It's this last point that can put earnest organizers in such jeopardy. We have a passion for advancing justice and addressing contradictions, so when a wrecker who's gained our trust approaches us with one of their "concerns," our impulse is to help them. According to Media for Justice, wreckers identify an adversary within the organization--preferably someone who's especially good at getting organizing done--and manufactures a reason to see them as unfit to be part of the movement. They construct a "victim and demon" narrative, where the target gets cast as the one who's acting in bad faith. This can take the form of a fabricated abuse allegation, or a rumor about them engaging in some wild and uncharacteristic act of bigotry, or a minor criticism that's blown way out of proportion. In my case, it was a narrative that my cadre's leadership had betrayed the inflexible gang-fetishist concept of "solidarity." But what the destabilization agenda always involves is a narrative that the wrecker is waging a righteous crusade, working to hold the facilitators of oppression accountable whatever the costs.
When you're aware of these tactics that infiltrators (or genuine fanatics who act like infiltrators) use, you're better equipped to avoid falling prey to their manipulations. And manipulations is the operative word, because the recognition that not everyone you'll encounter is sincere, and that your own psychological vulnerabilities can be exploited, are crucial towards surviving the struggle. Che stresses how when the revolutionary confrontation has begun, and a cadre has had to start operating in total secrecy, talking about the cadre's activities to any outsiders is a decision that should get a member separated from the cadre--both because this endangers security and because it's a breach of party discipline. Applying this clandestine approach requires such an awareness of the danger of manipulation. The only people whom you should ever discuss your sensitive revolutionary matters with are the ones who've been vetted to be part of your cadre. And keep in mind that even someone you think has been vetted must constantly be scrutinized to see if they're trustworthy, as well as that the definition of which information is "sensitive" gets progressively expanded as the revolutionary crisis intensifies. We must always be vigilant.
This all sounds crushingly complex and intimidating. But others have navigated the process of revolutionary warfare before, and the proof is in all of history's socialist states. What makes navigating it so much easier is the ability to identify incorrect ideas, to trace adventurism, dogmatism, individualism, opportunism, and all other errors back to the counterrevolutionary ideologies they stem from. Because when we're aware of what kinds of ideas are incompatible with our movement, we can notice these ideas among bad actors, then deal with these actors accordingly.
With that individual in my cadre who went against democratic centralism, I at first assumed his grievances were worth taking seriously, because I wasn't familiar with the ideas that informed his activities--namely gang fetishism, ultraviolence, and reactionary Chicano nationalism. Which was a dangerous act of liberalism on my part, as I had known from the outset that he had done wrong but was holding back on confronting him for the sake of friendship. But upon learning about these ideas, the harmful nature of what our cadre experienced appears all too clear to me. Others can have such awakenings by studying incorrect ideas, and learning how to combat them.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
