Since I seem to be having a subpost discussion of secret-keeping in political movements, yes, sometimes it is necessary, but it tends to take over, and make people suspicious of anyone not in the in-group. All the stuff that is a staple of spy novels (and court romances) applies. There are risks of infiltration, subversion, … and betrayal. All the nasty dynamics of in-group politics can operate.
Which brings us to Minneapolis. It's not a secret movement; it's broad-based. There's no way those large Signal chats aren't infiltrated; someone is going to slip through the vetting. Even some of the smaller chats among organizers are probably penetrated. Jim Wright reminds us that, while Signal’s cryptography is strong, there are many ways to pursue and identify its users.
And maybe there is some good reason for the organizers of the movement to be secretive. Certainly there are people who would like to jail them. But Stancil is out and public and has not been taken into custody. His visibility protects him; if he were apprehended, many people would ask questions. And perhaps it is the same for the organizers.
It's one thing to be secretive when you're a small group of anti-fascist activists, skirting the law, but if you're leading a movement that has galvanized an entire city, I think you owe it to the public to be public if at all possible. I don't want to follow unknown leaders, and I don't think most people do. Following and not asking questions is one way the left failed in the last century; they didn't know who they were following or what the beliefs of their leaders were, and their leaders betrayed them.
Beyond that, the ousting of Stancil looks so very, very much like the way the communists of the last century ousted people who were not politically loyal and I do not trust it.
No comments:
Post a Comment