Depends on how big they are. The more prominent the organization is, the more feds there are going to be there. It’s how they gather intelligence.
DSA especially doesn’t have a vetting process.
While that’s suspicious, it’s still worth noting that not every organization with feds in them is necessarily a fed organization.
The CIA is naturally going to be everywhere both in reformist organizations as well as revolutionary ones.
DSA does behave like a fed org.
I mean, it does have ML chapters. It’s a mixed bag.
As I call them, the cucked chapters.
If you’re going to fedjacket anyone, much less an entire organization, you have to do better than vaguepost.
First time joining an org? There’s feds in every left wing org. Be cautious, trust your instincts, and don’t copjacket an entire org because that’s how the feds win.
This is what’s really worthwhile to discuss here: how to build an effective organization knowing that there will be some bad actors.
From their perspective, I’m guessing, not enough if the DSA ever truly at risk of adopting DOTP as an aim.
DOTP?
Dictatorship of the Proletariat
🫡
The understanding that the working classes have to rule over the others; no other class is allowed to organise to rule.
🫡
The Panthers and CPUSA were infiltrated, of course there’re feds in DSA
I would like to know what your goal is exactly. I count like 9 different unique threads that you’ve made about this one event (Gloria Steinem dying). I have no objection to putting attention on the CIA connection; it’s good to do so, people should know so they aren’t getting caught up in “she was a feminist so she must be good.”
But you already did that. I would think further posting on it should try to add something more on the subject. Reactionposting about every socdem/demsoc with a bad take on Steinem seems kind of obsessive. And now, here, you’re turning it into a thing of casting paranoid suspicion on an entire org because one infiltrator was associated with it. This is not investigation, research, or data. It’s asking leading questions to get people to come to a certain conclusion without evidence to back it up.
So… what is the aim?
The aim is to make people learn about CIA propaganda.
The aim is to make people learn about CIA propaganda.
Okay. As in, socdem/demsoc language? Steinem’s ideology?
I’m trying to follow along here in the specifics. For example, feminism isn’t CIA propaganda inherently, but forms of it certainly can be; appropriating something that can be revolutionary and then watering it down is definitely a thing, and it’s good for people to be aware that such happens.
Reformists (socdem/demsoc) can use such watered down language at times. But then, they aren’t necessarily CIA just because they are using reformist language or falling for reform as a solution. Some of them are more so independent opportunists, or on the lower level (among regular people) some are lost ideologically and need more of a push to get past reform to revolution.
So I’m with you in principle on teaching people about CIA propaganda, but I’m struggling to follow along on how that relates to a thread like this one, or how people will make the connection from callouts of opportunistic reformists to learning about how CIA propaganda works.
This is the kind of thing I think of when I read “learn about CIA propaganda”: https://www.openculture.com/2018/12/cia-helped-shaped-american-creative-writing-famous-iowa-writers-workshop.html
But I am also poor at the social media quips game of attention grabbing, so I am open to the idea that there is an intentioned strategy here that I’m not understanding.
All the Mamdani and AOC followers are literally celebrating her as a Feminist Icon and have no idea about her role in red scare and deradicalization of American Feminists.
On lemmygrad?
We got enough mamdanistans - and AOC fans before -
Have we? On lemmygrad itself, I don’t recall much vocal support for mamdani or AOC. Which should make sense considering we are marxist-leninist focused here for the most part. But anyways, I asked because the distinction between “twitter democratic party stans saying stuff” and “lemmygrad people saying stuff” does matter insofar as where they are at politically, what kind of messaging will make a difference where, and how seriously we should be taking it.
For a simple example since that may sound kind of complicated, we on lemmygrad dunking on twitter reformists can accomplish something (we can’t just take it in good faith that everyone here or who views the instance is ML and will stay that way no matter what). But at the same time, dunking on those twitter people from here is not directly reaching those twitter people to challenge their views.
Normally, I’m not thinking about it in such depth (though maybe I should be!), but I was trying to understand where Saymaz was coming from with their approach on the Steinem thing, so digging into it more than usual.
The aim is to make people learn about CIA propaganda.
We can’t make our comrades do anything. We can assist, if the desire is there.
This is a comm about a podcast that is literally named ‘The Deprogram’!
I’m not upset or calling out your posting (I happen to agree with you). I’m saying we can offer our perspectives, and regardless of mag name, people are people and may or not agree, or even accept our perspectives.
The more accommodating for the empire a party is the more feds are inside of it (usually it’s because the feds defanged it from the inside out) ironically at the same time the more adventurist and isolationist a party is the more feds are inside of it.
