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.
Literally every conversation I have with you is like talking to a wall. Condescending? You keep deciding other people's world views for them. You can't even stick to a topic, you go for 5 metaphors of varying effectiveness and then act like there is anywhere to get. Conversations don't have a preset path, nor do they have to "get anywhere", I didn't ask you for a debate team match over rehabilitation, I took objection to your point of comparison.
And then the "I know what you are but what am I" again reddit BS. You um actually everything critical of libleft positions and when facing pushback you either troll or act like this is some discussion on the future of the western left. Point is I criticized your comparison; you decided that meant an argument over prison and rehabilitation and accomplices. That's more reddit debate tactics than anything I've ever seen on this site. All you do is condescend, so if my temper seems short it's because I am tired of being dragged into a debate arena you have decided upon any time we interact.
Stop viewing every interaction as needing to "get anywhere", and stop assuming an entire argument for me based on a sentence. If comparing gangs to militaries is criticized, don't double down and start debating as if the person said anything about the rehabilitation of pencil pushers or accomplices to grand theft auto. That is condescending AF and I am tired of having to argue against points you decided for me any time we speak.
You're not a bad person, you make some good points sometimes; but I am tired of everything being an expansive debate on an entire topic every time someone pushes back on you over one specific point. You gave the game away when you admitted in your prior comment that you are talking about 1 thing, and thus any disagreement with you must be a debate on the entire subject matter and any position you hold. How the fuck is that not disingenuous? To decide that disagreeing with the comparison means that I must take the position of agreeing with the comparison but having the opposite stance on whatever matter. You decide to talk about desk jobs and rehabilitation as if I made any statement on the matter, despite the fact that my only comment and only argument as literally about NOT agreeing with the comparison. Think about that, you decided to argue over the entire matter of soldiers and guilt through the lens of gangs, in response to me disagreeing with the comparison to gangs. You took "gangs don't irradiate cities" to be a statement on the fate of pencil pushers and the rehabilitation policies towards getaway drivers. You are blogging, and dragging me along into it as if its a debate where I take the opposite position of whatever you say. Even when i agree with you, you've already decided we disagree. Of course its going nowhere, I'm talking to a wall that insists that I talk about everything but the point of contention. You'll debate every subject imaginable, except that thing someone pushes back on.
It'd be like responding to someone saying they think your criticism of the CGI in the star wars prequels is ruinous by trying to debate them on the concept of prequels as if that was their argument. It is hostile and frustrating. To say nothing of the fact that previously you responded to earnest arguments with
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
So yeah these little talks are always this way and I really should just explain that I am not interested in your debate club with
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.
Literally every conversation I have with you is like talking to a wall. Condescending? You keep deciding other people's world views for them. You can't even stick to a topic, you go for 5 metaphors of varying effectiveness and then act like there is anywhere to get. Conversations don't have a preset path, nor do they have to "get anywhere", I didn't ask you for a debate team match over rehabilitation, I took objection to your point of comparison.
And then the "I know what you are but what am I" again reddit BS. You um actually everything critical of libleft positions and when facing pushback you either troll or act like this is some discussion on the future of the western left. Point is I criticized your comparison; you decided that meant an argument over prison and rehabilitation and accomplices. That's more reddit debate tactics than anything I've ever seen on this site. All you do is condescend, so if my temper seems short it's because I am tired of being dragged into a debate arena you have decided upon any time we interact.
Stop viewing every interaction as needing to "get anywhere", and stop assuming an entire argument for me based on a sentence. If comparing gangs to militaries is criticized, don't double down and start debating as if the person said anything about the rehabilitation of pencil pushers or accomplices to grand theft auto. That is condescending AF and I am tired of having to argue against points you decided for me any time we speak.
You're not a bad person, you make some good points sometimes; but I am tired of everything being an expansive debate on an entire topic every time someone pushes back on you over one specific point. You gave the game away when you admitted in your prior comment that you are talking about 1 thing, and thus any disagreement with you must be a debate on the entire subject matter and any position you hold. How the fuck is that not disingenuous? To decide that disagreeing with the comparison means that I must take the position of agreeing with the comparison but having the opposite stance on whatever matter. You decide to talk about desk jobs and rehabilitation as if I made any statement on the matter, despite the fact that my only comment and only argument as literally about NOT agreeing with the comparison. Think about that, you decided to argue over the entire matter of soldiers and guilt through the lens of gangs, in response to me disagreeing with the comparison to gangs. You took "gangs don't irradiate cities" to be a statement on the fate of pencil pushers and the rehabilitation policies towards getaway drivers. You are blogging, and dragging me along into it as if its a debate where I take the opposite position of whatever you say. Even when i agree with you, you've already decided we disagree. Of course its going nowhere, I'm talking to a wall that insists that I talk about everything but the point of contention. You'll debate every subject imaginable, except that thing someone pushes back on.
It'd be like responding to someone saying they think your criticism of the CGI in the star wars prequels is ruinous by trying to debate them on the concept of prequels as if that was their argument. It is hostile and frustrating. To say nothing of the fact that previously you responded to earnest arguments with
:PIGPOOPBALLS:
So yeah these little talks are always this way and I really should just explain that I am not interested in your debate club with
:PIGPOOPBALLS: