[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”.