I want to draw attention to the elephant in the room.

Leading up to the election, and perhaps even more prominently now, we’ve been seeing droves of people on the internet displaying a series of traits in common.

  • Claiming to be leftists
  • Dedicating most of their posting to dismantling any power possessed by the left
  • Encouraging leftists not to vote or to vote for third party candidates
  • Highlighting issues with the Democratic party as being disqualifying while ignoring the objectively worse positions held by the Republican party
  • Attacking anyone who promotes defending leftist political power by claiming they are centrists and that the attacker is “to the left of them”
  • Using US foreign policy as a moral cudgel to disempower any attempt at legitimate engagement with the US political system
  • Seemingly doing nothing to actually mount resistance against authoritarianism

When you look at an aerial view of these behaviors in conjunction with one another, what they’re accomplishing is pretty plain to see, in my opinion. It’s a way of utilizing the moral scrupulousness of the left to cut our teeth out politically. We get so caught up in giving these arguments the benefit of the doubt and of making sure people who claim to be leftists have a platform that we’re missing ideological parasites in our midst.

This is not a good-faith discourse. This is not friendly disagreement. This is, largely, not even internal disagreement. It is infiltration, and it’s extremely effective.

Before attacking this argument as lacking proof, just do a little thought experiment with me. If there is a vector that allows authoritarians to dismantle all progress made by the left, to demotivate us and to detract from our ability to form coalitions and build solidarity, do you really think they wouldn’t take advantage of it?

By refusing to ever question those who do nothing with their time in our spaces but try to drive a wedge between us, to take away our power and make us feel helpless and hopeless, we’re giving them exactly that vector. I am telling you, they are using it.

We need to stop letting them. We need to see it for what it is, get the word out, and remember, as the political left, how to use the tools that we have to change society. It starts with us between one another. It starts with what we do in the spaces that we inhabit. They know this, and it’s why they’re targeting us here.

Stop being an easy target. Stop feeding the cuckoo.

    • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Socialism is when you ask nicely for the bourgeoisie to pretty please give up their wealth and stop exploiting people and the nicer you ask the more socialistier it is.

      • ThiefOfNames she/her@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        Classic. Assuming I’m against a socialist revolution despite me never having made this claim.

        Edit: To be clear I am very much in favor of socialist revolutions. Unlike a certain someone else I am however not in favor of military dictatorships which pretend to be socialist,

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          12 hours ago

          Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?

          Therefore, either one of two things: either the anti-authoritarians don’t know what they’re talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

          Fredrick Engles, famous non-socialist

          • ThiefOfNames she/her@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 hours ago

            How irrelevant. I’m talking about the end result of the revolution. You want to establish dictatorship. I want to establish worker democracy. I am a socialist. You are an authoritarian.

            Edit: Never understood why tankies are so obsessed with quoting old dead authoritarians as if that somehow changes the present in some way. I don’t let auths redefine my words. Also how about quoting the anarchists they are so fond of murdering instead.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 hours ago

              and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.

              I must correct my previous statement.

              Socialism is when you violently overthrow the bourgeoisie, then immediately allow yourself to be overthrown by a fascist counter-revolution in which everyone on the left is exterminated, because you’re too afraid of your own shadow to stop them.

              Tell me, what are your thoughts on Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran? A progressive leader who came to power through a peaceful, popular movement against British colonialism, nationalized the oil industry and reclaimed it’s profits for the benefit of the common people, and then, as the CIA began infiltrating the country, refused to implement any “authoritarian” measures, leading to his overthrow? Leading to the installation of the shah who hunted down and exterminated any and all leftists in the country with his secret police? Leading to generations of Iranians living their entire lives under far-right governments, with no end in sight?

              There’s a reason why existing socialist governments are willing to employ authoritarian methods, it’s called “survivorship bias,” as in, all the movements that were too averse to such methods were subverted and exterminated.

              Honestly, I find your position less coherent and less respectable than outright liberalism. If you’re serious about revolution, then you have to be prepared for what that entails and you have to understand the life-or-death stakes. If you blow it, not only will everyone involved be killed, but the example will live on and the next opportunity might not arise for another 100 years or more. You are playing with powerful forces, and failure is not an option. It’s necessary to adapt to the situation and use whatever methods are most effective, whether those methods are “authoritarian” or not.

              What you want to do is to try to fight the vastly superior foe of capitalism, but before you even start, you want to put on a blindfold and tie one hand behind your back. You want to win in the “right” way, the way that makes you feel good. You’re trying to play games, but the other side does not fuck around.

              Of course, I assume you don’t have thoughts on Mossadegh because I assume you haven’t actually studied historical examples to inform your views, nor actual theory. My views are not something I was born with or that were just naturally appealing to me, it’s only after studying such things and seriously considering them that I arrived here. In a world where leaders like Mossadegh didn’t get overthrown, I wouldn’t hold the views I do, unfortunately, that’s not the world we live in. I’d rather survive, win, and deliver on material improvements, rather than be an aspiring martyr.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  In practice, it’s the opposite. You want to spend all the effort of revolution just to end up with more oppression because you get overthrown by CIA-backed fascists.

              • ThiefOfNames she/her@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 hours ago

                You assume quite a lot and then start jabbering on about dictatorships. You’re no better than fascists

                Edit: why do you keep assuming I am against revolutions. Tankies are extremely disingenuous

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 hours ago

                  So, as I assumed, no answer to the Mossadegh problem.

                  Nowhere in that comment did I assume that you’re against revolutions. You’re in favor of them, as you said. A bit too in favor of them, tbh. You seem to think revolutions are trivial matters, that if the gains of a revolution are lost, you can simply do it again. If you’re not prepared to commit to whatever’s necessary to win and secure those gains, you’re probably better off not doing it at all.

                  Nothing I’ve said is remotely disingenuous. You’ve just decided you hate me because of memes and meme ideologies. If you’re attempting to demonstrate the importance of theory through this silly display of ignorance and infighting, you’re doing a good job of it.

                  People become “tankies” because they take these questions seriously and study them. You can’t understand it because you don’t, and haven’t. Your ideology (whatever it is) wasn’t chosen because of a rigorous study of history and theory, but because it looks nice. It’s fun to denounce people as authoritarians, makes you feel good, whatever. But you don’t actually have reason or evidence to back up your position, you’re not interested in engaging with such historical or theoretical questions at all. None of you are, really. It’s all just memes and yet you have this bizarre, misplaced confidence, that because your catchphrases sound nice it means your ideology works.

                  • ThiefOfNames she/her@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 hours ago

                    Perhaps they should study all the anarchists your ideology has murdered, or all the revolutions it has ruined. Most of the regimes you support are the result of military coups of actual revolutions. Why support that? Why support the genocides or the oppression of workers? You don’t support socialism, even if you call it that. How great that your ideology is successful. Still doesn’t make it socialism.