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."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
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?
FARC wouldn't even exist anymore if it wasn't for the war on drugs.
The fallacy with this article is that there is no true Scotsman.
GWB and Congress, You wanna hurt FARC. Legalize cocaine. It'll kill 'em.
The fallacy with this article is that there is no true Scotsman.
Sweet.
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?
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.
Come on now, when did The Scotsman become a subsidiary of The Onion?
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"
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!
This might be the most important diary by a Dutch girl in hiding since... oh, I can't do it.
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.
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.
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?
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."
Anyone else think she's kinda cute for a communist?
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.
Alex, what is a useful idiot?
Joe,I'm always amazed at you weak defense of the radical left.
What defense?
That was a dispassionate exposition.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
Richard- I was just thinking that I certainly wouldn't mind spending a few hours arguing with her...
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? 🙂
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.
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.
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.
Anyway, Episiarch, props for the rational discussion.
Unlike some, you're both willing and able to have one about this subject.
Episiarch,
I was called an idiot and a communist. I reserve the right to punch back.
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
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.
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.
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 .
Who knew marxist guerrilla movements had a system of "fines"? Priceless.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!"
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*
mediageek - I don't think so, she still looks pretty useful...
So. Do you think they've killed her yet?
They have, or will shortly. Bet on it.
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.
mediageek,
Oops, I totally misunderstood.
I read your comment alongside Michael Pack's, and misinterpretted you.
sorry
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.
"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
(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.
"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.
Between their inability to keep up
Oops, I totally misunderstood.
Pot, meet ... oh, you know the rest.
Richard, yeah, she is pretty cute; [though] she looks like a young Leslie Van Houten.
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...
oops. Apologies to any Scotsmen I may have accidently referred to as "Limeys".
Long Live William Wallace!
FREEEEEEEDOOOOM!
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.
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).
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.
Definitely.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
Meant to add: A democratic majority isn't necessarily going to stop a strong executive from abusing his power by persecuting minority groups.
o/t
Damn, I thought I was the only Matthew.