Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Another Revolutionary Tanya
During a
raid on a FARC safe house in July, Colombian authorities captured
the diary of Dutch political pilgrim Tanja Nijmeijer (not to be
confused with that other famous guerrilla called Tanya; not to be confused with Drew Curtis's
Fark), who joined the Marxist
guerrilla movement in 2002. Nijmeijer, who has since taken the nom
de guerre 'Eillen,' doesn't seem too enamored with communal
living:
"24 November, 2006. I am tired, tired of the FARC, tired of the people, tired of communal life. Tired of never having anything for myself. And this might be worth it if I knew what we were fighting for."
She is shocked to find out that armed communist guerrilla groups might not, after all, have the best interests of the proletariat in mind:
The FARC pride themselves on equality of life in the movement and an adherence to Communist ideology. Yet it appears there are the privileged and the unprivileged, and "Eillen" sees herself in the latter category. "What will it be like when we take power? The women of the commanders will have Ferraris, breast implants and eat caviare. At least that is how it seems," she wrote.
In an entry dated August 23, Nijmeijer expresses irritation that the group, known for kidnapping and murdering civilians, is full of animal-killing sexists:
"At times I want to stop following orders. Following the orders of a bunch of sexists that try to kill birds with hunting rifles. I feel like a nobody all day; I am not useful and I have to do what every idiot tells me or I get fined."
Whole story, from The Scotsman.
In other Farc-related news, The Scotsman also reports that "eleven Colombian state legislators killed while being held by the FARC died of multiple gunshot wounds, a team of international forensic experts investigating their causes of death has concluded."
Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 10:50AM|#
Anyone dumb enough to think that self-described communists have anything other than their own power in mind deserves everything they get. Picking up a history book is too much effort?
Morgan|9.13.07 @ 10:58AM|#
Yeah drug prohibition is literally killing innocent people,
instead of legal drugs mostly killing the people choosing to use
them. I don't see how the war on drugs can be justified at
all.
Anyway, hilarious post, like how clueless is she about the movement
to be surprised by her discoveries?
|9.13.07 @ 11:02AM|#
Episiarch,
In my experience with communists, most of them actually do believe,
passionately, in goals beyond their own power.
Just not the ones at the top. It's a strange dynamic, and it goes
directly to the failures at the heart of Lenninism (which has
basically become synonymous with communism). No matter how
unpopular that leadership is among the cadres, they cannot remove
or even dissent from disiplined acceptance of their rule, because
doing so violates their fundamental principles.
So only the most power-hungry people, with the weakest commitment
to their egalitarian principles, wage the fight to get themselves
into positions of power, while the most principled communists sit
by and let them.
Tanja there might bitch and moan, but she cannot do anything about
the problems and still remain a communist; reform from below is
literally impossible in a communist setting, even when the reforms
are more in line with the communists' stated goals and principles,
because the mere fact of advocating for such reforms makes you an
outcast, and therefore unable to change how the party operates.
Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 11:07AM|#
joe, well said, and just another indictment of the idiocy of
investing too much power in any leader or person. The worst will
always gravitate to these positions.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with
passionate intesity"
fyodor|9.13.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Where's Tanja/"Eillen" now? I hope she's escaped these thugs with her hide intact, or will do so soon. And I hope her diary serves as a proper warning to other naive and idealistic would-be revolutionaries!
SPD|9.13.07 @ 11:13AM|#
This might be the most important diary by a Dutch girl in hiding since... oh, I can't do it.
|9.13.07 @ 11:17AM|#
If authentic, can we make this required reading in high school?
Kind of like The Diary of Anne Frank.
Nah, she's criticizing a leftist movement. That some can't see that
socialism, communism, invariably leads to totalinarianis amazes me.
But, I'm a libertarian, so it goes without saying.
That some can't see the WOD is counterproductive and anti-freedom
also amazes me. But, I'm a libertarian, so it goes without
saying.
|9.13.07 @ 11:20AM|#
Knowing what we know about socialism in all forms,how can you call any followers principled?The very essence is dividing up resources so everyone gets their 'share'.This means someone has to decide what that is going to be.You have to have a leadership above the 'masses'.Someone has to be in charge.It's true in all phases of life.To ignore this is to ignore the very nature of man.
|9.13.07 @ 11:22AM|#
Episiarch,
There are actually two problems - the amount of "executive power,"
and the lack of accountability for the "executive."
In a democracy, even if you invest way too much power in the
executive, he can't get too out of hand, of he'll be tossed out and
that power handed to his opponents.
J sub D,
The British Labour Party, the French SP, and the Swedish Welfare
Party led to totalitarianism? Are you sure about that?
|9.13.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Knowing what we know about socialism in all forms,how can
you call any followers principled?
By knowing the definition of "principled," which really doesn't
have anything to do with "having a wise outlook on the division of
power."
Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 11:26AM|#
The British Labour Party...led to
totalitarianism?
They are certainly getting there, but it's not like the Tories are
trying to stop them. I don't know about the other two.
In a democracy, even if you invest way too much power in the
executive, he can't get too out of hand, of he'll be tossed out and
that power handed to his opponents.
Not if he cancels elections. See Chavez, H.
|9.13.07 @ 11:29AM|#
In my experience with communists, most of them actually do believe, passionately, in goals beyond their own power.
Alex, what is a useful idiot?
|9.13.07 @ 11:42AM|#
The British Labour Party, the French SP, and the Swedish
Welfare Party led to totalitarianism? Are you sure about
that?
Britain, France and Sweden are not socialist nations, per se. That
they have more socialit policies than the U.S. I won't deny. That
they divide wealth equally, I do. It is capitalism with more of a
socialist tint than the U.S. but capitalism, nontheless.
|9.13.07 @ 11:44AM|#
At first I thought "poor duped college girl". Then I read that she was 24 when she joined the FARC. A little old for such naivete, I'd think. But then, some of the followers of folks like Jim Jones and Baghwan Sri Rajneesh were middled-aged folks who should have known better. And FARC really does sound a lot like what the People's Temple would have been had they acquired more weaponry.
|9.13.07 @ 11:50AM|#
Dumb girl is going to get herself killed...and then the
alternative press will shreek that the Bush Administration isn't
doing enough to find her killers because of the war on drugs.
It's the same story as Brad Will, a guy who got knee deep in
Mexican labor politics and got himself killed. People now claim
that oil money is to blame for Bush's refusal to pressure the
Mexican gov't on this issue.
Message to young idealists: stop being dumb-asses who get
themselves killed in foreign ideological battles.
|9.13.07 @ 11:56AM|#
"eleven Colombian state legislators killed while being held
by the FARC died of multiple gunshot wounds, a team of
international forensic experts investigating their causes of death
has concluded."
Hoe much investigation does it take to look at a bullet-riddled
corpse and determine the cause of death? Did they need to rule out
poison?
Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 12:01PM|#
Hoe much investigation does it take to look at a
bullet-riddled corpse and determine the cause of death? Did they
need to rule out poison?
If the corpse is decomposed, it can take some time. Unless you
watch Bones, and then it takes about 5 seconds.
|9.13.07 @ 12:02PM|#
Richard- I was just thinking that I certainly wouldn't mind spending a few hours arguing with her...
fyodor|9.13.07 @ 12:05PM|#
Richard- I was just thinking that I certainly wouldn't mind
spending a few hours arguing with her...
Is arguing what you like to do with sexy young women? :-)
|9.13.07 @ 12:05PM|#
tarran,
Don't bother.
Between their inability to keep up and their "if it feels good,
believe it" intellectual strategy, you're not going to get anywhere
with the dimwits.
|9.13.07 @ 12:08PM|#
J sub D,
Britain, France and Sweden are not socialist nations, per
se. No, they're not. Nor are those parties. Democracy keeps
politicians of all casts from over-reaching, which is why parties
that start out as revolutionary Marxists, like British Labour, move
towards the center in democracies, while they become ever-more
radical (as long as they win) in undemocratic settings.
Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 12:10PM|#
Between their inability to keep up and their "if it feels
good, believe it" intellectual strategy, you're not going to get
anywhere with the dimwits.
joe, you started out strong with, as tarran called it, a
"dispassionate exposition", but then BOOM it's back to the smuggery
(made up word, I know) and insults.
|9.13.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Anyway, Episiarch, props for the rational discussion.
Unlike some, you're both willing and able to have one about this
subject.
|9.13.07 @ 12:11PM|#
Episiarch,
I was called an idiot and a communist. I reserve the right to punch
back.
|9.13.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Message to young idealists: stop being dumb-asses who get
themselves killed in foreign ideological battles.
Yeah, leave that to more mature people like him
and
him.
/snark
|9.13.07 @ 12:14PM|#
I'd have to disagree that democracy keeps politicians from overreaching. Genuine democracy only encourages politicians to conform to what most people want at any particular moment, and often that includes reaching farther and farther, while accumulating more and more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. A strong constitution that defines a narrow set of powers government has access to is what keeps politicians from overreaching. We used to have one of those.
|9.13.07 @ 12:16PM|#
Democracy keeps politicians of all casts from over-reaching,
which is why parties that start out as revolutionary Marxists, like
British Labour, move towards the center in democracies, while they
become ever-more radical (as long as they win) in undemocratic
settings.
joe, If you're making the argument that socialists deserve a place
at the table, I grudgingly agree.
|9.13.07 @ 12:17PM|#
I have to laugh at Joe.He calls someone that follows the teachings of Marx principled then calls names.I suppose those who follow Mien Kampf have principle .
e|9.13.07 @ 12:21PM|#
It's a strange dynamic, and it goes directly to the failures
at the heart of Lenninism (which has basically become synonymous
with communism). No matter how unpopular that leadership is among
the cadres, they cannot remove or even dissent from disiplined
acceptance of their rule, because doing so violates their
fundamental principles.
I think it depends on the circumstances. Far left, Leninist groups
in the United States are notorious for dissent from one another,
splitting into tiny factions over obscure doctrinal disputes. When
you combine Leninism with a military struggle, as in Russia after
1917 or in Columbia, you'd expect more unity-at-all-costs behavior
and less tolerance for dissent because survival depends on obeyance
of leaders; to win a war, even a bad leader that can command some
degree of unity is better than none at all.
|9.13.07 @ 12:33PM|#
Matthew,
I was using "democracy" in its familiar, modern sense, not the
sense you are calling "absolute democracy."
J sub D,
I was actually just describing history, not making a
recommendation. Although I'd say that EVERYONE deserves a seat at
the democratic table, because that's a good way to keep the
dangerous ones from going off the deep end.
Michael Pack,
Please look up the word "principled." You don't seem to know what
it means. If you didn, you wouldn't think that it has something to
do with replying to personal insults. Nor would you think that
people whose politics you hate cannot be principled.
e,
"From one another," yes. But that's because they don't see each
other as being on the same side. Each of them is very tightly
disciplined. The rejection of comity with even very close cousins
is actually an expression of that discipline.
Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Anyway, Episiarch, props for the rational discussion.
Unlike some, you're both willing and able to have one about this
subject.
I was called an idiot and a communist. I reserve the right to punch
back.
Thanks, joe, but punching back like that doesn't do you any favors.
It may make people more hostile to your argument than they would
have been.
That doesn't mean they shouldn't judge your points on their merits,
but that's the way it is.
|9.13.07 @ 12:36PM|#
Joe, you need to untwist your undies. I didn't call you an
idiot.
Well, unless you were one of those super-idealistic commies who
wasn't a member of the leadership.
So. Do you think they've killed her yet?
|9.13.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Richard and dpotts: Not only do I agree with you, but I keep getting this mental picture of the comely Tanja Nijmeijer, running out of the jungle and into her FARC rebel camp with a hand cupped over an uncovered breast, screaming "Help! I've beeten by a snaaake!"
VM|9.13.07 @ 12:40PM|#
Epi - nice "Second Coming" reference!
and yes, I know that this is two consecutive comments singling you
out, but let me assure you 1) it's not a mancrush (I'm still hurt
from last Sunday) and 2) it doesn't violate the restraining order
that was enacted after the aforementioned Sunday...
*saunters off*
|9.13.07 @ 12:44PM|#
So. Do you think they've killed her yet?
They have, or will shortly. Bet on it.
Russ 2000|9.13.07 @ 12:46PM|#
In a democracy, even if you invest way too much power in the
executive, he can't get too out of hand, of he'll be tossed out and
that power handed to his opponents.
That is a rather accurate description of how democracy, or as it
should be called "electoral socialism", works.
President R gets elected and tries to grow his institutional power.
Eventually his power has grown from, say, 1000 power units to 1300
power units, a growth rate of 30%. Electorate gets pissed and hands
those 1300 power units to President D.
But President D never reduces his power units below 1300 and
instead tries to increase his power units to 1600, a growth rate of
only 23%. Electorate is satisfied with slower erosion of individual
power. Candidate L vows to reduce the institution's power to 1200
if elected and is rightly called a lunatic, because no one in their
right mind wants less power. Lunatic voters then choose to reduce
their individual power by re-electing President D.
|9.13.07 @ 12:47PM|#
mediageek,
Oops, I totally misunderstood.
I read your comment alongside Michael Pack's, and misinterpretted
you.
sorry
Episiarch|9.13.07 @ 12:48PM|#
So. Do you think they've killed her yet?
Only if they are done raping the shit out of her. Got to send a
message to the other, supposedly-equal-to-men, girlies.
|9.13.07 @ 12:56PM|#
"Help! I've beeten by a snaaake!"
Bananas reference?! nice...
I'm still hoping to walk into a pornography store someday and see a
copy of The National Review
|9.13.07 @ 12:59PM|#
(not to be confused with that other famous guerrilla called
Tanya . . .)
A few of us old Communism geeks remember that the original
guerrillera named Tania wasn't Patty Hearst, but an East German who
schlepped around Bolivia with Che Guevara.
e|9.13.07 @ 1:01PM|#
"From one another," yes. But that's because they don't see
each other as being on the same side. Each of them is very tightly
disciplined. The rejection of comity with even very close cousins
is actually an expression of that discipline.
Wait, so the more they split from each other and form sub-groups,
the more that shows how disciplined they are? The Leninists I've
known remind me of the Peoples' Front of Judea in Monty Python's
The Holy Grail - the joke was to show how undisciplined (and
therefore ineffective) they were.
robc|9.13.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Between their inability to keep up
Oops, I totally misunderstood.
Pot, meet ... oh, you know the rest.
poco|9.13.07 @ 1:18PM|#
Richard, yeah, she is pretty cute; [though] she looks like a young Leslie Van Houten.
|9.13.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Anybody link to the actual Scotman article and then read the
comments?
Whoa baby! There's a commenter calling herself "Maria" that has
taken the position of, let's say, "enthusiastically" defending
Tanya's initial revolutionary ferver and the FARC as champions of
poor, and a bunch of limeys are quite wittily and merrily pummeling
her,.
Great fun, seriously...
|9.13.07 @ 1:51PM|#
oops. Apologies to any Scotsmen I may have accidently referred
to as "Limeys".
Long Live William Wallace!
FREEEEEEEDOOOOM!
|9.13.07 @ 3:07PM|#
In a democracy, even if you invest way too much power in the executive, he can't get too out of hand, of he'll be tossed out and that power handed to his opponents.
Not true. Of course Democracy raises the limits of power the
executive can have and still be tossed out... but at some point, if
the executive controls the schools, and controls the media, and can
suppress opposition directly (throwing them in jail), or indirectly
(putting their family memebers on waiting lists for government
health care, forbiding them and their families buisness licences or
professional certifications to make a living, charging them on one
of the hundreds of thousands of arbitrary laws that already exist
on the books), then you can't vote them out, even if the voting
isn't rigged.
The British Labour Party, the French SP, and the Swedish Welfare Party led to totalitarianism? Are you sure about that?
To the extend that the British Labour Party, the French SP, and the
Swedish Welfare Party are socialist, they are totalitarian. All 3
countries engage in widespread censorship, are littered with big
brother security cameras, have things like
"Anti-Social-Behavior-Orders" and the like. They are not
particularly free places to live.
Of course, leftist in particular, like to exaturate the
"socialist"ness of those countries. For example, the "socialist"
Swedes privatized more than half of their government pension scheme
(their equivalent to Social Security), and allow an portion of that
money to be invested in individual accounts. A much more modest
plan proposed by the Republicans in the U.S. (which was basicly
just a super watered down version of the Swedish reforms), was
painted as some "right wing conspiracy to loot our Social Security
fund", when Swedish socialists supported a far more free-market
plan than the "far-right" Republicans.
In reality, most European countries aren't any more socialist than
the United States. So they aren't particularly more totalitarian
than the United States (you can take that as a compliment or an
insult).
|9.13.07 @ 3:09PM|#
I'd like to tell this girl what I tell all girls who claim to be socialists/communists. "Blow me." If "goods" are supposed to be given from each according to ability to each according to need, then this pretty girl's got an ability that I need bad.
|9.13.07 @ 3:22PM|#
So only the most power-hungry people, with the weakest
commitment to their egalitarian principles, wage the fight to get
themselves into positions of power, while the most principled
communists progressives sit by and
let them.
It ain't just the communists, joe. Any political system attracts
the same power-hungry folks paying lip service to ideals. That's
why, if you want freedom (or, in your case, aid to the poor), you
have to weaken the state, not strengthen it as you keep
advocating.
|9.13.07 @ 4:00PM|#
"That's why, if you want freedom (or, in your case, aid to
the poor), you have to weaken the state, not strengthen
it...."
So you support this young woman's efforts with the anti-government
forces...to weaken the state?
|9.13.07 @ 4:58PM|#
It doesn't take a Criswell to predict that this idiot of a girl still thinks communism can work... if only the right people are put in charge.
|9.13.07 @ 5:10PM|#
e,
Wait, so the more they split from each other and form
sub-groups, the more that shows how disciplined they
are?
Yes. The discipline is to the Party, not the ideology.
Rex,
A leader who does all of those things, and then has to face the
electorate in free elections, is going to find himself very
unpopular.
And you're dumbing down the definition of "totalitarian" to "what I
don't like." Words have actual meanings, and if you are going to
try to communicate with others, you need to not just make up your
own.
prolefeed,
It ain't just the communists, joe. Any political system
attracts the same power-hungry folks paying lip service to
ideals. I suppose that's true to a certain extent, but you
left out the important part of my statement - that it is considered
a fundamental virtue in Lenninist parties not to challenge those in
power. This gives those power-hungry opportunists who get to the
top a very easy time of staying there. That is not so among
progressives, or other liberal or democratic ideologies.
Mike Laursen|9.13.07 @ 9:15PM|#
A leader who does all of those things, and then has to face
the electorate in free elections, is going to find himself very
unpopular.
I assume you are stating only that democracy can keep a strong
executive in check if there are honest elections. If that executive
can manage to subvert the election process, all bets are off.
Mike Laursen|9.13.07 @ 9:23PM|#
Meant to add: A democratic majority isn't necessarily going to stop a strong executive from abusing his power by persecuting minority groups.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245