Similar does not mean identical. Accounting for distinctions is an important part of contending with people, as individuals or as groups.
I more meant vague in the sense that it doesn’t say much about veterans as a whole. These days, if you have a smartphone and an internet connection, you can be a “content creator”. Doesn’t inherently mean you speak for anyone other than yourself. Unless you are talking specifically about people who speak for orgs and are elected by members of those orgs.
This is some “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” shit. My original question was just asking if you had sourcing for your sweeping claim about an entire classification of people. I did not even advocate for trying to recruit veterans. I do, however, take issue with being reductionist in dealing with millions of people. Even if you have -100 desire to ally with veterans, it’s still important to understand the distinctions of where they are actually at, politically. Minority veterans, for example, are probably going to be closer to something politically that could be an ally, or at least not getting in the way. And if it’s all but assured they’re going to end up as opposition and reaction, then you need to contend with in what way that’s going to manifest and how to deal with it; another time when distinctions matter.
I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.
That said, plenty of veterans won’t have been direct combatants but could still have logistical skills or advice, or knowledge from basic training that they can help others get on track with. The bulk of revolutionary efforts are not direct combat. I don’t know that I would personally trust imperial core combat veterans as combatants in a revolutionary context, but it’s possible they could still provide advice and training under the right kind of supervision.
But this feels a bit navel-gazing out of context of an actual revolutionary vanguard party. There does not appear to be that much of a “left” in the US for example and in the current climate, a civil war between constitutional loyalists and Trumpian fascists seems more likely than a “left” revolution.
tactics and habits learned in counter insurgency doesn’t translate to running and operating an actual insurgency
Is that actually true? The habits aren’t useful, but knowledge of the tactics seems incredibly useful! As an example, there’s plenty of narcotics agents that become highly successful drug dealers because their experience gives them insights. This seems similar.
They’re trained to identify, track, and fight insurgents. Seems like that’s a set of transferable skills and can be turned into dodging identification, frustrating trackers, and fighting counter insurgents.
Most of these frontline infantry men have served in Iraq or Afghanistan any advice they give is going to be useless for whatever type of war you think you’ll be fighting 1) tactics and habits learned in counter insurgency doesn’t translate to running and operating an actual insurgency 2) the type of war they’re involved in is outdated 3) literally just train
This makes no sense. First, why would counter insurgency give you no understanding of insurgency. It’s two sides of the same coin. Second, some things about military training are just basic concepts, like how to manage a firearm, and don’t date fast at all. Third, “literally just train” line reminds me more of PvPers in a video game saying “git gud” than an understanding of RL logistics. Like… train in what? Based on whose experience? With what guidance? To what end? The whole point there was that some of them might have solid advice for training. Obviously they’re not the only people in the universe who understand related concepts, but my god, you’re really reaching on this narrative that there’s no circumstances under which they could possibly offer help.
First it was they’re too reactionary, now it’s “even if they aren’t too reactionary, their skills are still useless,” which is obviously nonsense.
Already talked about this
Do you really want to ally with someone who had a very good chance of having committed atrocities during their services regardless of if they felt bad about it? And even if they committed no war crimes why should we recruit them?
No you didn’t? I was responding to that part directly. As I said, “I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.” You literally said “a very good chance of”, not "people who are known to have done wrong. “A chance of” may be reason to be cautious, it is not investigation in itself. A person who committed war crimes is not the same as a person who committed no war crimes. You are uncritically assessing a situation, moving the goalposts to insist on a set narrative when it’s challenged, and generally misrepresenting logistics.
It’s not a hill worth dying on. I’m not going to insist someone trust imperial core veterans if they don’t want to and it’s up to peoples who have been harmed by them, as a collective, to decide in what capacity they want to be accepting of such veterans in general. You don’t need to trample over other reasonable points in order to have that stance.
So a USian is going to just hop over to Afghanistan and recruit former insurgents there, is that it? Yeah, it’s good timing for you to have an excuse to disengage. Your arguments are idealistic nonsense. You tell me to go outside, while ignoring logistical realities in favor of what sounds better to you on paper.
Conflicts are carried out with the tools that people and entities have available to them. That’s why Palestine is being genocided as we speak, instead of bombing israel with parity. It’s why Iran was able to bomb israel with parity when israel started attacking it. It’s one of the reasons we give critical support to anti-imperialist efforts, even when they aren’t explicitly socialist or communist.
I keep trying to introduce nuance into the conversation and you keep insisting on binary thinking. You are in desperate need of dialectics.
You didn’t show evidence of anything remotely resembling such a weighty claim as “veterans are a lost cause.” You made a sweeping generalization to start with. When I asked you about your sourcing, you said some of it’s talking to people, some of it’s content creators (such as streamers), and some of it’s a report on the ADF when the subject was USian veterans. I took the talking to people part as valid, in spite of it being anecdotal and me having to take you at your word. I questioned the validity of viewing content creators as representative of millions of people. I questioned the validity of the ADF report as being relevant to broad claims about USian veterans.
Here again, I give you nuance. And you give me more binary thinking: “veterans are a lost cause”.
Learn to put aside the ego and maybe you’ll be able to see straight on this. If you don’t, you are just going to be all anger with no center.
Respectfully, I think you should study past revolutions, material analysis, the distinction between idealism and materialism, and Lenin’s left-communism; an infantile disorder
“I believe we need to recognize the material conditions are so deeply against us that in order for a revolution to have any chance of success in this jingoist country we will almost certainly need to make active inroads in splitting the military ideologically and pushing them left utilizing their experience in combat to serve as cadres. I wont disagree that veterans are overwhelmingly reactionary, I’m not even saying I like them, however I cannot think of a single revolution that succeeded without an organized effort deployed to incorporate military experience into the revolution itself. Without that I can’t imagine a revolution progressing further than the Paris Commune.” You aren’t conducting any historical or material analysis, youre basing your entire successful revolution on whether or not your allies pass a vibe check, this dogmatic insistence is why I believe you to be a leftcom.
I am not trying to attack you but rather engage in dialectics as every good communist must do. I highly recommend you reading this book, it will help you understand what it means to be a marxist leninist. Without a grasp of dialectical materialism and historical materialism I’m afraid there are going to be a great deal of definitions you are using very differently from the average marxist leninist as evident by your misunderstanding of idealism
Similar does not mean identical. Accounting for distinctions is an important part of contending with people, as individuals or as groups.
I more meant vague in the sense that it doesn’t say much about veterans as a whole. These days, if you have a smartphone and an internet connection, you can be a “content creator”. Doesn’t inherently mean you speak for anyone other than yourself. Unless you are talking specifically about people who speak for orgs and are elected by members of those orgs.
This is some “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” shit. My original question was just asking if you had sourcing for your sweeping claim about an entire classification of people. I did not even advocate for trying to recruit veterans. I do, however, take issue with being reductionist in dealing with millions of people. Even if you have -100 desire to ally with veterans, it’s still important to understand the distinctions of where they are actually at, politically. Minority veterans, for example, are probably going to be closer to something politically that could be an ally, or at least not getting in the way. And if it’s all but assured they’re going to end up as opposition and reaction, then you need to contend with in what way that’s going to manifest and how to deal with it; another time when distinctions matter.
deleted by creator
I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.
That said, plenty of veterans won’t have been direct combatants but could still have logistical skills or advice, or knowledge from basic training that they can help others get on track with. The bulk of revolutionary efforts are not direct combat. I don’t know that I would personally trust imperial core combat veterans as combatants in a revolutionary context, but it’s possible they could still provide advice and training under the right kind of supervision.
But this feels a bit navel-gazing out of context of an actual revolutionary vanguard party. There does not appear to be that much of a “left” in the US for example and in the current climate, a civil war between constitutional loyalists and Trumpian fascists seems more likely than a “left” revolution.
deleted by creator
Is that actually true? The habits aren’t useful, but knowledge of the tactics seems incredibly useful! As an example, there’s plenty of narcotics agents that become highly successful drug dealers because their experience gives them insights. This seems similar.
deleted by creator
They’re trained to identify, track, and fight insurgents. Seems like that’s a set of transferable skills and can be turned into dodging identification, frustrating trackers, and fighting counter insurgents.
deleted by creator
I find it hard to believe that they have literally zero training in counter insurgency. Nothing? At all?
I mean that’s funny if it’s true, no wonder insurgents keep winning lol
This makes no sense. First, why would counter insurgency give you no understanding of insurgency. It’s two sides of the same coin. Second, some things about military training are just basic concepts, like how to manage a firearm, and don’t date fast at all. Third, “literally just train” line reminds me more of PvPers in a video game saying “git gud” than an understanding of RL logistics. Like… train in what? Based on whose experience? With what guidance? To what end? The whole point there was that some of them might have solid advice for training. Obviously they’re not the only people in the universe who understand related concepts, but my god, you’re really reaching on this narrative that there’s no circumstances under which they could possibly offer help.
First it was they’re too reactionary, now it’s “even if they aren’t too reactionary, their skills are still useless,” which is obviously nonsense.
No you didn’t? I was responding to that part directly. As I said, “I would hope one is not basing their organization with others on probabilities of whether someone committed atrocities, rather than concrete information on whether they did and whether they have turned around as a person.” You literally said “a very good chance of”, not "people who are known to have done wrong. “A chance of” may be reason to be cautious, it is not investigation in itself. A person who committed war crimes is not the same as a person who committed no war crimes. You are uncritically assessing a situation, moving the goalposts to insist on a set narrative when it’s challenged, and generally misrepresenting logistics.
It’s not a hill worth dying on. I’m not going to insist someone trust imperial core veterans if they don’t want to and it’s up to peoples who have been harmed by them, as a collective, to decide in what capacity they want to be accepting of such veterans in general. You don’t need to trample over other reasonable points in order to have that stance.
deleted by creator
So a USian is going to just hop over to Afghanistan and recruit former insurgents there, is that it? Yeah, it’s good timing for you to have an excuse to disengage. Your arguments are idealistic nonsense. You tell me to go outside, while ignoring logistical realities in favor of what sounds better to you on paper.
Conflicts are carried out with the tools that people and entities have available to them. That’s why Palestine is being genocided as we speak, instead of bombing israel with parity. It’s why Iran was able to bomb israel with parity when israel started attacking it. It’s one of the reasons we give critical support to anti-imperialist efforts, even when they aren’t explicitly socialist or communist.
I keep trying to introduce nuance into the conversation and you keep insisting on binary thinking. You are in desperate need of dialectics.
deleted by creator
You didn’t show evidence of anything remotely resembling such a weighty claim as “veterans are a lost cause.” You made a sweeping generalization to start with. When I asked you about your sourcing, you said some of it’s talking to people, some of it’s content creators (such as streamers), and some of it’s a report on the ADF when the subject was USian veterans. I took the talking to people part as valid, in spite of it being anecdotal and me having to take you at your word. I questioned the validity of viewing content creators as representative of millions of people. I questioned the validity of the ADF report as being relevant to broad claims about USian veterans.
Here again, I give you nuance. And you give me more binary thinking: “veterans are a lost cause”.
Learn to put aside the ego and maybe you’ll be able to see straight on this. If you don’t, you are just going to be all anger with no center.
Respectfully, I think you should study past revolutions, material analysis, the distinction between idealism and materialism, and Lenin’s left-communism; an infantile disorder
deleted by creator
“I believe we need to recognize the material conditions are so deeply against us that in order for a revolution to have any chance of success in this jingoist country we will almost certainly need to make active inroads in splitting the military ideologically and pushing them left utilizing their experience in combat to serve as cadres. I wont disagree that veterans are overwhelmingly reactionary, I’m not even saying I like them, however I cannot think of a single revolution that succeeded without an organized effort deployed to incorporate military experience into the revolution itself. Without that I can’t imagine a revolution progressing further than the Paris Commune.” You aren’t conducting any historical or material analysis, youre basing your entire successful revolution on whether or not your allies pass a vibe check, this dogmatic insistence is why I believe you to be a leftcom.
deleted by creator
I am not trying to attack you but rather engage in dialectics as every good communist must do. I highly recommend you reading this book, it will help you understand what it means to be a marxist leninist. Without a grasp of dialectical materialism and historical materialism I’m afraid there are going to be a great deal of definitions you are using very differently from the average marxist leninist as evident by your misunderstanding of idealism
deleted by creator