More democratic structures mean more discussions, votes, etc.

And what’s the problem with that?

It’s also susceptible to outrage campaigns and similar.

That works well in anti-democratic societies - you have no proof that it will even be possible to do such in ones that can actually be called democratic with a straight face.

A personal philosophy is a fine and dandy thing to have - but it’s not much of a security measure to protect against the very thing OP says they are concerned about, is it now?

Imagine encouraging members of activist groups to unilaterally POLICE the behavior of their fellow members - in an anarchist community.

Imagine being unable to bring up very real security concerns within an activist group so that the group can solve the problem in an appropriately DEMOCRATIC manner - again, in an anarchist community.

Are you TRYING to cultivate a culture of suspicion in your orgs?

Imagine turning “here, read this book”

Oh, look, it’s the standard “read my fave Beardy McDeadguy’s book” answer edgelords that are completely out of touch with the people they (purportedly) wish to liberate offers to those they assume to be too ideologically “impure” for their glorified counter-culture club they mistake for a political movement.

Do you seriously think the CNT-FAI was built this way? Or the movements in Chiappas, or Rojava?

bell hooks wrote her books to inform - not to be used as a way to purity test people because you don’t know how to democratically normalize common-sense security measures in organizations.

Lmfao, new to leftist spaces are you?

Unfortunately, no. I’m not.

It is not the fascists that have rendered the left so ineffective and weak in the Anglophone world, Clyde - it’s the liberals that did. And all your edginess doesn’t hide the fact that the left still virtually have no answer to liberal co-optation - unless you want to inform me of some brilliant plan that the left has managed to hide for the last seven decades?

Ask them to read some bell hooks

I don’t think putting people through a “re-education” process is going to have the results you think it will.

However, this is an important point - having certain people monopolize the security function IS a pretty dangerous security risk in itself, and it would be a far better strategy to make this a perfectly understood and non-negotiable paradigm within the group than trying to subtly psyop certain individuals who may simply be too enthusiastic for their own good.

MLK and Malcolm X tried to warn us about liberalism a long, long time ago… and I don’t think the left, even now, has realized what liberalism truly is - the “political arm” of the capitalist order. The carrot to the fascist stick.

but their ideological descendents still managed to fester

That’s because the US and their liberal European collaborators went out of their way to preserve fascism in Europe. The US tried to destroy the Taliban - and now the Taliban is essentially untouchable (which they most definitely weren’t before). You get a lot of political credibility on your home turf for defeating the US - just ask Vietnam.

I’m having trouble parsing it.

The whole reason there is a fascist resurgence is because liberalism has been exposed as a pack of lies. That started even before the 2008 recession, and now one of liberalism’s holiest cows - Zionism - is collapsing right before everyone’s eyes.

No more carrot for the US - now there will only be the stick. “Hearts & Minds” had absolutely nothing to do with the brown people they were dropping napalm and willy pete on - the target of “Hearts & Minds” was always the people doing the dropping.

Both the Taliban

You didn’t get the memo? The US ran from Afghanistan with it’s tail between it’s legs, while the Taliban rules there and is now literally untouchable. The US’s “steamrolling” isn’t as impressive as you believe it to be.

“winning hearts and minds”

The US can’t even win “hearts & minds” in Bumfucksville, Arizona any more.

Is Canada supposed to be afraid of a country that couldn’t defeat Vietnamese rice farmers and Afghan goatherders?

A lot of these are perfectly naive.

It, for example, assumes that mass media wasn’t being controlled beforehand (it always is) and that corporate power wasn’t being protected beforehand (it always is).

Fascism is not some aberration of the liberal nation state - it’s a built-in feature of it.

Seems like a surefire way to get a promotion these days.

What’s an LIDL?

Fuck tolerance.

See? It’s that easy. No paradoxes required.

It is only a matter of time before pigs or some paramilitary pig-wannabes perpetrate a massacre of protestors in the US.

When (not if) they do, watch out… it will be open-season on anybody that’s marginalized or slightly left than Heinrich Himmler.

I sure hope you all are ready for this.

The presence of a safe word doesn’t exclude the existence of a hierarchy in the same way that “checks and balances” doesn’t make a hierarchy any less hierarchical.

Voluntary hierarchies are not a thing.

Sounds like a shittake emanating from the same kind of anarchists that loudly proclaim the values of “leaderless” organisation before posting a meme glorifying Nestor Makhno.

YDI.

You’re a genocide denier. No ifs, ands or buts.

One of the biggest scams liberalism pulled on us is to convince us that we exist in societies where we actually have “rights” and “freedoms.”

In reality, we exist in a society that is hierarchically based on privilege.