Ugh these people suck so bad. On average, western leftists are worse than useless. Some bullet points are kinda interesting, even if annoying.
This was another very difficult question I had to ask my interview subjects, especially the leftists from Southeast Asia and Latin America. When we would get to discussing the old debates between peaceful and armed revolution; between hardline Marxism and democratic socialism, I would ask: Who was right?
In Guatemala, was it Arbenz or Che who had the right approach? Or in Indonesia, when Mao warned Aidit that the PKI should arm themselves, and they did not? In Chile, was it the young revolutionaries in the MIR who were right in those college debates, or the more disciplined, moderate Chilean Communist Party?
Most of the people I spoke with who were politically involved back then believed fervently in a nonviolent approach, in gradual, peaceful, democratic change. They often had no love for the systems set up by people like Mao. But they knew that their side had lost the debate, because so many of their friends were dead. They often admitted, without hesitation or pleasure, that the hardliners had been right. Aidit's unarmed party didn't survive. Allende's democratic socialism was not allowed, regardless of the d'etente between the Soviets and Washington.
Looking at it this way, the major losers of the twentieth century were those who believed too sincerely in the existence of a liberal international order, those who trusted too much in democracy, or too much in what the United States said it supported, rather than what it really supported -- what the rich countries said, rather than what they did.
That group was annihilated.
- Vincent Bevins, The Jakarta Method
Anarcho-libs / "Libertarian Leftists" love movements that maintained their moral purity by failing. As movements they're relatively easy to defend. Because they never meaningfully took power, they're never made to deal with the baggage of a real government that exists in a hostile capitalist world. Forever morally pristine and beautiful, in failure and death.
I really need to read Jakarta Method, his recent book If We Burn is great. He does a wonderful job as a journalist weaving the historical conditions and sprinkling Lenin quotes here and there.
The Jakarta Method is a great jumping off point for further research on imperialism, if you liked The Shock Doctrine I think you'll like it
Libs support all civil rights' movements, except the current one.
Left-libs support all revolutions, except the succesful ones.
Some of these are absolutely ridiculous. “WATCH OUT FOR CHARISMATIC LEADERS!” Yes, if you want to make sure your organization is safe, make sure the leaders are unlikable morons who smell bad.
that does unironically seem like part of how liberals operate. "you know our country is free because everyone hates the government
"It's how state media in liberal countries work too. "You know our reporting is unbiased and objective because we get equal amounts of complaints from the left and the right"
Nevermind what people are complaining about, as long as everyone is unhappy the system must be functioning.
I've got a buddy in a trot party and they're insufferable to talk to. They actually wait for the revolution and their plan is that "then the people will let them lead it". Are they doing anything? No, because the revolution hasn't begun yet.
I also knew an anarchist who wouldn't volunteer at a soup kitchen because it was organised by trots. No ideology is safe from dipshits, but there's a few that have some very obvious and loud dipshits
trots missing is very common, for an example one can open the contents of one of their newspapers
'both sidesing palestine'
and there it is again
Trots always seem to manage to look like the weakest smelliest losers at any rally.
It's like when some dumbass dem said "politics is not a popularity contest!"
It literally is. That's what the system you've set up is about. Who can get the support of the populace - i.e. who is more popular?
"Watch out for charismatic leaders!" Yeah, wouldn't want to be appealing to the masses ewkicking lenin, stalin, and other prominent bolsheviks out of the party and watching the thing collapse but its okay since now no one good at their job is in charge so that means we're not tankies
We can't kick them out though since a formalised hierarchy or centralized organisation would be bad. We can't make a commitee about it either though, since that would be bureaucracy. We can't exclude them socially either, since that would mean they lose their friends upon leaving the org. Luckily none of us are doing anything, so it doesn't really matter.
im glad that we're a competent, truly communist org, ready to lead (not really because that would be authoritarian) the revolution when it happens... eventually
one day
Gonna break down a few of these.
Heavy Emphasis on Recruitment: Vanguardist groups constantly need new members: to pay dues, volunteer their labor, recruit for the group, and replace burnt-out members. Lots of effort goes into social media and marketing, and actions are heavily influenced by how they can serve as a recruitment tool: the flashier the better. Waves of new people and energy help make the group feel active and relevant, and mask the steady trickle of people leaving.
Feds in a boardroom have discussed what kills orgs and determined the number one thing that kills orgs is retention, or lack of it. Membership falling below retention rate results in a shrinking org, which is a dying org as far as the feds are concerned.
Ambulance-Chasing and Coopting: Seeking energy and recruits, these groups will suddenly appear around “crisis of the moment” events. As we write this zine, their current target is Palestine solidarity efforts that have increased in response to Israel’s recent escalation of genocide in Gaza in 2023-2024. Watch for groups who appear at events uninvited and focus on distributing newspapers and collecting e-mail list signups. They’ll often bring things like mass-printed signs with their group’s name and website or a large banner advertising the group they can prominently display in photos of events to advertise. They may even hijack open mics and chants.
They are basically singling out PSL and FRSO here in the first part. But the second part is conflating those two groups with the tactics of RCA, formerly IMT, formerly Militant. They do show up to stuff, put up their branding and make it look like they're supposed to be there as a means of piggybacking of other people's organising. "Hijacking open mics" is funny af though, an open mic is.... Open? It's not hijacking is it. And a chant? It's a fucking chant anyone can do it.
Front Groups and Front Coalitions: Creating a front group or coalition is another way vanguards try tapping into movement energy to redirect to their own ends. The front is dominated by members of the vanguard without clear connection to the vanguard group, to better allow the vanguard to hide their politics and intentions. Its purpose is to find recruits for the vanguard, and to be a vehicle for the vanguard’s activities that appears to be separate from them.
Liberals do this? Pussyhat Project? Half the liberal lgbt groups? They're front groups created by liberals.
Deceptive and Dishonest Practices: The authoritarian politics of vanguards generally aren’t liked, so they’ll be kept below the surface. Vanguards publicly claim values that can attract people—like police abolition, supporting labor rights, and horizontal power—while hypocritically supporting police attacking workers in authoritarian nation-states they support, like Cuba, Iran, or China. How can you value someone’s consent and autonomy if you lie to them?
Nope. There's no deception whatsoever in any vanguard group. I have literally not seen an ML org that doesn't make you read Stalin. Bourgeoise police are not the same as proletarian police. Making this about Cuba in particular isn't going to win anyone over, this "Zine" would've done better to leave that part out because the point will be instantly dismissed by every Cuba supporter. BUT, this isn't actually designed to deradicalise anyone who gets into these orgs (more on that).
Party Lines in General: Vanguardist ideas of discipline and a “scientific” revolution that must be followed to a ‘T‘ require conformity, obedience, and strict binary thinking. The world is more nuanced than that, but this nuance isn’t allowed in vanguardist politics.
The revolutionary party is organised like a military hierarchy because it is fighting a class WAR and militaries are designed with that structure for a reason, they are the most resilient and effective organisational style that humans have come up with for war fighting.
Centralization: A vanguard needs a power structure they can exert control from. If it doesn’t exist, they may try creating it to place themselves or their close associates at the center.
Almost all political parties are centralised. Given my experience in liberal parties like UK Labour I would say they are LESS democratic and MORE centralised than ML orgs. Starmer practically annihilated any democracy that existed within that party, all of which was mostly created by Corbyn.
Redirecting Autonomous Efforts into Spaces They Control: Autonomous efforts and independent projects can be enticed into spaces a vanguard controls, often with promises of resources, a plea to not “duplicate efforts,” or “left unity.” The intent is to gain influence over the project. Like a mixture of Entryism and Cooptation.
I've always argued against doing this in my orgs. Maybe someone with a good media skillset could do a NEW project that is under the org's name in addition to their existing project (such as a radio or youtube or whatever) but orgs that take control of existing projects of members don't realise that they're annihilating the motivation of the person running that project. Projects live and die by motivation of the key people running them and it's very important that orgs get some awareness of that and allow members to simply have their projects and their recognition for them sometimes. If you give them that, they often become very loyal and are more willing to run the project in conjunction with the org.
Hyper-Focus on Bureaucracy: Getting the group stuck in loops of committee forming, decision-making, writing points of unity, establishing cadre leadership, etc. Most likely during power struggles and Entryist takeovers. Often causes non-vanguard members to leave in frustration.
Nah man this is what feds do to break orgs and waste time. Specifically they want more than 2-3 people making decisions on every single project because it slows everything to a fucking crawl. This is something orgs should largely avoid apart from major decisions.
Never-Ending Tasks: Revolutionary change will require lots of effort, but within vanguardist organizations the pressure to fulfill duties and demonstrate commitment and discipline often lead to members committing most of their time to the vanguard group. This can lead to relationships outside the group weakening from neglect, becoming socially dependent on the group, and eventually burning out without a support network to help them leave the group.
How dare orgs have work to do!?
Incidentally I've actually never met anyone that regretted the social relations they get from organising. Not even people that eventually left them. Maybe the drama and things but the actual social relations? No.
This is an attempt to make vanguard orgs sound similar to what people have seen of their racist conspiracy uncle who the whole family now doesn't talk to. To conflate the left with the far-right. It's not the same. People don't feel sad and lonely and isolated socially from the rest of the world in leftist groups.
Charismatic Leader: Vanguard groups often center around a charismatic leader or founder who is elevated to a level of importance. This can be a leader/founder of the group itself, or an ideological figurehead.
yes hello, this is the ideological figureheadSheltering Abusers: Patriarchal violence is a serious recurring problem basically everywhere. But vanguardist groups often treat attempts at accountability as an attack on the group and their ideology, or a distraction from “the cause.” They become defensive, and in practice shield abusers while dismissing survivors of abuse.
There is no Epstein within the vanguard. Shut the fuck up, liberals have absolutely no leg to stand on in the face of the overwhelming evidence against them for pedophilia and sexual violence and literal presidential coverups. Patriarchal violence IS everywhere and the only reason this attack is used is because the left is BETTER about it which makes people more worried when hearing accusations. If we could compare communist orgs with liberal and fascist orgs on this issue I am 100% certain that communist orgs come out on top as having the least of it, the least covered up, and the most harshly dealt with when uncovered.
All large orgs will deal with it. And the larger they get the more they will.
Taking Credit for Others’ Work and Actions: Vanguards may take credit for events, actions, and work organized by other groups. This is particularly true for things that are flashy or popular, but other things may be claimed by the vanguard group if it seems like it will be useful for recruiting.
This is just repeating some of the above stuff I mentioned about motivation. It's a careful balance and orgs should do it better. Incidentally, which is it? Are vanguards taking all credit or are they hiding behidn front orgs to hide their involvement?
Lack of Care for Members and Vulnerable People: The thirst for attention-grabbing actions can lead to vulnerable people and the group’s members being used as means to an end, resources to be exploited. Many “flashy” actions, such as an occupation, require extensive preparation, consideration, and care to manage various risks of harm (to the extent that we can). Nothing can be made perfectly safe, but a vanguard’s sloppy approach to actions can put people through unnecessary harm for what is ultimately a PR stunt.
Stop calling major issues "PR Stunts". You are calling the Palestine protests against a genocide a PR stunt in the same breath as pretending you care about "vulnerable people". The person that wrote this is a snake speaking double with a forked tongue.
The people that care THE MOST are in these orgs.
[cont in reply]
[cont]
Coercive “Self-Criticism”: Space for intentional reflection and evaluation is necessary for anyone trying to have an impact on the world. However “self-criticism,” (sometimes called “crit and self-crit” or “struggle sessions”) can be deployed to coerce group members to dedicate more time and resources to the group, shut down dissent, and re-mold members into more obedient followers. Puritanical efforts to root out “bourgeois” sentiments/mentality/social influences are a serious indicator of manipulation.
This one is just a mess. Self-crit in order to understand why something is flawed is not a bad thing. Conflating it with a bunch of unrelated stuff is silly, a "struggle session" is just a debate. People exchange ideas and change their views. Not sure what "obedience" even has to do with this other than the feds trying to suggest "if you ever think critically about the world and change your views instead of being an ASSHOLE then you're just being a bootlicker maaaaaan, you're not an independent thinker maaaaaan"... This is fashy shit.
Defending and Glorifying Authoritarian Leaders and Governments: For ideological reasons, vanguards in the “Western world” (our experience is from the “US”) often uncritically support authoritarian governments and leaders in the name of “anti-imperialism.” In extreme cases, this ends up being a sort of conservative patriotism. The actual practices and values of the nation-states they defend don’t matter, only their geopolitical relation with the US. This comes from the history of authoritarianism in leftwing politics, and specifically the influence of a tendency called “Marcyist” or “Campist,” which encourages uncritically supporting governments the “US” opposes. The result can be ugly. During uprisings, they’ll callously attack dissidents under a regime the vanguard supports, calling them CIA removed and calling their autonomous revolts “Color Revolutions”—if those same dissidents were in the US, ironically, the vanguard group would try to recruit them.
Nobody gives a fuck what this person thinks is authoritarian or not because they included Cuba and undermined their entire argument.
Expecting Queer People and People of Color to Assimilate: Vanguards may try to make themselves more acceptable to “the masses” by sidelining the concerns of marginalized people, or pushing those people to be less visibly “different.” This can sometimes go as far as the vanguard adopting conservative stances like transphobia. This can also be ideologically driven, with vanguards claiming problems like racism and sexism are actually just created by capitalism, and fighting them is a distraction from the more important “class struggle.”
Some of the shit ones yeah. Not the ones that I think this person is scared of the most.
Use of “Left Unity” Rhetoric to Demand Inclusion in Spaces: Some imagine “Left Unity” as creating a friendly and powerful movement, but in practice it suppresses diverse opinions and approaches in favor of a false “unity,” frequently giving authoritarians power within movements they otherwise wouldn’t have. You don’t have to sacrifice all your values and autonomy to work with others on tangible, shared goals.
There is nothing that makes you stand out as OPPOSED to the left more to me than making the argument that the left is better off divided.
Local Organizers Controlled by a Central Committee: For example, a vanguard’s central committee may order organizers to get involved in a particular struggle like Palestine solidarity work. At worst this launches a destructive wave of front groups and entryist takeovers. At best these organizers honestly aid in an effort, only to vanish when the organization’s whims change to a different hot new movement.
Literally every large liberal org is structured with a national executive committee or variant of such that functionally steers local orgs. If the local doesn't want to do what the national wants then their funding can be cut off, which in most cases would mean death of the group, that funding will go to whoever is willing to do it. I really don't see the difference, ML orgs are just more disciplined.
Going back to my earlier point: "BUT, this isn't actually designed to deradicalise anyone who gets into these orgs (more on that)."
This isn't really for people joining ML orgs, this is for people who are already anti-ML. This is written the same way the google docs and wikis are written. The "fact sheets" of talking points.
The purpose of this is to spread it as "educational content", to arm people online with talking points. The goal is to create thousands of people with this information in their heads so that everywhere an org name comes up (PSL for example) immediately gets dozens of comments dropping these talking points. This is how they crowdsource narratives in social media. Nobody joining a vanguard party is going to read this and change their mind. But the online discourse about vanguard parties? Well that's what this exists to do. They aim to educate everyone on the internet who is currently anti-tankie into being able to drop these mountains of talking points.
Shit like this will spread. Anticommunist discourse will change. Watch it happen.
If I were going to put my money on a new scareword for the future, tankie will fall away as its now being deemed less useful because of how polluted its use is, anticommunists will instead be pushed to switch to "vanguard".
The actual practices and values of the nation-states they defend don’t matter, only their geopolitical relation with the US.
actually correct btw, if Satan invaded the USA I would join sides with him because the USA is the greater satan. That's Lesser Evilism, I hear liberals like this writer are into that.
wish i could find that youtube clip, i think it was in farsi? anyone with a link to share would be greatly appreciated
It's funny how these people fellate themselves about being nuanced while simultaneusly being mad about people being nuanced about [designated enemy of the state]
Fellas, is it revisionist to view the world through the lens of social and political relations?
Expecting Queer People and People of Color to Assimilate: Vanguards may try to make themselves more acceptable to “the masses” by sidelining the concerns of marginalized people, or pushing those people to be less visibly “different.” This can sometimes go as far as the vanguard adopting conservative stances like transphobia. This can also be ideologically driven, with vanguards claiming problems like racism and sexism are actually just created by capitalism, and fighting them is a distraction from the more important “class struggle.”
minorities, famous for not being at the front of communist movements
When describing actually existing socialism to reactionaries, it's terrifyingly foreign and brown. When describing that same AES to left infantilists, it magically transmutes into being chauvinistic and white.
The purpose of this is to spread it as "educational content", to arm people online with talking points. The goal is to create thousands of people with this information in their heads so that everywhere an org name comes up (PSL for example) immediately gets dozens of comments dropping these talking points.
There was a small workers group in my area that had existed for years and hadn't really done anything until myself and my partner joined and got regular meetings going and set up a plan to do some public facing work. Suddenly one of the prominent members pulled out and shared a post detailing these exact points on Instagram the next day and the group quickly fell apart shortly after. My partner and I were the only two in the group that would even identify ourselves as Marxists and while I like PSL and Workers World neither of us are members of it or any other "vanguardist" organization.
Incredibly sus behaviour.
I know it was a small group and I keep saying this and sound like a stuck record but in the UK we have court submitted evidence showing that orgs have been infiltrated by the government when they're just a 5 person marxist reading group for Capital. They can and do infiltrate very very small groups early.
sometimes i womder where you get the energy to effort post comrade
i hope i can have a bit of your strength
This is spite. And the fact that these things are definitely gonna come up thousands of times in the future and we should all coalesce around answers to them. The counter to this kind of "educate all the anticommunists" shit is educating the communists on counter-narrative.
It's like when Xinjiang played out in realtime with the narrative ever changing and huge google docs of disinformation and copy-paste lines were being dumped out for infowarfighters to use. The most effective thing MLs did in countering that was their own massive docs debunking it and mass educating and giving access to other MLs to those docs to quickly debunk and spread counter information.
This shit will spread and I just see some value in writing my thoughts down as I read it. I might copy paste some of them in future, then adapt em, then further evolve them. I often re-use and re-write myself over and over again over time because you get into the same stuff over and over again.
·13 days agoyou get into the same stuff over and over again
(It feels like) Communists have to know the entire history of the universe, the sciences, etc. and be able to recite it all at a moments notice.
Yes
The issue is that there's a lot more anticommunists than there are communists. And the feds make sure that all the anticommunists are armed with lists upon lists of this stuff. This forces communists to correct this information. It slows us down, but it does not stop us and what we have on our side is that the numbers of reds are growing over time. A marxist political education can't be unlearned.
We should, actually, to be able to successfully apply historical materialism to practice. Owning libs is just a pleasant side effect.
(It feels like) Communists have to know the entire history of the universe, the sciences, etc. and be able to recite it all at a moments notice.
having a handle on relevant things being discussed in popular culture is useful for organizing
I often re-use and re-write myself over and over again over time because you get into the same stuff over and over again.
I've started just linking people past dunks, when they say the same stuff. Saves effort and it feels nice. I add them to a chain, and also give them a direct link. The chain is meant to shame them.
I've done this before too but with big threads about the topic. Anything highly upvoted with lots of comments has a social reinforcing effect that makes people more willing to listen.
Nope. There's no deception whatsoever in any vanguard group. I have literally not seen an ML org that doesn't make you read Stalin. Bourgeoise police are not the same as proletarian police. Making this about Cuba in particular isn't going to win anyone over, this "Zine" would've done better to leave that part out because the point will be instantly dismissed by every Cuba supporter. BUT, this isn't actually designed to deradicalise anyone who gets into these orgs (more on that).
one of their complaints literally being that we're comically evil and actually just fake is fucking hilarious
whoops there goes my communism and my transness since the libs in america can't comprehend someone to the left of them
Literally just the political version of an insecure person seething about that FAKE FUCK who everyone likes for some reason (a kinder, more outgoing person in their friend group)
: please stop the aggressive policies against my nation
: shut up dictator. You have done unspeakable crimes
: vote for my genocide cuck. My next target will be you.
: yes sir! Sieg heil sir! Please don't be red while doing fascismthe social chauvinists are now calling themselves 'marxists' (dont laugh)
Authoritarian ideologies ignore that the methods you use for radical change influence the radical change that you wind up creating
So true bestie, it’s much better to fail miserably at engendering any societal change whatsoever, as is the “anarcho”-liberal tradition
The USSR isn't around.
I agree the zine is bs but if you are actually serious about wanting a left unity with anarchists, stop the dick measuring contest. The two isn't even measuring success by the same standards.
You say not to judge it by the same standards when you opened by uh
doing the thing ur critiquing him for doing
Yeah i did, to show how absurd it is to judge leftist projects merely by their longevity.
Their impact on the world is not simply in how long they were around.
I did not say that it was, but longevity is part of impact. The longer something is around, the more likely it is to have an impact.
Yeah actually i think i misunderstood OP a bit now. I was thinking he was doing the "muh anarkiddies never do revolutions that last longer than 2 months" bit.
They really love to accuse PSL and ANSWER of co-opting the pro-Palestine movement because it's trending. But these groups have been a central to that movement for at least 6-10 years. Where have the anarchist organizations been?
According to an article in the same zine telling important truths like this
this is just an updated version of that old FBI handbook on sabotaging communist orgs
I swear the way these people talk about the PSL is like something from an alternate universe. I've been with the org for years now and it's nothing like what they're describing.
i genuinely think they spend more time angry at PSL than at the US government
I get the impression this person has never organized with people who aren't liberals, but are projecting their online rage into how they think it would work on the ground.
I wish I loved anything as much as the writer loves quotation marks. So the "anti-imperialists" oppose the "Western world", namely the "US", due to "Marcyist" "Campism". Wow, you really wouldn't want to write this sentence without those scare quotes!
but if they dont include them the reader would have the correct opinion that its objectively based and true
During uprisings, they’ll callously attack dissidents under a regime the vanguard supports, calling them CIA removed and calling their autonomous revolts “Color Revolutions”—if those same dissidents were in the US, ironically, the vanguard group would try to recruit them
I love completely ignoring the actual evidence of CIA meddling/color revolution constantly presented in these cases because even mentioning it must be a sinister propaganda ploy to undermine “autonomous revolts” against “authoritarian regimes”!! How do I know this? Um because there’s motive on the part of tankies to defend these “regimes” (which are praised as “anti-imperialist”) against criticism, whereas there is no motive to attack these “regimes” (which we thoroughly condemn as “authoritarian” and seek the collapse of) on our part!! And with this the “irony” is revealed that our position is correct and therefore the tankies are silly.
these 'leftists' would protect a liberal democracy from a communist revolution every time
This shitty zine belongs in the dunk tank.
Piggybacking off of @Awoo@hexbear.nets effortpost to slap some quick dunks on the bulletpoints:
text
Heavy Emphasis on Recruitment: (...) Lots of effort goes into social media and marketing, and actions are heavily influenced by how they can serve as a recruitment tool: the flashier the better
Yeah, because that works when you're recruiting via social media. "Nooo don't be effective, don't be appealing, don't function, we need to advertise by posting the entirety of the communist manifesto in the ugliest font possibe otherwise our moral integrity is corrupted!"
Jfc fed shit.Heavy Emphasis on Recruitment (cont'd): And mask the steady trickle of people leaving
Liberals making normal stuff sound villanous and scary, name a more iconic duo. It's just what you do in any organisation. You recognize the reality that existing as a person means barely anyone will be able to dedicate themselves fully and forever to any single cause. You know what the accusation would have been, had that been the MO of leftists orgs? They'd call it a cult. "Nobody ever leaves! They're exclusive about recruitment! They target specific individuals and sway them over long periods of time!"
Ambulance chasing and co-opting
On top of what you point out, the basic warning here is "beware of groups that go to events that align with their ideology. Especially if the event is a popular one. Beware of groups that go to large social gatherings in order to interact with people and interest them in joining up."
Front Groups and Front Coalitions:
Beware of groups practicing good opsec in a country that is historically hostile to leftist orgs.
Deceptive and Dishonest Practices:
- If your idea of recruiting people to your anarchist org is to yell at them about Kropotkin and not ask them if they'll help you out with a soup kitchen, then I don't know what to tell you.
- Literally doing the "Well what if we said you said something you didn't say instead of the thing you did say" argument that libs love so much. "Replace the word 'richest people in the world' with 'jews' and suddenly you sound a bit like a nazi, ever think of that?"
Party Lines in General
Anyone who talks of 'nuance' while advocating for supporting the status quo gets sent to the gulag. Libs love to use 'nuance' as a magical word allowing them any ideological position. It's the "let people enjoy things" of political discourse. Actual 'nuance' is called "critical support".
Centralization:
They are describing every org with any formal or informal hierarchy. I reiterate: Liberals making normal stuff sound villanous and scary, name a more iconic duo
Redirecting Autonomous Efforts into Spaces They Control:
Yeah that's a bad practice in any political org, really almost any effort at all. I've worked a little bit in media and you know what almost always fucks things up? When you pull in a new hire due to their existing work, and then force them to put that work under your control, instead of supporting them in creating something new within your space, while allowing them to retain control of- and continue work with their previous stuff.
What does this have to do with tankies specifically? Are we just describing stupid shit to do when you're a political organisation? How about expanding the list even more then? "Tankies will eat unhealthy food in large amounts, leading to increased risks of cardiac arrest." OOOOOOH see even their nutrition is evil and bad!Hyper-Focus on Bureaucracy:
As rightly pointed out that's fed shit, but also
Tankies are bad because there's one dicatorial leader who decides everything and forces everyone to do everything without any formalised processes for decision making, but tankies are also bad for having formalised processes for decision making and they're also bad because they have decentralised to such an extent that there's a massive inefficient bureaucracy where everyone just constantly opens new comittees and insists on everyone being heard, which slows everything down.Never-Ending Tasks
Remember when I said the alternative was accussing orgs of being cults? I guess we can have our cake and eat it too!
Also "OOOOH THE SCARY COMMIES WILL MAKE FRIENDS WITH YOU AND THEN YOU WILL MISS THEM WHEN YOU NO LONGER HANG OUT" and "OOOH THE SCARY COMMIES THAT ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ORGANISING HAVE STUFF TO DO AND IF YOU ARE INVOLVED THEN YOU WILL ALSO HAVE STUFF TO DO OOOOOH SCARY"Charismatic Leader
https://hexbear.net/comment/5607156
Sheltering Abusers
Again are we just talking about bad things in general? This has nothing to do with tankies, and the fact they don't have the numbers to back it up makes it clear. On top of that many political orgs have a nasty habit of reacting with scepticism at very harmful accusations (see: death of MeToo), but that habit, on the left, in part comes from the decades long work from feds, like this writer, who try to wreck any leftist movement any way they can, so they'll cook up fucked up accusations in order to kneecap any movement.
That doesn't mean these things shouldn't be taken seriously or that it's in any way good that it's a pattern in many organisations, but not acknowledging the reasons for the symptom, means you'll never get rid of the cause.Lack of Care for Members and Vulnerable People
More "bad things are bad, but inherently a tankie thing somehow." There's nothing about this that's in any way unique to leftist orgs. What is (somewhat) unique to leftist orgs is that they work with vulnerable people and make sure any involvement is alright, something you rarely see elsewhere.
Coercive “Self-Criticism”
Self-crit is good actually, but it's bad when it's done in a bad way. Great insight once again. Eating too much is also bad for you, that's what too much means. "Can be deployed" yeah and my ass "can be" deployed as an emergency seaplane, but it's not meant for it, so using it like that is gonna get a lot of people hurt.
Also more scary language to shape the thoughts to fit the narrative "obedience" OOOOOH WHEN YOU TALK TO PEOPLE AND YOU GET ALONG YOU'RE ACTUALLY BEING BRAINWASHED OOOH SOMEONE ESTABLISHING BOUNDARIES AND ASKING YOU TO RECONSIDER WHY YOU DO CERTAIN THINGS IS ACTUALLY COMMIE BRAINWASHING OOOOH WHEN YOU LEARN THINGS THEN THAT'S MOLDING YOU INTO BEING A MINDLESS COMMIE DRONE OOOOOH
Defending and Glorifying Authoritarian Leaders and Governments:
I thought it was tankies that didn't have any room for nuance, but now we're in a black and white world where whatever the state department says about Xi Jinping is true? Okiedokie. Fantastic nuance. I'm gonna assume any critique of the hasbara
propagandainformation about hamas is likewise badevil?
Show
Expecting Queer People and People of Color to Assimilate:
More "bad things are bad". "Vanguards may" "this can." I love liberal language! We just throw assertations out willy-nilly. The author of the zine might be a donkey fucker, this can mean that they are subconsciously trying to make you accepting of donkey fucking, which possibly will lead to you supporting animal suppression. Also incidentally this is an inherent trait of the authors political ideology.
Furthermore there is a shitty tendency in some shitty orgs to do these shitty things, but again, where does it stem from? Bigotry? Yes. But also COINTELPRO. There is a reason why LGBTQ demonstrations are used to foster colour revolutions around the world[1]Use of “Left Unity” Rhetoric to Demand Inclusion in Spaces
"When you point out how completely asinine my behaviour is, that makes me sad. Now I will split the party (our bookclub consisting of 5 people) because you have a slightly different view on how long Castro's beard was. Well that and because you are pointing out how I, a supposed leftist, am spending all my time critiquing other leftists, especially focusing on those that do actual stuff."
Also it's bad to want to subsume civil rights' movements like those advocating for queer rights', but it's also bad to include them and advocate their cause.Local Organizers Controlled by a Central Committee
List of things bad orgs do: Are organized. Have lines of supply they dedicate to different causes.
Askorder (spooky) local departments to get involved in specific work relevant to their local interests in exchange for getting some of these supplies.
Also you cannot have a big bureaucracy where all decisions are discussed by all members, and you cannot have leaders, and you cannot have dictators, and you cannot have hierarchies, and you cannot do work, and you cannot...
Most obvious wrecker shit I've seen yet.
To which the obvious solution is to stop oppressing LGBTQ peoples, fuck Iran for this. <- Wow is this nuance? No it's called critical support you goddamned lib. ↩︎
Remember when I said the alternative was accussing orgs of being cults? I guess we can have our cake and eat it too! Also "OOOOH THE SCARY COMMIES WILL MAKE FRIENDS WITH YOU AND THEN YOU WILL MISS THEM WHEN YOU NO LONGER HANG OUT" and "OOOH THE SCARY COMMIES THAT ARE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN POLITICAL ORGANISING HAVE STUFF TO DO AND IF YOU ARE INVOLVED THEN YOU WILL ALSO HAVE STUFF TO DO OOOOOH SCARY"
its hilarious how their complaints boil down to either 'random red scare level bullshit i made up to make them seem comically evil' or like in this where they're just coping at tankies being effective organizers
There's so much that is just... "Things can be good, but also bad if you do them the wrong way. Tankies may do good things in a wrong way, which is bad"
and
"If you are heavily involved in an organisation, then that will result in large parts of your social life being dedicated to said organisation. This is because tankies are evil."
I thought it was tankies that didn't have any room for nuance, but now we're in a black and white world where whatever the state department says about Xi Jinping is true? Okiedokie. Fantastic nuance. I'm gonna assume any critique of the hasbara propaganda information about hamas is likewise badevil?
This is a good point.
I bet the venn diagram of anti-cuba and pro-israel people is practically a circle.
Yeah it's one of my main issues with people that love to talk of nuance. It's the same people that go "they even" gasp hushed whisper "support hamas struggle against the IOF"
I don't get it.
People fighting a genocide will always get my support regardless of any of their other positions because genocide supercedes all other priorities.
All they do when they behave this way is make it clear that they think there are situations in which genocide is a good thing that they support. That genocide isn't always the naturally worst thing.
the world isn't so black and white you can't just say genocide bad
Don't you know it's more nuanced than that? We have to support genocide, otherwise an election in another country will go a different way than I want it to.
Hey it's me the archliberal I just popped in from hell to say Russia is evil bad man doing evil bad stuff
omg ruthkanda forever yes russia evil us good
Beware any tankies you see trying to "organize" or follow a "strategy" or "work together"
