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.
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.
Is Canada supposed to be afraid of a country that couldn't defeat Vietnamese rice farmers and Afghan goatherders?
I'd rather not. Talking to liberals is migraine-inducing.
-
If you don't know what the term "radical" means, at least have the courtesy to not use it in sentences.
-
Blamed by WHOM?
-
"The Weimar Republic, Germany's 12-year experiment with
democracyliberalism, came to an end after the Nazis came to power
FTFY. Liberalism is anti-democratic and inevitably leads to fascism when it fails to protect the capitalists' precious status quo.
With US out of NATO, it is a point closer to Europe to threaten Europe.
The US has Britain, which is essentially a US client state these days.
ushering in the last 16 years of radicalization
Accepting fascism is "radical" now?
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.
They were (allegedly) trying to "balance" public safety and privacy?
Why would they "balance" two things they absolutely DO NOT care about?
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.
you also have to convince them it’s worth getting shot over.
When they start shooting protestors, the time for protest is over.