah well.

I like the back and forth here about the role of political organization in big eruptions. It’s interesting that Mike mentions the FdCA, this reminds me of some of the minor disagreements you and I have had about organizational dualism a while ago. I remember them along these lines -
you: a specific political organization is necessary
me: well, I could see how one would be useful, but I don’t like the word “necessary” and I’m not convinced that this stuff can only happen if such an organization exists
you: [something convincing, the specifics of which escape me now about how being part of a political organization is something I need and that makes sense]
me: Oh, okay. I agree.

I know for me I get hung up on the causal claim - I don’t like the claim in what you quoted where STO says things depend “fundamentally, on the intervention of conscious revolutionaries.” It seems to me that none of that is knowable and there’s a problem on either side of under and over-emphasis (no role for ideas and political organization vs too large a role for them). Seems to me best to just say “revolution may come or start in a way that surprises conscious revolutionists, though of course conscious revolutionists ought to get involved whenever they see something like that possibly starting; revolutionists also may be able to help take struggles to the next level, that’s certainly our goal.” Something like that.

On the points about what groups to work in and how, I think all of that would benefit from being more specific - you think the IWW is a valid place to work, and that running for office or trying to get resolutions passed in a mass organization is not the only or the best (or even a good?) thing for revolutionists to do inside larger organizations. (What I don’t know how to reconcile here is the fact that you and I and other close comrades think that while doing a fair part of our work as IWW officers.)

cheers,
Nate