Thanks!

Good question. I don’t know the answer, although it seems to me that there is a certain resemblance between the positions that Hamerquist criticized in the “Boston Group” and the politics that FRSO/Fight Back puts forward. But a lot can change in three and a half decades, so I don’t really know whether any of the original Boston/PUL people are even still involved in either of the FRSO’s at this point. Perhaps someone from one of the two groups can enlighten us…

Solidarity,
Mike

I think the value of Don’s anti-Stalinism is largely limited to the Leninist milieu in some ways, although I find it to be useful when thinking about whether or not Leninism necessarily leads to Stalinism (which seems to me to be a common thread within anarchist critiques of Leninism, and one that I often find myself doubting). As for your specific question, I think that particular instances of discipline in a revolutionary organization (whether it’s a “party” or not) are not normally “points of principle” or “factions,” in the sense Don means. Principles would be involved in the question of a general procedure for assessing the motives of members who are under some sort of investigation, and on this front it seems many class struggle anarchist organizations embrace an appropriate transparency. Does this distinction (between particular cases and general procedures) make sense?

Honestly I don’t have any archival material specific to Workforce or Haymarket, although I’ve done some good interviews with people who were in both groups prior to the merger. Generally they were pretty similar to early STO: opposition to white supremacy, industrial concentration, skepticism about intra-union reform efforts, etc. Both were smaller outfits, and Haymarket was pretty new when the merger took place.

Solidarity,
Mike

This is really interesting. You got any more info on Workforce and the Haymarket Organization?

I’m curious how much of these principles you’d apply to anarchist groups, and how far they extend. For instance, on A), does publicness extend to issues of member discipline? Like say I spend some organizational funds without permission and the organization has to work out whether I did so maliciously or sincerely, and what to do in response either way. Arguably there’s some key issues of principle there. How much of that debate and its results should be open?

cheers,
Nate

Great to see you blogging again, man. It was cool to be able to throw you in my list of RSS feeds.

Peace,