March 23, 2023
In COINTELPRO, FBI used anarchism to 'disrupt left', attack Vietnam & USSR

41 thoughts on “In COINTELPRO, FBI used anarchism to 'disrupt left', attack Vietnam & USSR

  1. Within movements they engage in actions that bring out public outrage and approbation. It divides the public against it as well as divides the movement itself.

  2. The FBI era will be studied like Nazism and the Soviet system in the future by Masters and Doctorate students of the future. It will be a most fascinating era depicting how every world event was orchestrated by them. If there is ever a God, its name is FBI.

  3. Capitalism is basically anarchy for the rich.
    The ruling elites don't like rules that could prevent them from exploiting and scamming the population , that's why they promote "libertarianism" or anarchy.
    The freedom of predators.

  4. And now they promote the woke movement.
    They infiltrated the left in order to replace class struggle with identity politics.
    They infiltrated the intertainment industry and education system in order to spread that propaganda everywhere.

  5. I have seen splits because of vax positions, Ben knows this better than anyone, no doubt vax positions have been weaponized in the global north but in Latam and Asia we don't have this problem.

  6. Yes… we've known this forever but just like we knew Hillary was cheating in 2016… it was great to be finally vindicated when the Wikileaks' DNC/Podesta leaks were published. Thanks for your work Ben!

  7. Wait… to me the new left is corrupted right-wing warmongers with (D)s after their names. The old left is the true left. That's why I always get confused when someone says "NEW LEFT"….

  8. LOL The PSL is an outgrowth/offshoot of the Workers' World party. It's leader is a good candidate for COINTELPRO agent provocateur herself. Not only did she (And the WWP) support the Tiananmen Square massacre of peaceful protesters, they also engaged in the very same sort of disruptive sectarian attacks that the FBI is said to have employed "Anarchists" for.

    This entire "expose" seems suss, given the fact that there's no evidence other than some possibly doctored images released 50 years and more after the events in question, and precisely at a time when "radical left" ideas are beginning to take hold.

    Whatever the crimes of "anarchists" one of them wasn't supporting the massacre, by the Peoples' Liberation Army of China, of the Chinese people who peacefully protested the changes imposed by the Capitalist roaders.

  9. They've never stopped. Why do you think all this "woke" bullshit just took off so fast, even though it's completely illogical? Yet people are afraid to challenge it, and it's got billions of dollars pushing it, corporate media pushing it, and anyone who doesn't bow down gets attacked

  10. Of course, the existence of 57 varieties of Leninism has never been used by the FBI, or anyone else, to "disrupt" the Left. Oh no.
    The fact that Norton takes aim at anarchists and Maoists here, and at Trotskyists elsewhere, is testament to what I'm talking about.

  11. A federal police force wasn't allowed in Germany after WW2 up until Baader-Meinhof necessitated it. When it was created, it made Germany instantly a dictionary defintion of a police state. Powerful policemen with national security as cover = powerful manipulative, sadistic psychopaths with infinite righteousness. The FBI is as much an enemy of mankind as the CIA.

  12. They also sowed division in the left by planting supposedly Marxist/communist agents provocateurs who would argue for one faction or interpretation of Marxism over others, often combatively, preventing unity of strategy and aims.

  13. The problem with anarchism is within the idealistic or dogmatic factions, as it happens with all the other trends of the anti-capitalist left. This problem is also caused by the tendency of the different factions of the left to caricature different positions within the same left in order to favor the ones they defend, thus creating an easy terrain for the bourgeoisie to use (the imperialists also created conflicts between China and the USSR). Beyond the disputes, it should be common sense that any movement that calls itself the revolutionary left must be anti-imperialist and anti-colonial (having an understanding not only economic and peace-oriented, but also historical: complex systems analysis), support the construction of a proletarian state as a transitory phase after the seizure of power by the revolutionary vanguard (whether this is called "dictatorship of the proletariat", "socialism" or whatever, it is irrelevent since it is the only proven way to obtain lasting political power and, in itself, is already a more democratic state of development as it was born from the destruction of the bourgeois state), support the development of a socialist-oriented planned economy (if this is called "industrial socialism", "state capitalism" *I am using the term here to refer to a mixed economy in its early stages of development that enjoys assured workers' power. I am not referring to an economic model that is simply opposed to finance capitalism*, "socialism with X characteristics" or whatever, it is also irrelevant) and, ultimately, to defend the gradual overcoming of the state towards more democratic arrangements, understanding the latter as a particular form of centralism within human history that, despite changing its form in each context (affected by colonialism, genocidal practices, etc.), has contradictions of a structural nature that are irreconcilable with human existence itself (a clear example of this is the prison system). Some marxist-leninists fall into the same error as some anarchists in idealizing a certain stage of development (the "commune", for example, in the anarchist case) and, idealizing the proletarian state, maintain that the problems in it are really a product of colonialism and the state itself is not to blame. Since they dogmatically want to distance themselves from anarchism, they unscientifically maintain that the prison system or the different institutions that make up the "modern state" lack intrinsic problems, when all the evidence shows, for example, that prisons do not rehabilitate almost anyone, they generate problems of mental health endemic to the system itself, etc. It is like the vision of certain Islamic leaders who maintain that their capitalism is more "human" or something, without being able to understand the intrinsic contradictions of the system, irreconcilable with a full human life or the same Islamic values. Dogmatic anarchists, on the other hand, ridiculously associate the state with centralism, opposing all forms of centralism (in the political arena, economic arena, etc.). For this reason, they are so easily co-opted by the imperialists today, since neoliberalism prays that there should be "less state" (in reality, more state for corporations) and those who fight that are branded as statists (or they themselves are the ones who emphasize the need for a "strong state"), so reactionary anarchists are curiously more drawn to attacking the latter. In another case, the reactionary trotskyists or maoists idealize the armed struggle or the revolution, so they are also useful to generate destabilization in countries that for X reason are victims of imperialist aggression. Reactionary indigenists, in another example, idealize non-industrial production by correctly understanding the intrinsic problems that, for example, industrial agriculture has and how it sooner or later harms life on this planet, but they mistakenly choose to oppose industrialization in general and in every context/case, so they become useful agents for the imperialists when the latter try to keep certain countries in a state of absolute poverty. In short, the problem lies in the idealistic thinking applied to a certain stage of development (or period of another revolutionary project) and the lack of consensus on what should be the minimal bases that every revolutionary should accept, beyond ideological differences. The construction of a proletarian state, for example, is a stage of development that one cannot skip, since it is inevitable that you will have to use the same weapons that the system provides you to advance in its overcoming without being defeated in the process. On the other hand, it is clear that not all social progress has to be revolutionary or follow an insurrectionist logic, even less when there is already a party that represents the working class in power. There is nothing magical in revolutions or insurrections, they are only useful to defeat the bourgeoisie because, unfortunately, they do not understand another language and this has been proven over and over again. Finally, it is important to recognize that each revolutionary project follows its own path and they do not have to imitate anyone or risk their existence to maintain purity in the ideological field. The central thing is to build a global socialist system and this can be formed from different socialisms/progressive projects coexisting and cooperating with each other at the same time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *