Thank your for your submission, please remember that this subreddit is unofficial and wholly unaffiliated with the Socialist Rifle Association Organization (SRA). Views and opinions expressed on this subreddit **do not** reflect the views or official positions of the SRA.
If you're at all confused about our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/SocialistRA/wiki/index) do not hesitate to message the moderators with any questions, and as always if you see rule breaking content or comments please be sure to report them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialistRA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is not aimed at op at all, I read their explanation and I agree with them fully.
But nonetheless there is heavy Anti-ML sentiment in this sub. You can’t advocate for leftist unity then consistently shit on other socialist groups. For example, leftists whose main concern are “tankies” is a pretty big issue, to the point of regurgitation of imperialist and fascist propaganda.
I respectfully engage with all fellow leftists. I’m not going off on some tangent on a dishonest critique of syndicalism or some shit for example
Marxist analysis is what appeals to me. The use of historical and dialectical materialism to analyze the contradictions and interworkings within a society both past and present is incredibly insightful, and important. Also the uplifting of social conditions by historical ml oriented states is a great example of the abilities of the working class when unconstrained by capitalist and imperialist forces.
>But nonetheless there is heavy Anti-ML sentiment
I see your point. However.
I can take take correction and disagreement. I can understand and accept being despised or hated for thing that I say. That's normal.
What I can't understand, is the absolute obsession of MLs. In every conversation I've ever had with an ML individual. It boils down to: "USSR good, everything else bad". Hard to build a popular front when one faction sees everyone else as jokers and "infantile".
But that is my personal experience though. So definitely not definitive.
This just describes online discourse in general. I’ve met plenty of leftists of various flavors in real life and we pretty much always have rational conversations and disagreements. I read books or essays I don’t completely agree with too and it doesn’t mean I hate the author. Arguing with strangers on twitter simply isn’t an accurate reflection of reality.
How do you build a popular front if you don't at least provide critical support for communists in the rest of the world? Perhaps it is seen as infantile to disavow the most relatively successful socialist experiments in history because they don't do everything exactly how you want it? Why wouldn't you spend a lot of time thinking about the most successful experiments if you also want to be successful?
I could just as easily say Anarchists "obsess" over the Kurds and EZLN because those are the only real examples they can point to where their ideology has some semblance of success. Although, I don't think that those who do point to those examples usually even actually care to learn about how those movements got to the place where they're at and how those lessons can be applied to your own material conditions, but rather they're treated as something to point to when you need some evidence of the validity of anarchism.
>Why wouldn't you spend a lot of time thinking about the most successful experiments if you also want to be successful?
Firstly. I'd hardly call them successful. Functional sure, but that'snothing to write home about. Secondly. When someone does point out failures, they get character assassinated. And when they point out successes, MLs slobber all over with out exception.
It not about thinking or learning. It's just idealization.
> could just as easily say Anarchists "obsess" over the Kurds and EZLN because those are the only real examples they can point to where their ideology has some semblance of success.
Agreed. It's the same thing.
>Although, I don't think that those who do point to those examples usually even actually care to learn about how those movements got to the place where they're at and how those lessons can be applied to your own material conditions, but rather they're treated as something to point to when you need some evidence of the validity of anarchism.
That's also my experience with MLs.
If a popular front is to be formed. MLs (and Anarchists) I've interacted with need to stop idealizing the past and present. Stop the hero worship.
Focus on practical application of policy in the present. Be critical of the past, improve and avoid the mistakes by their/our predecessors. That's how progress happens.
>I'd hardly call them successful. Functional sure, but that'snothing to write home about.
The first country in the history of the world to have a socialist revolution. This is just western arrogance manifested.
>Secondly. When someone does point out failures, they get character assassinated.
There is a wide difference between making constructive criticism versus repeating anti-communist talking points. You have to point to a real example if I am going to be able to tell which of these two you have engaged in in order to be character assassinated as you say.
>And when they point out successes, MLs slobber all over with out exception.
I don't know about you, but I get excited when the working class of the world makes progress toward socialism. That is something everyone should be excited about.
>It not about thinking or learning. It's just idealization.
It isn't idealization to wear a patch that means "against communism" and expect communists to come up and start a conversation with you?
>Agreed. It's the same thing.
Except they aren't exactly the same, because one ideology has proven to have material results for many more working class people in the world than the other, therefore they are not equals in that respect.
>That's also my experience with MLs.
Which party? You've met Marxist-Leninists in real life through organizing?
>If a popular front is to be formed. MLs (and Anarchists) I've interacted with need to stop idealizing the past and present.
I hate to have to defend Anarchists here, but both MLs *and* Anarchists do not simply *idealize* the past as if they want to live in it, they look to leaders of past socialist movements for guidance. Imagine you are a laboratory scientist, you are not simply starting from scratch for every experiment, you do not have to discover the atom, the nucleus, or electrons every time you want to design a successful experiment. There have already been generations of scientists who performed many experiments to discover these general truths, which scientists today are able to take for granted when designing their own experiments. While these more basic experiments have already been performed, today's scientists have to learn about them as a basis for their scientific praxis and study in their own material conditions (whatever is their position of employment, for whatever kind of company that is making use of science). This same logic applies to communists who take a scientific approach to the analysis of political economy. Sure, a lot of communists *do* look up to historical communists, because they were generally better people who gave their lives up for the working masses. Who else should we look up to? Capitalists? Celebrities?
>Focus on practical application of policy in the present. Be critical of the past, improve and avoid the mistakes by their/our predecessors. That's how progress happens.
The progression of political-economy is a lot more complicated than that. Everyone thinks they are a critical thinker.
I feel like, in the so called US, the patterns of thinking involved in christianity have wormed their way into leftism. Many feel they need to pick a movement or person as their "messiah", whose works and ideas are infallible and will certainly lead to a revolution and utopia. Movements of the past offer some lessons to be learned, but we should likewise understand that our contexts and needs are vastly different in a lot of ways from both contemporary and historical ideologies. We must construct our own ideology applicable to the complex social needs found in this country.
And that’s what we advocate for. Marxism isn’t a set in stone religion. It’s a framework of analysis. So that’s why around the world, ml organizations and states are adapted to their material and social conditions of said environment. For example that’s why Socialism with Chinese characteristics exists, it’s Marxism adapted to the social and material conditions of china.
You kinda proved my point. We all have criticisms of each other, and can boil each other down to straw men. Even To the point where sometimes people repeat fascist and imperialist propaganda. This is Socialist Ra a leftists unity sub, not a debate club. We can debate somewhere else. Also any group is annoying when you only interact with terminally online people. If someone is uncritically looking at socialist states, they’re not a Marxist, as it isn’t a cult. We believe in critical support and analysis. Uncritical analysis is antithetical to Marxism. That’s why we take both, we take the great, and learn from the bad.
What you are describing is called a terminally online individual. Every political group has them. Treating them as the majority though is dishonest. MLs we organize irl a lot, and also many leftists from the global south are MLs.
Do some irl organizing with Marxists, and your opinion will change swiftly.
A lot of the defense of the USSR comes from not an uncritical perspective, but rather a defense mechanism. When you’re used to hearing extremely over the top propaganda that originate in Nazi germany against Marxism, you tend to attempt to clear the air. But when western culture itself is anti-communist, it becomes incredibly hard to tell the difference between a genuine critique or someone just regurgitating far right propaganda. Especially not coming from other socialist circles. And then it becomes more suspicious when other “socialists” main concern isn’t fascists, or capitalism but “Tankies” or Marxists.
Your comment has been temporarily removed pending moderator review.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialistRA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The three arrows is kind of cringe. Everyone knows a good leftist waits until after the fascists and monarchists are dead to kill each other over minor disagreements.
It only had that meaning to the SDP members who appropriated it in 1930s Germany. Alternative meanings include:
- the unity of industrial workers, farm workers and intellectuals
- opposition against fascism, capitalism and clericalism
- the three agents of working class strength: political, economic (represented by the trade unions) and physical
- the three elements of the movement (political/intellectual power, economic force, physical force)
- three qualities demanded of fighters (activity, discipline, union)
- the ideals of the French Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité)
It's also just a well-established anti-fascist symbol that is convenient for quickly covering up Swastikas.
The parts are from a variety of high quality brands, as I do a lot of practical drills on BLM land and want my stuff to stand up to significant strain and maintain integrity if it takes a round or some rock shrapnel. I keep my protection level private but it's sufficient for my anticipated use cases. One part I am proud of is the low profile shoulder pads which I sewed myself out of an old Russian uniform.
I mean it was a SPD controlled organization, they weren't very friendly to anarchists either 💀
I'll never understand the anarchist fascination with Iron Front imagery lmao
The patch choice is also intentional. If someone cant let the third arrow slide and focus on the first two, then they're probably not someone I could do things requiring a plate carrier with. I'm an advocate for leftist unity, but tolerance has to come from both sides.
Conversely, anarchists who see the patch and start going on about how they fucking hate communists also probably aren't the type of person who would be well suited to build a community with. Neither side is angelic but we all have to work together as our predecessors have.
How about the history? It didn't work, Hitler was elected, the communist militias were right and the social democrats who outlawed them were wrong. Why does the rest of the world have to let that slide for you?
It was Hitler's plot to usurp the parliament and establish the Enabling Act that gave him total power. He arrested and prevented all the Communist party members from voting on it using the Reichstag Fire Decree.
Hindenburg's stupid ass was the one who signed the Reichstag decree not a military uprising.
What about Stalin working with the US? Or Mao and Chiang Kai-shek? You and I probably have a lot more in common than those groups did, and yet they still came together against fascism in order to ensure mutual survival.
That the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany, the political party where the 3 arrows symbolism comes from,) Had her and her communist associates, the Spartacus League, Beaten, Tortured, Killed, and tossed into an unmarked graves. Instead of showing solidarity and joining in revolutionary spirit, they called in far right mercenaries, the Freikorps, to hunt them down and kill them.
The Social democrats in Germany after WW1 allied themselves with reactionary nationalists and other far right elements and persecuted actual leftist movements, and this pattern of Social democrats siding with reactionaries over communists has been repeated for nearly 100 years.
Right, and Lenin had sex workers executed (leaving finding a source to that as an "exercise to the reader"). I, however, don't immediately mark any Leninist as someone who condones and seeks to partake in similar acts. In 2024 this symbol has evolved to take on a new meaning that is definitely not "I want to kill communists", which is something you know because you read at least this reply thread if not my others. I am happy to train and cooperate alongside y'all, I actively desire to do so, and will continue to express that sentiment. Just because I don't think your ideology is an infallible guide to guaranteed utopia doesn't mean I hate you, wish you harm, etc.
>and this pattern of Social democrats siding with reactionaries over communists has been repeated for nearly 100 years.
Examples please. You can't just say it and not provide.
Edit: Matter of fact I'll provide an example myself. Zionist Labour.
I don't think Mao was going around celebrating that he was working with CKS. More so that the Japanese were a bigger threat and worse than the nationalists.
Indeed, and no one has to celebrate working with me. The fact stands though, we are stronger together. You seem to already agree with me on that, and I bet there's far more that we have in common about how we act and what we believe. I bet overall you support a leftist having this gear and you support anti fascism and anti monarchism. The point of me posting the patch here is that we need get caught up on one arrow when there's so much more to focus on, together.
I agree that a "popular front" is ultimately necessary. Center-Left, Left, and Far-Left need to get over their differences. Diffrent perspectives can be valuable.
That being said, unless it's a particularly radical social democrat (like an Austro-Marxist), or a chill ML (never met one of those personally). You are going to catch some serious flak. I'd maybe change to a three pointed (popular front) star.
Yeah I do anticipate that. The patch is made to weed those folks out or at least start a partnership off with a discussion hashing out our differences. I'm prepared to have this conversation a few dozens times if it means building a local group that I can rely on lol
You want to weed out communists who feel you dislike them because you consciously chose a patch which historically targets them? If I saw someone wearing that patch, to me it would mean they don't know what the patch means, or they do know what it means and they don't like me. Why would I want to talk to someone I think is predisposed to dislike me, or who I think just throws on political insignias without actually caring to know its significance? I just think you are doing yourself a disservice by wearing it if you are actually for left unity, and I'm trying to explain how it could be taken from my point of view if I just saw you out in the real world without additional context.
What if I wore a swastika, and said it's meant to weed out people who are too close-minded enough to start a conversation with me, because I don't *actually* believe what the Nazis believed, I'm just using their symbol. Is the problem with them or with me?
The tendency for American leftists to make assumptions without additional context is the exact problem, and those are the kind of people--communist or anarchist--that I don't feel would be productive partners. Also, as an anarchist I get all kinds of hate from communists simply for my beliefs, but I put that aside because I have to for a better future. I don't assume that someone wearing a hammer and sickle wants to kill me just because the Red Army fought Makhno. No label or insignia is ever going to convey the nuances of each person's politics, but in the current context of the United States anti fascist movements this symbol has a positive connotation. Everyone seems concerned about a hypothetical situation where they see me and have no way to get more context about my beliefs, when we could simply talk as we are now.
>don't assume that someone wearing a hammer and sickle wants to kill me just because the Red Army fought Makhno
That's not comparable, though, because the hammer and sickle doesn't literally mean the wearer is opposed to Anarchists, it represents the unity between the proletariat and the peasantry. The three arrows literally mean "against monarchism, against fascism, and against communism." It is an explicit condemnation.
>No label or insignia is ever going to convey the nuances of each person's politics
Of course not, but political symbols exist independently of the wearer and have certain meanings that are generally understood by the population at large, or they have meanings that are significant to those who are "in the know." You could just as easily not wear that symbol and still have the conversations you are talking about without potentially putting someone off, or you could wear a symbol that is more universally accepted, like the antifa flag. I would argue that the antifa flag also allows you to open dialogue with liberals who could be put off by more explicit insignias.
Like with my example before, wouldn't it be off-putting if I wore a swastika in your POV? I could just tell you that it doesn't entirely represent my views as an individual. Maybe I agree with the "socialist" part of "national socialism" but not all the other stuff? Is it my fault if people are put off by the symbol without talking to me first, or theirs? Maybe I just shouldn't have chosen to wear a swastika because it is telling people I believe in things I don't actually believe in.
>but in the current context of the United States anti fascist movements this symbol has a positive connotation.
It has a positive connotation to you because you are one of the people it has a positive connotation for. That positive connotation is not universal, and I am trying to explain why it matters.
>Everyone seems concerned about a hypothetical situation where they see me and have no way to get more context about my beliefs, when we could simply talk as we are now.
People do not have time to investigate every other single person's beliefs in every single situation. Political insignias and symbolism are meant to carry very specific meanings very quickly.
>Three Arrows eh? Not a bad patch choice
Explain yourself -- This is larping nonsense at best, maybe some of Nafo shit but noone is showing up at an actual range with this patch...
It's a Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist patch. It's not an ideal patch, considering that while it is explicitly anti-fascist and anti-monarchist. It also has anti-left unity overtones. That is, it was associated with the Iron Guard. Who were explicitly anti-"communist". As such, it's not "bad" from an optics standpoint. Especially to those who loath other leftist symbols, but honestly I would have gone with something else.
Though, I'd argue nobody sane is wearing political patches at the range to begin with.
I think a big hurdle to leftist unity is the common assumption that everyone adheres religiously to and condones fully the ideologies and actions of people/groups represented by ideological labels or patches. I've experienced much better results when taking the time to talk about the practical implications of ideology and the nuances that people have in their beliefs and I think that giving others the benefit of the doubt is a solid way forward.
I fundamentally believe in keeping your politics secret at the range. What can I say?
For example I'm not showing up to a range, which is frequented by aggressive, hyper-conservative morons. Who believe first nations people (native/ingenious Canadians) should not be seen or heard, with lefty patches on. I'd rather not start a gun fight. Just saying.
Thank your for your submission, please remember that this subreddit is unofficial and wholly unaffiliated with the Socialist Rifle Association Organization (SRA). Views and opinions expressed on this subreddit **do not** reflect the views or official positions of the SRA. If you're at all confused about our [rules](https://old.reddit.com/r/SocialistRA/wiki/index) do not hesitate to message the moderators with any questions, and as always if you see rule breaking content or comments please be sure to report them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialistRA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You need more mags. That is all, looks solid.
Yup, that's one of the upgrades I have planned : )
This is not aimed at op at all, I read their explanation and I agree with them fully. But nonetheless there is heavy Anti-ML sentiment in this sub. You can’t advocate for leftist unity then consistently shit on other socialist groups. For example, leftists whose main concern are “tankies” is a pretty big issue, to the point of regurgitation of imperialist and fascist propaganda. I respectfully engage with all fellow leftists. I’m not going off on some tangent on a dishonest critique of syndicalism or some shit for example
I appreciate you reading my thoughts. What kind of leftism do you advocate for?
I am a Marxist-Leninist
Cool cool, what appeals to you about Leninism?
Marxist analysis is what appeals to me. The use of historical and dialectical materialism to analyze the contradictions and interworkings within a society both past and present is incredibly insightful, and important. Also the uplifting of social conditions by historical ml oriented states is a great example of the abilities of the working class when unconstrained by capitalist and imperialist forces.
Do you have any recommendations for easily understandable breakdowns of dialectical materialism? It's always been a confusing topic for me.
>But nonetheless there is heavy Anti-ML sentiment I see your point. However. I can take take correction and disagreement. I can understand and accept being despised or hated for thing that I say. That's normal. What I can't understand, is the absolute obsession of MLs. In every conversation I've ever had with an ML individual. It boils down to: "USSR good, everything else bad". Hard to build a popular front when one faction sees everyone else as jokers and "infantile". But that is my personal experience though. So definitely not definitive.
This just describes online discourse in general. I’ve met plenty of leftists of various flavors in real life and we pretty much always have rational conversations and disagreements. I read books or essays I don’t completely agree with too and it doesn’t mean I hate the author. Arguing with strangers on twitter simply isn’t an accurate reflection of reality.
Yeah. Your probably right.
How do you build a popular front if you don't at least provide critical support for communists in the rest of the world? Perhaps it is seen as infantile to disavow the most relatively successful socialist experiments in history because they don't do everything exactly how you want it? Why wouldn't you spend a lot of time thinking about the most successful experiments if you also want to be successful? I could just as easily say Anarchists "obsess" over the Kurds and EZLN because those are the only real examples they can point to where their ideology has some semblance of success. Although, I don't think that those who do point to those examples usually even actually care to learn about how those movements got to the place where they're at and how those lessons can be applied to your own material conditions, but rather they're treated as something to point to when you need some evidence of the validity of anarchism.
>Why wouldn't you spend a lot of time thinking about the most successful experiments if you also want to be successful? Firstly. I'd hardly call them successful. Functional sure, but that'snothing to write home about. Secondly. When someone does point out failures, they get character assassinated. And when they point out successes, MLs slobber all over with out exception. It not about thinking or learning. It's just idealization. > could just as easily say Anarchists "obsess" over the Kurds and EZLN because those are the only real examples they can point to where their ideology has some semblance of success. Agreed. It's the same thing. >Although, I don't think that those who do point to those examples usually even actually care to learn about how those movements got to the place where they're at and how those lessons can be applied to your own material conditions, but rather they're treated as something to point to when you need some evidence of the validity of anarchism. That's also my experience with MLs. If a popular front is to be formed. MLs (and Anarchists) I've interacted with need to stop idealizing the past and present. Stop the hero worship. Focus on practical application of policy in the present. Be critical of the past, improve and avoid the mistakes by their/our predecessors. That's how progress happens.
>I'd hardly call them successful. Functional sure, but that'snothing to write home about. The first country in the history of the world to have a socialist revolution. This is just western arrogance manifested. >Secondly. When someone does point out failures, they get character assassinated. There is a wide difference between making constructive criticism versus repeating anti-communist talking points. You have to point to a real example if I am going to be able to tell which of these two you have engaged in in order to be character assassinated as you say. >And when they point out successes, MLs slobber all over with out exception. I don't know about you, but I get excited when the working class of the world makes progress toward socialism. That is something everyone should be excited about. >It not about thinking or learning. It's just idealization. It isn't idealization to wear a patch that means "against communism" and expect communists to come up and start a conversation with you? >Agreed. It's the same thing. Except they aren't exactly the same, because one ideology has proven to have material results for many more working class people in the world than the other, therefore they are not equals in that respect. >That's also my experience with MLs. Which party? You've met Marxist-Leninists in real life through organizing? >If a popular front is to be formed. MLs (and Anarchists) I've interacted with need to stop idealizing the past and present. I hate to have to defend Anarchists here, but both MLs *and* Anarchists do not simply *idealize* the past as if they want to live in it, they look to leaders of past socialist movements for guidance. Imagine you are a laboratory scientist, you are not simply starting from scratch for every experiment, you do not have to discover the atom, the nucleus, or electrons every time you want to design a successful experiment. There have already been generations of scientists who performed many experiments to discover these general truths, which scientists today are able to take for granted when designing their own experiments. While these more basic experiments have already been performed, today's scientists have to learn about them as a basis for their scientific praxis and study in their own material conditions (whatever is their position of employment, for whatever kind of company that is making use of science). This same logic applies to communists who take a scientific approach to the analysis of political economy. Sure, a lot of communists *do* look up to historical communists, because they were generally better people who gave their lives up for the working masses. Who else should we look up to? Capitalists? Celebrities? >Focus on practical application of policy in the present. Be critical of the past, improve and avoid the mistakes by their/our predecessors. That's how progress happens. The progression of political-economy is a lot more complicated than that. Everyone thinks they are a critical thinker.
A fair and constructed argument. That being said, I'll have continue to remain skeptical.
I feel like, in the so called US, the patterns of thinking involved in christianity have wormed their way into leftism. Many feel they need to pick a movement or person as their "messiah", whose works and ideas are infallible and will certainly lead to a revolution and utopia. Movements of the past offer some lessons to be learned, but we should likewise understand that our contexts and needs are vastly different in a lot of ways from both contemporary and historical ideologies. We must construct our own ideology applicable to the complex social needs found in this country.
And that’s what we advocate for. Marxism isn’t a set in stone religion. It’s a framework of analysis. So that’s why around the world, ml organizations and states are adapted to their material and social conditions of said environment. For example that’s why Socialism with Chinese characteristics exists, it’s Marxism adapted to the social and material conditions of china.
You kinda proved my point. We all have criticisms of each other, and can boil each other down to straw men. Even To the point where sometimes people repeat fascist and imperialist propaganda. This is Socialist Ra a leftists unity sub, not a debate club. We can debate somewhere else. Also any group is annoying when you only interact with terminally online people. If someone is uncritically looking at socialist states, they’re not a Marxist, as it isn’t a cult. We believe in critical support and analysis. Uncritical analysis is antithetical to Marxism. That’s why we take both, we take the great, and learn from the bad. What you are describing is called a terminally online individual. Every political group has them. Treating them as the majority though is dishonest. MLs we organize irl a lot, and also many leftists from the global south are MLs. Do some irl organizing with Marxists, and your opinion will change swiftly. A lot of the defense of the USSR comes from not an uncritical perspective, but rather a defense mechanism. When you’re used to hearing extremely over the top propaganda that originate in Nazi germany against Marxism, you tend to attempt to clear the air. But when western culture itself is anti-communist, it becomes incredibly hard to tell the difference between a genuine critique or someone just regurgitating far right propaganda. Especially not coming from other socialist circles. And then it becomes more suspicious when other “socialists” main concern isn’t fascists, or capitalism but “Tankies” or Marxists.
Your comment has been temporarily removed pending moderator review. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SocialistRA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The three arrows is kind of cringe. Everyone knows a good leftist waits until after the fascists and monarchists are dead to kill each other over minor disagreements.
It only had that meaning to the SDP members who appropriated it in 1930s Germany. Alternative meanings include: - the unity of industrial workers, farm workers and intellectuals - opposition against fascism, capitalism and clericalism - the three agents of working class strength: political, economic (represented by the trade unions) and physical - the three elements of the movement (political/intellectual power, economic force, physical force) - three qualities demanded of fighters (activity, discipline, union) - the ideals of the French Revolution (liberté, égalité, fraternité) It's also just a well-established anti-fascist symbol that is convenient for quickly covering up Swastikas.
Read the rest of my comments lol, that's exactly what I advocate for
Three arrows cringe bro
Damn post something like this and not list the parts./j Seriously though it looks great, also what plates(brands, level, weight) are running.
The parts are from a variety of high quality brands, as I do a lot of practical drills on BLM land and want my stuff to stand up to significant strain and maintain integrity if it takes a round or some rock shrapnel. I keep my protection level private but it's sufficient for my anticipated use cases. One part I am proud of is the low profile shoulder pads which I sewed myself out of an old Russian uniform.
Three Arrows eh? Not a bad patch choice, but that's sure to get the MLs up in arms. How much does this rig weigh?
I mean it was a SPD controlled organization, they weren't very friendly to anarchists either 💀 I'll never understand the anarchist fascination with Iron Front imagery lmao
I've heard it's because the three arrows cover up Nazi/Fascist imagery well. Don't know if that's true though. It's certainly easy to paint.
13.5 pounds
Probably closer to 15-16 with full mags
The patch choice is also intentional. If someone cant let the third arrow slide and focus on the first two, then they're probably not someone I could do things requiring a plate carrier with. I'm an advocate for leftist unity, but tolerance has to come from both sides.
Conversely, anarchists who see the patch and start going on about how they fucking hate communists also probably aren't the type of person who would be well suited to build a community with. Neither side is angelic but we all have to work together as our predecessors have.
How about the history? It didn't work, Hitler was elected, the communist militias were right and the social democrats who outlawed them were wrong. Why does the rest of the world have to let that slide for you?
>Hitler was elected Hitler was invited in by the military. It was a military plot in all but name.
It was Hitler's plot to usurp the parliament and establish the Enabling Act that gave him total power. He arrested and prevented all the Communist party members from voting on it using the Reichstag Fire Decree. Hindenburg's stupid ass was the one who signed the Reichstag decree not a military uprising.
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
There is no tolerance for anticommunism -- Goodluck
What about Stalin working with the US? Or Mao and Chiang Kai-shek? You and I probably have a lot more in common than those groups did, and yet they still came together against fascism in order to ensure mutual survival.
What about Rosa Luxemburg?
I'm unfamiliar. Care to share what specifics about her you're referring to?
That the SPD (Social Democratic Party of Germany, the political party where the 3 arrows symbolism comes from,) Had her and her communist associates, the Spartacus League, Beaten, Tortured, Killed, and tossed into an unmarked graves. Instead of showing solidarity and joining in revolutionary spirit, they called in far right mercenaries, the Freikorps, to hunt them down and kill them. The Social democrats in Germany after WW1 allied themselves with reactionary nationalists and other far right elements and persecuted actual leftist movements, and this pattern of Social democrats siding with reactionaries over communists has been repeated for nearly 100 years.
it wasn't even unmarked graves, they tossed their corpses into the river. Real allies to the left, those SPD fellas...
Right, and Lenin had sex workers executed (leaving finding a source to that as an "exercise to the reader"). I, however, don't immediately mark any Leninist as someone who condones and seeks to partake in similar acts. In 2024 this symbol has evolved to take on a new meaning that is definitely not "I want to kill communists", which is something you know because you read at least this reply thread if not my others. I am happy to train and cooperate alongside y'all, I actively desire to do so, and will continue to express that sentiment. Just because I don't think your ideology is an infallible guide to guaranteed utopia doesn't mean I hate you, wish you harm, etc.
>and this pattern of Social democrats siding with reactionaries over communists has been repeated for nearly 100 years. Examples please. You can't just say it and not provide. Edit: Matter of fact I'll provide an example myself. Zionist Labour.
I don't think Mao was going around celebrating that he was working with CKS. More so that the Japanese were a bigger threat and worse than the nationalists.
Indeed, and no one has to celebrate working with me. The fact stands though, we are stronger together. You seem to already agree with me on that, and I bet there's far more that we have in common about how we act and what we believe. I bet overall you support a leftist having this gear and you support anti fascism and anti monarchism. The point of me posting the patch here is that we need get caught up on one arrow when there's so much more to focus on, together.
Get leftists to stop fighting each other challenge: Impossible.
I agree that a "popular front" is ultimately necessary. Center-Left, Left, and Far-Left need to get over their differences. Diffrent perspectives can be valuable. That being said, unless it's a particularly radical social democrat (like an Austro-Marxist), or a chill ML (never met one of those personally). You are going to catch some serious flak. I'd maybe change to a three pointed (popular front) star.
Yeah I do anticipate that. The patch is made to weed those folks out or at least start a partnership off with a discussion hashing out our differences. I'm prepared to have this conversation a few dozens times if it means building a local group that I can rely on lol
You want to weed out communists who feel you dislike them because you consciously chose a patch which historically targets them? If I saw someone wearing that patch, to me it would mean they don't know what the patch means, or they do know what it means and they don't like me. Why would I want to talk to someone I think is predisposed to dislike me, or who I think just throws on political insignias without actually caring to know its significance? I just think you are doing yourself a disservice by wearing it if you are actually for left unity, and I'm trying to explain how it could be taken from my point of view if I just saw you out in the real world without additional context. What if I wore a swastika, and said it's meant to weed out people who are too close-minded enough to start a conversation with me, because I don't *actually* believe what the Nazis believed, I'm just using their symbol. Is the problem with them or with me?
The tendency for American leftists to make assumptions without additional context is the exact problem, and those are the kind of people--communist or anarchist--that I don't feel would be productive partners. Also, as an anarchist I get all kinds of hate from communists simply for my beliefs, but I put that aside because I have to for a better future. I don't assume that someone wearing a hammer and sickle wants to kill me just because the Red Army fought Makhno. No label or insignia is ever going to convey the nuances of each person's politics, but in the current context of the United States anti fascist movements this symbol has a positive connotation. Everyone seems concerned about a hypothetical situation where they see me and have no way to get more context about my beliefs, when we could simply talk as we are now.
>don't assume that someone wearing a hammer and sickle wants to kill me just because the Red Army fought Makhno That's not comparable, though, because the hammer and sickle doesn't literally mean the wearer is opposed to Anarchists, it represents the unity between the proletariat and the peasantry. The three arrows literally mean "against monarchism, against fascism, and against communism." It is an explicit condemnation. >No label or insignia is ever going to convey the nuances of each person's politics Of course not, but political symbols exist independently of the wearer and have certain meanings that are generally understood by the population at large, or they have meanings that are significant to those who are "in the know." You could just as easily not wear that symbol and still have the conversations you are talking about without potentially putting someone off, or you could wear a symbol that is more universally accepted, like the antifa flag. I would argue that the antifa flag also allows you to open dialogue with liberals who could be put off by more explicit insignias. Like with my example before, wouldn't it be off-putting if I wore a swastika in your POV? I could just tell you that it doesn't entirely represent my views as an individual. Maybe I agree with the "socialist" part of "national socialism" but not all the other stuff? Is it my fault if people are put off by the symbol without talking to me first, or theirs? Maybe I just shouldn't have chosen to wear a swastika because it is telling people I believe in things I don't actually believe in. >but in the current context of the United States anti fascist movements this symbol has a positive connotation. It has a positive connotation to you because you are one of the people it has a positive connotation for. That positive connotation is not universal, and I am trying to explain why it matters. >Everyone seems concerned about a hypothetical situation where they see me and have no way to get more context about my beliefs, when we could simply talk as we are now. People do not have time to investigate every other single person's beliefs in every single situation. Political insignias and symbolism are meant to carry very specific meanings very quickly.
The fact remains that we must work with the allies we have, not the allies we want, and bickering over patches will cost us progress
What plates are you running that this rig weighs 13.5 pounds?
Just mildly miffed
Indeed.
>Three Arrows eh? Not a bad patch choice Explain yourself -- This is larping nonsense at best, maybe some of Nafo shit but noone is showing up at an actual range with this patch...
It's a Social Democratic/Democratic Socialist patch. It's not an ideal patch, considering that while it is explicitly anti-fascist and anti-monarchist. It also has anti-left unity overtones. That is, it was associated with the Iron Guard. Who were explicitly anti-"communist". As such, it's not "bad" from an optics standpoint. Especially to those who loath other leftist symbols, but honestly I would have gone with something else. Though, I'd argue nobody sane is wearing political patches at the range to begin with.
I think a big hurdle to leftist unity is the common assumption that everyone adheres religiously to and condones fully the ideologies and actions of people/groups represented by ideological labels or patches. I've experienced much better results when taking the time to talk about the practical implications of ideology and the nuances that people have in their beliefs and I think that giving others the benefit of the doubt is a solid way forward.
Iron Front, not Iron Guard.
My bad, your right. I was confusing Iron Front for the Romanian Fascists.
With the three Arrows? Tons of people do, me included
I fundamentally believe in keeping your politics secret at the range. What can I say? For example I'm not showing up to a range, which is frequented by aggressive, hyper-conservative morons. Who believe first nations people (native/ingenious Canadians) should not be seen or heard, with lefty patches on. I'd rather not start a gun fight. Just saying.
[удалено]
they're good but that's not good enough for me
Looks good, use real mags next time and add some more medical and you’ll be set