The meaning of symbols change over time, %90 of the time it is just used to represent antfascism now
A lot of people who rock the three arrows nowadays at least seem to be on the level, but I think it is a terrible choice of symbol considering its historical baggage.
Trying to take the symbol away doesn't even make sense because it's not like claiming a slur where it removes much of it's power. It's literally just a symbol that means "don't trust this person they will pretend to be an ally but aren't actually, stay away" when viewed by a leftist. Trying to get leftists to use the symbol makes it less useful because then it's harder to distinguish between friend and foe.
Let’s reclaim their original meaning
Their original meaning was "we are social democrats who are against fascism." This meaning lasted a matter of months before it became, "we are social democrats who are against fascism, monarchism, and communism." Literally. That is the history. It's not some long-standing symbol that had communist roots and then was coopted by liberals or anything. It was designed by liberals for liberal use.
OP is incorrect. The three arrows were designed by the German Social Democrats in the 1930s to counter the Communists, Nazis and Libs and be a symbol for their own para military group. Only in Austria did they briefly loose their association with anti communism. The design's function was to be easily painted over a swastika with a brush on any wall.
It was used by the SPD in their propaganda to denounce communists.
okay love the sentiment but the anarchy symbol with the A inside the circle always looks like it was designed by dads.
Fair point(quickly books tattoo cover-up), but imo the punk 'messier' version doesn't exactly lend legitimacy to the movement, I think the 'clean' version better embodies the symbol's meaning of Anarchy is Order
I mean, it's just like my opinion, mannnnn on a silly aesthetic matter. Whatever gets the libs on our side works, and i'm not even an anarchist so who cares what i think lol
Oh look a cia operative. I don't want revenge I want justice. Who chose the word revenge is a moron.
In our current world, justice and revenge are functionally indistinguishable.
The lack of the hammer and sickle means that no revenge will be gotten.
Sorry, that's just how it is.
real cool post while praxis is actually happening in the streets
Do you honestly think that they will get anything done? That they will change anything at all?
I respect the effort, but let's be real here.
it’s implementing leftist ideas with a fucking AK-47, it’s intimidating to right wing chuds and cops. hopefully it encourages the left to arm, and also that there are armed leftists there
Yeah, it's not cool to bash people out there in the streets. Sectarian conflict is fine and good, but it also needs to happen in the streets and be done in the context of a greater movement.
I believe they will spill blood, but will fail in liberating themselves and us. Anarchism is capable of acquiring some amount of justice in the form of bloodshed for bloodshed, which is a temporary and incomplete justice, but is justice non the less and so I agree they will not acquire all of what we deserve, but they will get us more than what we have now. As an optimist and a very pissed off leftist I support them.
Agreed but it's ultraleft to lead with your criticism when comrades are aiding in the cause. Example; If a reactionary reads theory and agrees uncritically, you shouldn't lead your response with "you are still a reactionary, you're just smarter now", because it undermines their progress. Portland was a liberal shithole not too long ago, let's give them props and encourage them in the right direction
Chapo.chat: Sectarianism is bad we should strive for left unity!
Also Chapo.chat: This fucking comment in literally every thread about anarchists.
Anarchists already changed the world, deal with it.
How? By holding signs and being co-opted by reactionaries and imperialists? I'll give it to you that anarchist collectives are great at maintaining training for street brawls, which are about to become a lot more common. So they're in a position to lead the way on that front, but I can't think of any really successful socialist project that anarchism has brought about, at least none that liberated a nation of proles from the imperialists.
Feel free to correct me and show how anarchists have changed the world though.
Where does this delusion come from? This assertion that anarchism amounts only to people that go out and fight in the streets? I am becoming more and more convinced that the ML crowds that are the loudest proponents of 'read history' and 'read theory' do absolutely neither.
Anarchism is one of the prestige forms of socialism - it was half of the First International, and, just like Marxism, was disseminated and adopted throughout the world during the 19th and 20th centuries.- Even during Marx's time, one of the most informative experiences of the era was that of the Paris Commune - heavily contributed to by anarchists.
- The Russian revolution was not undertaken solely by a cadre of intellectual vanguardists - it was facilitated by the formation of the proletariat and peasantry into trade unions, factory committees and worker's soviets - at this time, Lenin et al weren't even in the country due to exile.
- Even Lenin on his deathbed spoke of 'witnessing the resurrection of the tsarist bureaucracy to which the Bolsheviks had only given a Soviet veneer'; after the civil war rejecting the popular demand for socialism via worker-control and disbanding organisations like parties, committees and soviets - not to mention utilising force when necessary such as at Kronstadt. This is not a blunt stab at the Bolsheviks - it is important to note the Marxist Contradiction: That the Bolshevik state was established to achieve socialism and to represent the interests of the proletariat - yet, at the opportunistic post-Civil War moment to do so, they declined, instead favouring the opposite.
- Mao himself read anarchist theory and was inspired by it - beyond being a passing interest as a young man, it likely fed the basis of his later departures from Marxist-Leninism and criticisms of state bureaucracy.
- In Korea, anarchists established the Korean People's Association - an autonomous confederation of 2 million people, operating on a mutual aid based economy.
- It would be folly to discount entirely the efforts of the Spanish anarchists in establishing 'actually existing socialism' in Catalonia and Andalusia - money was abolished, productivity increased, and thousands took up arms in horizontal armies to fight the fascists. Putting aside issues of ideological supremacy, these are real, material impacts that in some cases have lasting effects - even today the municipality of Marinaleda maintains a system of mutual aid, collective ownership and autonomy.
- In Cuba, anarchists lent their support to the revolution wholeheartedly - joining the guerilla groups fighting Batista directly.
etc.
In many of these cases, anarchists have repeatedly facilitated revolution, and even established instances of real, tangible socialism. That they did not survive suppression and encirclement is not proof of their lack of capacity for success - if such a thing was true, the Soviet Union would never have been established (on the basis of historical revolutionary suppression and exile) nor should there be Marxist-Leninists left now that it has been dismantled.
The assertion that anarchist movements are prone to corruption and co-option by reactionaries is also flawed - the same applies to Marxist-Leninist parties too. There is no shortage of ML parties in various countries extolling reactionary views today, and the conditions that led to the dismantling of the USSR can be seen as exactly this phenomenon - the undermining of public trust in the party by propaganda and the infiltration of the party itself by opportunists and yes-men for the purpose of usurping it.
How can Marxist-Leninists say with confidence that their method is the only scientific application of Marxism; lambasting others for their perceived vulnerabilities to Western capital; when not even their prestige test-case itself was immune? How can we be expected to fall in line with the logic "The Marxist-Leninist state was undermined and dismantled. The solution is Marxist-Leninism."Finally, why is it that calls for 'Left Unity' apply solely to Marxist-Leninism - that we should overlook our differences in their favour in the interest of the bigger picture, yet you will find nothing in kind from them?
I have spent years carrying water for ML ideologies - for the USSR, for China, etc. - against my personal beliefs and better judgment in the interest of internationalism and anti-imperialism. The least I expect, is to be treated like a communistic equal, fighting in the same struggle. Instead, our communities are filled with Marxist-Leninists quotebombing dissenters with Lenin and stamping on anarchists at every possible opportunity - only occasionally moderating themselves with a token "I have many anarchist friends, but..." or "I support left unity, but..."Put aside your wretched egos for once in your lives. Consider the fundamentals of our theory and praxis - that material conditions around the world and throughout history are not uniform. There may indeed be cases where Marxist-Leninism is the most effective - I claim that in earnest.
Will you be able to acknowledge the possibility of cases where anarchism is the most viable? Especially when anarchism spans such a range of approaches and theories - from syndicalism to mutualism to synthesism.
You need to be aware, that for many people, the barrier to the adoption of Marxist-Leninism is not simply the influence of Western propaganda, or the the lack of 'reading theory' - it is our diametric opposition to hierarchy in any form. That does not preclude our contributions to your causes - it means that they are done voluntarily.The truest demonstration of Left Unity for me, will be when I don't feel like an outsider, as a communist within the communist community.
:left-unity-2:
Back when naked Athena was a thing, I believed Portland was a liberal waste of time that needed to mature..either I was wrong or that happened. Either way, this no longer is an accurate representation of Portland. They have at least risen to the level of being able to rage class war, and for that I say solidarity comrades, blood 4 blood! :ak47: :amerikkka: :red-fist:
Ok, but it's still the Iron Front logo. Why not just use an antifascist symbol that wasn't the logo of a liberal-social democrat coalition that betrayed communists to fascism?
I don't really see how the "fuck Nazis but also Communists" symbol is a unifier. Does using the imagery of the most historically pro-fascist antifascist organization, the one that led to the foundation of Nazi Germany, not put off any communists or, like, people who are at all familiar with the history of antifascism? Is the "everyone but the communists" symbol really essential to maintaining a united front?
Also, that same group sold Liebknecht out to the fascists...
It became a nationwide symbol used to be antifascist across stadia in MLS and USL, too. United Front became the moniker in supporter circles.
Even the explicitly communist Red Loons got on board and were willing to adopt the three arrows in protest.
While it can be used as anticommunist by some, within the US it seems to most often be used solely as antifascist, in my experience. Though it being used by anarchists didn't necessarily make me think that's true here. IDK.
The Male were right. It's an anticommunist symbol that puts us on the same level as monarchists and fascists
"um actually because you used this symbol from the 1930s that was also used by succdems, means that you are playing into the hands of capital, thereby making ur praxis moot."
"I'm not owned, I'm not owned, you're owned! You don't even know that you're playing right into Edmund Burke's classical liberal tradition!" I scream at the man dragging me to the guillotine.
