All of that said, is there something to be gained by breaking down this division? For myself, I think there’s something to be gained by saying “hey these can overlap” but I worry that dissolving the differences entirely might let some folk off the hook who need to be schooled…

cheers,
Nate

In France too, the anarchist-communists tryed to renovate anarchism many time and several generations indeed moved to marxism and armed struggle. This is the story of the FCL who embrassed marxism, participated in elections with dissident communists, materialy supported the FLN and the antifrancoist forces then went underground only to see a section around Fontenis reemerge as a purely communist force for a time and then going back to libertarian communism after 1968. There where other groups –from the same FCL– too that mooved from anarchist-communism to communism to anarchist-communism again (see the story of Noire et Rouge and the GAAR / UGAC / Tribune anarchiste-communiste around Guy Bourgeois).

In Italy we can see the same story with the GAAP and latter Azzione Rivolutionaria (or something like that). Same in Spain with the FIJL then MIL.

Look like the infantile disorder of platformism to me… Definetly worth studying anyway.

One other thing - I think there’s an important analytical distinction that often doesn’t get made, between fighting against sexism and fighting for women’s interests. The latter doesn’t reduce to the former. My personal opinion is that anarchists are crap at both but better at practicing and understanding the first more than the second, in part because of the relative lack of involvement in mass work.

Great to see you blogging again, by the way.

xo
Nate

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