these are sorta just a few musings or whatever type curiosities i have...
japanese "pure anarchism" was very much inspired by kropotkinist anarcho-communism...the same school that we see that malatesta grew up in...likewise malatesta had a critique of apolitical revolutionary syndicalism very similar to the pure anarchists and called for a separate revolutionary anarchist organization...often malatesta's involvement in the FORA is brought up to state that this position of his in 1907 is eventually contradicted, but it does not really seem so to me when you then also look at the FORA and how they also went on to rally against what was getting called anarcho-syndicalism or more simply revolutionary syndicalism. later FORA theorists sorta sketch out a sorta schematic where they put forward that all workers' organizations have politics of some sort and so anarchists should fight for dominance and it is okay for there to be ideas that unite workers organization of struggle... this seems very similar to what malatesta and other "dual organizationalists" or platformists say etc (sure with some differences)...
anyone have thoughts on all of this?
Can comment on articles and discussions
i'm kind of confused by what you're asking here, or what you want people to speak on. (i think that's why nobody's answered so far.) but i'll give it a brief shot.
i think the dual organizational approach is a good method and i agree with this: