Hi Gregory,

You make some good points but there are things you overlook.

In the U.S. at this time attempts to intimidate and retaliate against activists are relatively rare. However:

(1) As soon as the movement picks up this will become more common. You have been active since the 1980's? Good. You have a lot of useful experience. But in the 1960's and 1970's, a number of activists faced serious harassment, including murder.

I met one activist, for example, who was later murdered here in Seattle, where I live, in 1981: Gene Viernes. I wrote about this briefly in my annual report here:

http://struggle.net/ben/2009/conscious_forces.htm

Also, a comrade I worked with was blacklisted. And I have worked in a number of jobs where I would probably have been fired if my political activity was known.

(2) Even today, when the level of harassment and intimidation is relatively low, many activists would face a host of problems if their online work were in their legal name. All of this can be easily googled by employers or landlords. An activist with a tenants' rights organization, for example, could find it more difficult to find a place to rent. And how about undocumented workers? Visibility would mean deportation and the break up of their families.

Now you make a number of good points also. You are completely correct, in my view, that "security culture" is often used as an excuse to justify a retreat from the need to openly talk about and resolve the decisive problems of the revolutionary movement. I run into this all the time.

Summing up, I believe we need to focus on the need for what I call "political transparency". This would (1) respect the legitimate need for a security culture while (2) making it more difficult to use this as an excuse for restricting necessary public discussion of mistakes and problems.

 out of  found this valuable. Do you find this valuable?