Kyle Rittenhouse is an open fascist that murdered two people in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during combative demonstrations against the police, who shot Jacob Blake,...
it would be good for people truly wishing to bring about a revolutionary conflict to treat them like the sitting ducks they are, from a distance with a high powered rifle of their own.
Is the left ready for this though? Remember that these right-wing militias can get away with this shit because they have institutional backing. I think the reason we haven’t seen it so far is either that they are aware of the consequences and don’t feel the time is right to commit to an actual challenge against the state or they’re engaging in naive idealist thought where the left must be perfectly good and cannot be seen as having any authoritarian tendencies whatsoever like “muh evil and authoritarian PRC and DPRK”.
Of course not, though in my opinion, this is mainly an ideological problem. It certainly is within the power of basically any “Left” groupuscule to accomplish something like this, and if planned well enough, getting away with it would be fairly easy. The trick to sniping someone and getting away with it is just to fire very few shots (preferably one), and then immediately leave the area, before people can even figure out which direction the bullets came from. Google the Juba Sniper videos and see for yourself how it is done against US soldiers.
The problem is, how many “Left” groups not only have a leadership that desires to escalate things on the ground in such a way, but also has followers willing to do such things? My own experience within the “Left” tells me both things are lacking, though the first is a much bigger issue than the second. There are, after all, plenty of young “Leftists” with aggressive streaks in them. Pretty much anyone willing to show up and fight at a protest, or to set things on fire, is already 99% there. What they would need are some assurances; you plan it with them, tell them you’ll help them with any legal issues if they’re caught, tell them this could be the spark that starts the revolution, that people will remember this like they do the Haymarket Bombing, etc.
Messaging after this is the key, however. People would need to go into “Left” spaces online, and basically champion the act as a heroic strike against fascism. “How many black lives were saved by putting a bullet in this fascist paramilitary?” type rhetoric. The point is to inspire copy-cats that don’t need any handholding. This is how you turn a solitary incident into a wave of violence against the state and their paramilitary thugs.
though the first is a much bigger issue than the second.
Really? How many within the people you organize with still have a tendency of thinking they can go back to having a “career” or an academic position or a couch where they get to enjoy some xbox or netflix if things don’t work out? How many would give their old lives up instantly, to be willing to be branded an outlaw, to live a life of a guerilla fighter?
I want to add that the “left” is not actively seeking to attack the right wing whereas the right is actively showing up at protests; armed and looking to find any excuse. Taking the high ground and the peaceful option presupposes a benevolent state that is willing to side with the peaceful protestors which isn’t reality. On the other hand retaliatory strikes are simply that, retaliatory. At the moment any retaliation would most likely win the respect of the masses but so long as the majority of our work is helping them. We help the masses; but retaliate against fascists whenever they seek to hurt the people. We don’t seek them out until they seek us out first. The big mistake that the shining path made in Peru is actively attacking and not fortifying their relationship with the masses. They distanced themselves and engaged in an offensive that needlessly hurt the people. Offensive tactics are only valid when you have the great support of the masses. Mao new when to negotiate with the Kuomingtang; when to take care of the people and when the time to attack was right.
Trying to set other people’s house in order is incorrect when you do not have your own house in order. Why did the Vietnamese fight to the end? And succeed? Because they knew exactly what they were fighting for; their home. The people knee exactly what they were giving their lives for. In Peru the Party way overextended itself, instead of hunkering down and played a defensive war they tried to engage in an offensive where the masses weren’t ripe to rebel. Retaliatory strikes do not put the masses in danger, they are simply responses to attacks from the enemy. Successful retaliation shows the masses that we’re willing to fight for our beliefs and will not let our own be subject to the violence of others. We do not bring the masses into our retaliatory strikes until they have our trust and show we will defend them to the end.
Is the left ready for this though? Remember that these right-wing militias can get away with this shit because they have institutional backing. I think the reason we haven’t seen it so far is either that they are aware of the consequences and don’t feel the time is right to commit to an actual challenge against the state or they’re engaging in naive idealist thought where the left must be perfectly good and cannot be seen as having any authoritarian tendencies whatsoever like “muh evil and authoritarian PRC and DPRK”.
Of course not, though in my opinion, this is mainly an ideological problem. It certainly is within the power of basically any “Left” groupuscule to accomplish something like this, and if planned well enough, getting away with it would be fairly easy. The trick to sniping someone and getting away with it is just to fire very few shots (preferably one), and then immediately leave the area, before people can even figure out which direction the bullets came from. Google the Juba Sniper videos and see for yourself how it is done against US soldiers.
The problem is, how many “Left” groups not only have a leadership that desires to escalate things on the ground in such a way, but also has followers willing to do such things? My own experience within the “Left” tells me both things are lacking, though the first is a much bigger issue than the second. There are, after all, plenty of young “Leftists” with aggressive streaks in them. Pretty much anyone willing to show up and fight at a protest, or to set things on fire, is already 99% there. What they would need are some assurances; you plan it with them, tell them you’ll help them with any legal issues if they’re caught, tell them this could be the spark that starts the revolution, that people will remember this like they do the Haymarket Bombing, etc.
Messaging after this is the key, however. People would need to go into “Left” spaces online, and basically champion the act as a heroic strike against fascism. “How many black lives were saved by putting a bullet in this fascist paramilitary?” type rhetoric. The point is to inspire copy-cats that don’t need any handholding. This is how you turn a solitary incident into a wave of violence against the state and their paramilitary thugs.
Really? How many within the people you organize with still have a tendency of thinking they can go back to having a “career” or an academic position or a couch where they get to enjoy some xbox or netflix if things don’t work out? How many would give their old lives up instantly, to be willing to be branded an outlaw, to live a life of a guerilla fighter?
I want to add that the “left” is not actively seeking to attack the right wing whereas the right is actively showing up at protests; armed and looking to find any excuse. Taking the high ground and the peaceful option presupposes a benevolent state that is willing to side with the peaceful protestors which isn’t reality. On the other hand retaliatory strikes are simply that, retaliatory. At the moment any retaliation would most likely win the respect of the masses but so long as the majority of our work is helping them. We help the masses; but retaliate against fascists whenever they seek to hurt the people. We don’t seek them out until they seek us out first. The big mistake that the shining path made in Peru is actively attacking and not fortifying their relationship with the masses. They distanced themselves and engaged in an offensive that needlessly hurt the people. Offensive tactics are only valid when you have the great support of the masses. Mao new when to negotiate with the Kuomingtang; when to take care of the people and when the time to attack was right.
Trying to set other people’s house in order is incorrect when you do not have your own house in order. Why did the Vietnamese fight to the end? And succeed? Because they knew exactly what they were fighting for; their home. The people knee exactly what they were giving their lives for. In Peru the Party way overextended itself, instead of hunkering down and played a defensive war they tried to engage in an offensive where the masses weren’t ripe to rebel. Retaliatory strikes do not put the masses in danger, they are simply responses to attacks from the enemy. Successful retaliation shows the masses that we’re willing to fight for our beliefs and will not let our own be subject to the violence of others. We do not bring the masses into our retaliatory strikes until they have our trust and show we will defend them to the end.