only about 10-11% of the united $tates military recruits come from the poorest quintile (defined as making less than $33,000 annually), with a fourth of the military coming from areas whose median income is more than $65,000 annually.
If 25% come from an area (not a household) with a median income of over $65K annually, doesn't that mean that 75% -- an overwhelming majority -- come from areas that make less than that?
We can't simultaneously say "the middle class has been hollowed out/the costs of a college education have skyrocketed/even once-professional jobs are being proletarianized" but then turn around and say that if your family makes more than $33K you can't really claim to have been roped in to the military by your material conditions. Sure, the military isn't primarily made up of the poorest among us. But we can't say it's mostly middle class either, because if you're raising a family on $50K, you aren't middle class in much of the country.
The other important point here is that a lot of troops are recruited as children, after being fed wall-to-wall lies about what the military actually does, all at the behest of the most pervasive propaganda machine ever created.
They're not the poorest among us because they're not homeless or part of the apartheid labor underclass of undocumented immigrants - or at least the vast majority are not.
But sure, on the scale within the imperial core, the military pulls from poorer families. However, this does not justify the murder of others, let alone doing so to advance the interests of capital exporters. Propaganda plays a very heavy role here and it's one that makes them violent chauvinists, it's how they get recruited, it's how they justify their crimes, it's how they rationalize themselves as a special class of "civilians" later, it's why vets become cops and chuds so ridiculously often. Finally, materialists will understand that classes and other groupings of people are the product of their conditions. All of the classes and groupings. Academics, thieves, volunteers, Nazis. But it's very important to separate an understanding of the genesis of these groups of people and sympathizing with them, or reminding oneself to do so for a heinous enemy group in particular.
Unrepentant vets must be treated like cops; you can only consider them assets for socialism if they reject the systems they supported as well as their part in doing so. And they are not ripe for the picking by default; they have a lot more shit to work through to end up a socialist than the average imperial core citizen.
Great points all around. Whatever someone's background or the lies they're exposed to growing up, there's no justification or excuse for playing a role in the imperial death machine. However, these might be mitigating factors, and almost everyone should have a path back to society, even if they commit serious crimes. We really need to iron out the contradiction in how we talk about people who commit violence in a criminal context and people who commit violence in an imperial context. Assuming similar individual acts, I don't think there's a big difference between someone who joins a gang at 17 and someone who joins the Army at 17. So we can't talk about rehabilitation and decarceration on one hand and then turn around and use "law and order" rhetoric on troops.
Unrepentant vets must be treated like cops; you can only consider them assets for socialism if they reject the systems they supported as well as their part in doing so. And they are not ripe for the picking by default; they have a lot more shit to work through to end up a socialist than the average imperial core citizen.
Also great points, although I'd add one thing to your last sentence (and least with respect to non-chud troops). They may have more of certain types of shit to work through to become a socialist, but a lot of them don't glamorize the military the way even a lot of left-leaning libs do. They've seen the business end of imperialism, or are at least close enough to it to know the propaganda is bullshit. That can be useful, as can the narrow but vibrant tradition of "my buddies are alright, but everyone above us is corrupt/callous/out to lunch/ignorant." This stuff isn't a step directly towards socialism, but it's a step outside political orthodoxy, which is at least headed in the right direction.
Most troops don't, either. Most don't even see combat. I'm all for holding troops responsible at an individual level, for acts they personally carried out, but the contradiction I see is that "fuck all troops forever" is the exact same rhetoric as "lock up every criminal and throw away the key." It doesn't make any sense to talk about prison abolition for a civilian who assaulted their partner but then talk about gulags for a troop who has a desk job at some base in Kansas.
Because literal act itself is not what we charge troops with. Its serving a war machine which irradiates cities. Those desk jobs serve the immiseration of the global south, they are not just harming their community, they are destroying other people's communities. Also i didn't even say throw em in gulags ever last one, I said gangs don't irradiate cities.
The point of comparison is moot, they are not comprable. Soldiers participating in an international crime and a crime against humanity are not the same as a domestic abuser. I don't give a damn where you come down on what to do with them, my objection is to the conflation of gangs with the US military. Helping a gang wont make you on some level responsible for Fallujah
I am talking about what to do with troops, and I'm saying we should treat them about as we treat other people who've committed crimes. They're closely comparable. Military crimes have their own unique dynamics, but at the end of the day they aren't that special. You mention irradiated cities, but there are tons of cities poisoned by non-military actors. Even that type of widespread, long-lasting damage happens in other contexts.
Soldiers participating in an international crime and a crime against humanity are not the same as a domestic abuser.
Look at how you're describing it: an international crime, a crime against humanity, war crimes. Fundamentally, we're talking about viewing these bad acts the same way we view more ordinary crimes, like murder, arson, burglary, etc. There are variations in severity and type (as there are with ordinary crimes), but it's not some entirely different concept.
Those desk jobs serve the immiseration of the global south
Sure, but we already punish people who indirectly further ordinary crimes. If you fix cars for a gang, or manage money for the mob, or buy a getaway car for a group of bank robbers, you can get charged with a crime even though your actions in isolation may have been a lot more mundane than directly harming someone. But (generally) you aren't going to face the same penalties as someone who is more immediately responsible for the harm.
Your argument assumes we all just agree on what should be a crime and what exactly the severity is. No I don't think fixing cars for a gang is anything like aiding in a genocide and breaking international law. Your "um actually" redditor argument is that crimes against humanity and the crime of armed robbery both are "crimes", I'm not describing anything there, I am using the words we assign to acts of war that breach international law. Stop with the "gottcha" BS, as well as just taking for granted that anyone else agrees that international law/the actions of militaries needs to be consistent with civilian and domestic law.
But (generally) you aren’t going to face the same penalties as someone who is more immediately responsible for the harm.
Yeah cool.....not the same thing as aiding in fucking war crimes.
Fundamentally, we’re talking about viewing these bad acts the same way we view more ordinary crimes, like murder, arson, burglary, etc. There are variations in severity and type (as there are with ordinary crimes), but it’s not some entirely different concept.
That's a really bold and presumptive statement. No those are not fundamentally approached the same way, nor would that mean we SHOULD approach them the same way ideally. But beyond this nonsense "argument" you have decided to have against a stance I didn't even take this is all because I said that the crimes of a gang don't equate with the crimes of a military. How is that fucking objectionable? Or better yet, what does a pencil pusher being as guilty as a bomber pilot have to do with that statement? You just concoct some insane juxtaposition and then try to debate it as if assigning us both stances in debate club.
So yeah you are wrong specifically, but also I dont fucking care about arguing the matter, cause you don't get to just decide someone else is making a certain argument out of one sentence and then debate-team it. You cannot be missing the forest for the trees, you have to be cutting down the forest with white phosphorous before sanctimoniously proclaiming there is no forest just burnt trees. You chose a weak comparison, got called on it, and decided that was an expansive argument on the concept of rehabilitation rite large. Talk to a mirror, that's evidentially what you want
edit: I just noticed the both-sides "non-military actors also irradiate cities", you just nuked the forest. Yeah those actors should be treated as criminals and having committed crimes against humanity as well. But that has no bearing on the fact that a gang is not comprable to an invading army. You somehow jump around from "well other people litter" to "well pencil pushers" in like 2 paragraphs. All because of the idea that being in a gang does not make you responsible for aiding in the destruction of an entire city. Would you try to argue that other actors other than the SS have released toxic fumes on people? Because that is the fucking point. Argue with the actual matter, not abstractions and McCardle-level musings. I get that you don't mean it, but I feel like I'm dealing with that same style right now and I wanna scream a la Matt
If you're going to be a condescending asshole we're not going to get anywhere, and you have no right to whine about anyone acting like a redditor.
I dont fucking care about arguing the matter, cause you don’t get to just decide someone else is making a certain argument out of one sentence and then debate-team it.
If 25% come from an area (not a household) with a median income of over $65K annually, doesn't that mean that 75% -- an overwhelming majority -- come from areas that make less than that?
We can't simultaneously say "the middle class has been hollowed out/the costs of a college education have skyrocketed/even once-professional jobs are being proletarianized" but then turn around and say that if your family makes more than $33K you can't really claim to have been roped in to the military by your material conditions. Sure, the military isn't primarily made up of the poorest among us. But we can't say it's mostly middle class either, because if you're raising a family on $50K, you aren't middle class in much of the country.
The other important point here is that a lot of troops are recruited as children, after being fed wall-to-wall lies about what the military actually does, all at the behest of the most pervasive propaganda machine ever created.
They're not the poorest among us because they're not homeless or part of the apartheid labor underclass of undocumented immigrants - or at least the vast majority are not.
But sure, on the scale within the imperial core, the military pulls from poorer families. However, this does not justify the murder of others, let alone doing so to advance the interests of capital exporters. Propaganda plays a very heavy role here and it's one that makes them violent chauvinists, it's how they get recruited, it's how they justify their crimes, it's how they rationalize themselves as a special class of "civilians" later, it's why vets become cops and chuds so ridiculously often. Finally, materialists will understand that classes and other groupings of people are the product of their conditions. All of the classes and groupings. Academics, thieves, volunteers, Nazis. But it's very important to separate an understanding of the genesis of these groups of people and sympathizing with them, or reminding oneself to do so for a heinous enemy group in particular.
Unrepentant vets must be treated like cops; you can only consider them assets for socialism if they reject the systems they supported as well as their part in doing so. And they are not ripe for the picking by default; they have a lot more shit to work through to end up a socialist than the average imperial core citizen.
Great points all around. Whatever someone's background or the lies they're exposed to growing up, there's no justification or excuse for playing a role in the imperial death machine. However, these might be mitigating factors, and almost everyone should have a path back to society, even if they commit serious crimes. We really need to iron out the contradiction in how we talk about people who commit violence in a criminal context and people who commit violence in an imperial context. Assuming similar individual acts, I don't think there's a big difference between someone who joins a gang at 17 and someone who joins the Army at 17. So we can't talk about rehabilitation and decarceration on one hand and then turn around and use "law and order" rhetoric on troops.
Also great points, although I'd add one thing to your last sentence (and least with respect to non-chud troops). They may have more of certain types of shit to work through to become a socialist, but a lot of them don't glamorize the military the way even a lot of left-leaning libs do. They've seen the business end of imperialism, or are at least close enough to it to know the propaganda is bullshit. That can be useful, as can the narrow but vibrant tradition of "my buddies are alright, but everyone above us is corrupt/callous/out to lunch/ignorant." This stuff isn't a step directly towards socialism, but it's a step outside political orthodoxy, which is at least headed in the right direction.
Most gangs don't irradiate a city.....emphasis on most
Most troops don't, either. Most don't even see combat. I'm all for holding troops responsible at an individual level, for acts they personally carried out, but the contradiction I see is that "fuck all troops forever" is the exact same rhetoric as "lock up every criminal and throw away the key." It doesn't make any sense to talk about prison abolition for a civilian who assaulted their partner but then talk about gulags for a troop who has a desk job at some base in Kansas.
Because literal act itself is not what we charge troops with. Its serving a war machine which irradiates cities. Those desk jobs serve the immiseration of the global south, they are not just harming their community, they are destroying other people's communities. Also i didn't even say throw em in gulags ever last one, I said gangs don't irradiate cities.
The point of comparison is moot, they are not comprable. Soldiers participating in an international crime and a crime against humanity are not the same as a domestic abuser. I don't give a damn where you come down on what to do with them, my objection is to the conflation of gangs with the US military. Helping a gang wont make you on some level responsible for Fallujah
I am talking about what to do with troops, and I'm saying we should treat them about as we treat other people who've committed crimes. They're closely comparable. Military crimes have their own unique dynamics, but at the end of the day they aren't that special. You mention irradiated cities, but there are tons of cities poisoned by non-military actors. Even that type of widespread, long-lasting damage happens in other contexts.
Look at how you're describing it: an international crime, a crime against humanity, war crimes. Fundamentally, we're talking about viewing these bad acts the same way we view more ordinary crimes, like murder, arson, burglary, etc. There are variations in severity and type (as there are with ordinary crimes), but it's not some entirely different concept.
Sure, but we already punish people who indirectly further ordinary crimes. If you fix cars for a gang, or manage money for the mob, or buy a getaway car for a group of bank robbers, you can get charged with a crime even though your actions in isolation may have been a lot more mundane than directly harming someone. But (generally) you aren't going to face the same penalties as someone who is more immediately responsible for the harm.
Your argument assumes we all just agree on what should be a crime and what exactly the severity is. No I don't think fixing cars for a gang is anything like aiding in a genocide and breaking international law. Your "um actually" redditor argument is that crimes against humanity and the crime of armed robbery both are "crimes", I'm not describing anything there, I am using the words we assign to acts of war that breach international law. Stop with the "gottcha" BS, as well as just taking for granted that anyone else agrees that international law/the actions of militaries needs to be consistent with civilian and domestic law.
That's a really bold and presumptive statement. No those are not fundamentally approached the same way, nor would that mean we SHOULD approach them the same way ideally. But beyond this nonsense "argument" you have decided to have against a stance I didn't even take this is all because I said that the crimes of a gang don't equate with the crimes of a military. How is that fucking objectionable? Or better yet, what does a pencil pusher being as guilty as a bomber pilot have to do with that statement? You just concoct some insane juxtaposition and then try to debate it as if assigning us both stances in debate club.
So yeah you are wrong specifically, but also I dont fucking care about arguing the matter, cause you don't get to just decide someone else is making a certain argument out of one sentence and then debate-team it. You cannot be missing the forest for the trees, you have to be cutting down the forest with white phosphorous before sanctimoniously proclaiming there is no forest just burnt trees. You chose a weak comparison, got called on it, and decided that was an expansive argument on the concept of rehabilitation rite large. Talk to a mirror, that's evidentially what you want
edit: I just noticed the both-sides "non-military actors also irradiate cities", you just nuked the forest. Yeah those actors should be treated as criminals and having committed crimes against humanity as well. But that has no bearing on the fact that a gang is not comprable to an invading army. You somehow jump around from "well other people litter" to "well pencil pushers" in like 2 paragraphs. All because of the idea that being in a gang does not make you responsible for aiding in the destruction of an entire city. Would you try to argue that other actors other than the SS have released toxic fumes on people? Because that is the fucking point. Argue with the actual matter, not abstractions and McCardle-level musings. I get that you don't mean it, but I feel like I'm dealing with that same style right now and I wanna scream a la Matt
If you're going to be a condescending asshole we're not going to get anywhere, and you have no right to whine about anyone acting like a redditor.
Take a long, hard look in the mirror, comrade.