in (fear, anxiety, ambivalence and) ...solidarity?

The ongoing controversies and debates over "diversity of tactics" have been very much on my mind this week (of course). Fortunately, in a few hours, some good folks will be hosting a serious conversation about it.

If, like me, you've been somewhat ambivalent in the aftermath of (some of) the recent anti-olympic protests, you might enjoy this piece — i did. It summarizes several major concerns that i share, and manages to articulate some complex thoughts with admirable delicacy…

At least two friends have already posted it on FB, but i'm passing it on again, because i think this is important (and useful) stuff.

However i’m afraid it ultimately begs the question(s) of what solidarity and “respect for ‘diversity of tactics’” might actually mean… And i think it falls prey, at times, to some of the (covertly) authoritarian tendencies that plague what ‘we’ call the left…

I’m left with questions, such as: What underlies the fears of "going soft" etc.?

And: Are the venomous (“nothing i hate more…”) dismissals directed at "conservative" leftists — and those (like me?) who would “demand order and regulation and discipline in the movement” — completely genuine?

Or are such statements mere formalities: required for ‘legitimate’ participation in a ‘radical’ discourse that is governed by a dogmatic (and mercilessly enforced) vanguardist (neo/pseudo-) anarchism?

(note: of course, i don't entirely endorse the criticisms in the links [eg: "reform vs. revolution" = bor-ing!], but there are some interesting parallels to be found, for example, between this and what i've been enjoying, lately, in the works of Nancy Fraser — concerning "the general political problem of how to construct cultures of solidarity that are not homogenizing and repressive").

What i mean is: i feel that this author, in daring to critique the prevailing (…with us or against us) reactions on both sides of the debate within the left, is couching his critique in violent pieties to establish credibility — why is this (and the frequently apologetic tone) necessary? Perhaps because the author knows how vicious and unforgiving our “comrades” can be…