Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments.
When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible—never less than five.
Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
Be worried about the propriety of any decision—raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.-
The best part is by publishing this far and wide, anybody pushing for “careful consideration” and actual reasoned planning is immediately suspect, which leads to less reasoned decisions, which usually means more mistakes. If a victory is somehow won through violence of action and not careful planning, the support structure isn’t there to maintain the victory, nor are the people who win that victory well-suited to careful planning before the next engagement. The boring stuff is often what wins wars, simple things like plenty of fuel, adequate hygiene facilities, and dry socks can literally mean the difference between a division surrendering or winning a battle.
Hair-splitting circular firing squad.
Inflated with a deluded sense of enlightenment (aka narcissism), lacking a sense of proportion nor any intention of being practical and/or flexible, one cannot get their priorities straight, end up dying on some trivial hill skirmish among themselves, even as a savage, true threat marches into town virtually unopposed, goose-stepping all over main street.
EDIT: Reminds me of that Monty Python scene in “Life Of Brian”, The Peoples’ Front Of Judea, not to be confused with The Judean Peoples’ Front, not to be confused with The Judean Popular Peoples’ Front, etc.
Gods trying to get my friends to think about pushing politicians leftward on the scale of 4/6/8 years pissed them off. They will only focus efforts on yelling at Biden to drop out as if it will happen or help. They don’t care that no world exists where they are remotely happy in nov 2024, that’s the only thing they can think about
Part of the problem the left currently faces, regardless of revolutionary thought in general, is that environmental concerns are past the election cycle.
It is already too late to stop global warming at the 1.5 C target suggested in 2018.
Gradual reform will be too late. There is no way around it, we are acting too slow, and even if every country in the world flipped Green or whatever in 2028 that might still be too late.
At least some believe that it was already too late in 2014 and our estimates are lagging about a decade. Not sure I believe that, but if true, it’s even more important to take action ASAP.
“Too late” is the exact language the fossil fuel execs want you to use. Even if specific targets are passed, every fraction of a degree matters. Stopping warming at 2 is better than 2.1 so if electing Biden puts us on the 2°c track thats better, and maybe the 2028 candidate can put us on the 1.8°C track. Thats a difference worth fighting for
I’m a member of a smallish leftwing party in my own country and having over 20 years professional experience in various industries and several countries it really riles me just how damn incompetent and disorganised they are - I mean, most have their hearts in the right place (even if they easilly succumb to serve their own petty emotional needs, like ego, rather than principles), but damn even how they go about fighting the problems in the country (pretty much 100% reactive) and the organisation and quality of the material in their campaigns is really frustratingly “amateur hour, every hour of they day, every day of the year”.
Funnilly enough a leftwing part I was a member of in another country I lived in was also a lot “good intentions but very naive and a bit lost”.
PS: Note that all this might be just the bias from never having been a member of a rightwing party. Maybe they’re all just as bad and judging by professional standards the typical political party invariably leads to the conclusion they’re pretty inept.
I know this is the Onion but the left is inherently anti-authoritarian and advocate of horizontal structure of society with no top-down leadership. Of course we’d be disorganised 😂 Case in point, this and the hodge podge of left wingers in the Spanish Civil War ranging from communist, social democrats, democratic socialists to anarcho-syndicalists. Spanish leftists even attacked each other. The Democrats also don’t even get along and this is why Republicans under Trump is gaining more headway.
I’m proud that we’re maverick, but this also leads to our characteristic factionalism and thus easier to be disrupted and destroy.
No, it isn’t, You’re describing some forms of social libertarianism or rational anarchism, and calling them left. The philosophy i hear out of left identifying people these days is people desperate for lack of responsibility and wanting to be controlled by some parental government takes care of everything.
I quit respecting people who’s whole idea of political intellectualism iswhatever makes them feel good (usually couched in fancy talk and circular logic, with a side of disguising selfishness in false altruism) regardless of anything else, when i started to see the consequences of that philosophy. Anyways, for some reason he wanted to pretend things that fall right are left for some reason.
If you ever, ever want to have any rational discussions you have to understand the opposition. You can’t just base the opposite view in childish one sided ass demonisations
For American sensibilities born from classical liberal values, you’re correct.
The political “left” is a big umbrella term, like the “right” is. Generally speaking, the left broadly wants distribution of resources and management to be more horizontal. The debate is how to achieve that. Some want total worker control, others believe a democratically elected government should be empowered to distribute wealth equitably. The most extreme and dystopian form is a parental centralised authority enforcing equality should do it, as you mentioned.
On the right, they may believe in personal freedom but still uphold that human society still thrives in hierarchy. “You’re homeless? It is your fault and not my problem.” Many on the right believe you have to work hard to achieve your goals but through your own blood, sweat and tears. You have to keep up or you will be out competed. Some on the right still believe that government still has some role to help others, while some disagree. The most extreme form on the right is fascism, which advocates for total control of everything and order and hierarchy are utmost importance.
You never notice how the crazy old men hiding up alone in the mountains wanting to be left alone by the government and everyone are somehow always called right wing when the government comes for them, often in a very fascist manner?
Sometimes. Sometimes not, Anyways, there’s something very fishy or inconsistent with all these definitions. Rational anarchism still falls right, not left tho
“Rational anarchism” isn’t a thing. I Googled it, and you just read it from a sci-fi novel, which is not an authoritative and academic source on the topic.
READ an actual authoritative and academic book on the topic.
This has already happened with things like Tsunami in Catalonia. A totally decentralised movement that the police is still trying to understand 6y later and trying to find a nonexistant leadership. Incredible fun to watch them trying to understand how it worked
This is too funny and hits the mark. Groups like ANTIFA and BLM during the protests don’t get to be traceable groups exactly because of alphabet agency interest. Behind the Bastards podcast talks about their opsec being deliberately lacking organization of a sort exactly because they knew getting a distributed and traceable hierarchy of leadership would get everyone arrested, the were actively being infiltrated by alphabet agency types. They went out of their way to operate in independent cells of which only a few members had a way to contact another member in a group, etc. so that there was no list of leaders and members to be found. Deliberate disorganization. The Onion nails it again.
No, sorry. It’s been a year or three since I heard it, and I don’t remember if it was one of the It Could Happen Here episodes or a regular BtB one. You might have better luck than me searching for it. He primarily focused on the Portland protests.
Shit, you just reminded me of it could happen here. lol.
I started listening to it a while after the 2020 protests, while living in Portland, and was super surprised realizing that it was from like a year or two before.
Man, that one was scary. By then we had those big fires where crazy fucks and their pig friends were blocking roads and stopping people to ask where they were going because they’d been told that antifa was starting the fires. That’s when I realized it would legit be impossible to try and escape back to CA in an emergency.
I said this recently, I’ll say it again here. I’ll never forget how Americans turned on protestors in Portland. This is America
IIRC this has actually happened. Cops got little more than a map of who’s blocking who, and gave up because there’s just… there’s just so much reading.
Add comment