Paper tigers?

[Omniscient]

Whenever people talk about reactionary movements they usually end up talking about this great (and very true) point:


All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful.

In many ways, this was true five or ten years ago, however I have recently noticed a few groups that have tried to switch tactics. They try and intentionally hide themselves as they use underhanded, dishonest cloak and dagger style tactics to get members of left wing groups arrested or alienated. In many cases, they intentionally try and hide their true capabilities instead of relying on the general shock and awe tactics of most fascist groups.

How do you deal with these types of groups? Are they more common than I think, or is this just an anomaly from my area?

[willowtooth]

Hey thats the mao quote I just posted in another thread! :)

What kind of cloak and dagger stuff are you talking about?

[Omniscient]

Hey thats the mao quote I just posted in another thread! :)

Yea thats what inspired me to ask actually.


What kind of cloak and dagger stuff are you talking about?

Group infiltration, bugging, and eventually attempts at arresting members. Very long term as well.

[John Nada]

They're called infiltrators (http://occupylondon.org.uk/infiltrators-informers-and-grasses-how-why-and-what-to-do-if-your-group-is-targeted/). While they can be motivated by ideology alone, it's possible(highly likely) that they are actually employed by the State or private security. Maintain good security culture! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/100034-Security-Culture-Information)

And if you want to read the full quote:
All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are really powerful. In Russia, before the February Revolution in 1917, which side was really strong? On the surface the tsar was strong but he was swept away by a single gust of wind in the February Revolution. In the final analysis, the strength in Russia was on the side of the Soviets of Workers, Peasants and Soldiers. The tsar was just a paper tiger. Wasn't Hitler once considered very strong? But history proved that he was a paper tiger. So was Mussolini, so was Japanese imperialism. On the contrary, the strength of the Soviet Union and of the people in all countries who loved democracy and freedom proved much greater than had been foreseen.Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-4/mswv4_13.htm

[Omniscient]

They're called infiltrators. While they can be motivated by ideology alone, it's possible(highly likely) that they are actually employed by the State or private security. Maintain good security culture!

And if you want to read the full quote: Source:

I'm familiar with infiltrators, and I can give you the technical details of our little spat with them. However I guess my question would be better stated as What do you do against a group that relies on being underestimated/unheard of? Would exposing them and publicizing them end up adding to the paper tiger effect, or would it have the desired effect of hurting them.

[Antiochus]

Yes, its true. Take even the most "awe-inspiring" reactionaries, the Nazis. It is no secret that their filthy irredentism, while being a product of German militarism dating as far back as the late 19th century, was a conduit to express their enormous fears for a 1918-1919 situation occurring again. So yes, in all real terms, the Nazis were such cowardly scum that their greatest fear was not the battleships of the Royal Navy, but the clubs of factory women and children. That isn't to say these movements should 'not be feared' or opposed. They can have the most deleterious consequences imaginable. But in real terms, I don't think "fascism" is a long term solution for Capitalism in combating Communism at all. Its for good measure that it is called Capitalism's "emergency button"; i.e: The factory cannot operate on "emergency" forever.

[wehbolno]

Yes, its true. Take even the most "awe-inspiring" reactionaries, the Nazis. It is no secret that their filthy irredentism, while being a product of German militarism dating as far back as the late 19th century, was a conduit to express their enormous fears for a 1918-1919 situation occurring again. So yes, in all real terms, the Nazis were such cowardly scum that their greatest fear was not the battleships of the Royal Navy, but the clubs of factory women and children. That isn't to say these movements should 'not be feared' or opposed. They can have the most deleterious consequences imaginable. But in real terms, I don't think "fascism" is a long term solution for Capitalism in combating Communism at all. Its for good measure that it is called Capitalism's "emergency button"; i.e: The factory cannot operate on "emergency" forever. I don't mean to derail the thread, but I don't think this 'emergency button' business is a great metaphor. Since in the 1930s, fascism had the potential to take the place of liberal democracy in both UK and USA. (Businessman's Plot?) And in so doing, would have grounded itself in the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy and Social Darwinist ideology of the Nazis. The factory floor would have been permanent emergency then. What brave red partisans could have resisted such a historic defeat of the legacy of liberalism?