The Left Flank Guard

I was directed to this article about the Left Flank Guard via the tipline. It is an interesting commentary on the tactics used by groups on the left. The article is from a web site dealing with Korean history and this is the introduction to a piece on how justify support for North Korea.

In politics, a direct attack is not always the most effective. One way to proceed is to target someone or something that is seen to represent a more extreme, a more pure representation of your opponent’s ideas and concentrate at least some of your efforts here. Let us call this the “politics of envelopment.” One of the most misguided responses to such a threat of a politics of envelopment, however, is what I will call a “flank guard” form of active defense. Alas, on the political left, and especially among those who, including myself, might be described as democratic socialists, this approach is all too common. The “left flank guard” often takes the form of a spirited defense of even the most indefensible extremes on our flank. The most common ways this is actually carried out is by means of evasion (of accusations), dramatic reversals (“On the contrary, you are the terrorist!”), distraction (“Look at those literacy rates!”), and good old fashioned omission of inconvenient truths.

With the end of the cold war, the “left flank guard” has mostly been deployed in the defense of authoritarian leaders who emit that nostalgic socialist scent (e.g. Venezuela), historical figures who are seen as worthy leaders of revolution but who lost in their struggle for power (e.g. Trotsky), or any resistance or liberation movement that is seen as the best current option for opposing some hated regime (e.g. Hamas). The important point to make here is that few of those in the left flank guard really believe that freedom of expression should be curtailed as it is in Venezuela, that enemies of the revolution should be mercilessly slaughtered, as did Trotsky, or that theocracy is a good supplement to generous social policies. Yet, for some reason, their defenders believe that the survival of our political cause requires us to take a stand and vigorously defend those whose oppressive policies and brutal violence often far outmatch those of our current opponents.

My correspondent notes that:

  1. The Green Party – and Keith Locke in particular – seem to excel in these tactics
  2. Labour now seems to have so many factions it does not know as a party which flank(s) it is guarding so poor old Phil is continuously being left stranded and ends up suffering from “memory loss”.

THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • TonyM

    Very True.

    This strategy is set out in “The Coming Insurrection” and is part of the wider Anti (neo)Colonialist movement which considers power differentials as a political lever. When looked at through this prism we can see the likes of Labour, Mana, the Greens, VP Gore, and PRES Obama, (et al) operating in this fashion. The second aspect of this strategy is to deal directly with those you have different (and quite arguable) positions to your own. For example:

    If you don’t like street walkers parading their wares in front of suburban homes you are a prude.

    If you think that that maori are not indigenous (by actual deffinition) then you are a racist.

    If you would like to see more evidence or answers to the questions raised by climate sceptics then you are a denier.

    The stratgey is to use the language of hate to silence critics. They do not entertain debate because deep down in side they know that their real motivation is power – it is not to make better the lives of normal people.