Because they're still part of an overall culture with distinct blocs of moral beliefs that they can fall into. People are perfectly capable of the cognitive dissonance of genuinely believing that racism is bad while still supporting fundamentally racist systems that benefit them personally, and they're also capable of selective empathy/personability where to some people they are kind and human, while to others they are cold and cruel.
That even applies to cops, who can be personally affable and charismatic (even if just conditionally) while at the same time standing shoulder to shoulder with complete monsters and being perfectly prepared to commit atrocities against the people.
I feel like there's this assumption that monsters have to always openly be monsters, that if someone is cruel and domineering they must always be so to everyone, that if someone is reactionary in some ways they must be reactionary in all ways. It's certainly true that they must be judged by the worst of their actions and there is a sort of comfort in assuming the villains must only be that because it makes it easier to envision them being brought to account for their actions and the harm both they and the systems that feed them have caused, but when that gets in the way of understanding how they act that assumption can be a problem: these villains are still people, and they're full of cognitive dissonance that allows them to be coldly monstrous to some and warm and caring to others, and regardless of them being people they still need to be stopped, and to face punishment for the grievous harm they have caused.
I think as marxists it is necessary to not have illusions about morality. Often we have to engage in bourgeois morality in order to justify our actions to both those we are trying to win over and ourselves. But in the end, we have to realize our struggle is based on power, not morality. Morality is a mere afterthought that justifies the power relations that exist, not the other way around. Our violence will not punishment as an end, but a mean to transform power relations. Our very position guarantees that all of what we do are just.
That's akin to my point: that it's psychologically appealing to see the people who are causing so much harm as nothing but pits of depravity and bile, and while that is true for some of them most are more complex and some may even do some good things, and that we have to understand that that complexity and nuance doesn't change a single thing about what must be done. There's not some moral scale to weigh their good deeds against their evil ones, and we don't need to pretend that such a scale must tip overwhelmingly one way in order to justify ending the harm they are doing and taking measures to stop further harm.
Because they're still part of an overall culture with distinct blocs of moral beliefs that they can fall into. People are perfectly capable of the cognitive dissonance of genuinely believing that racism is bad while still supporting fundamentally racist systems that benefit them personally, and they're also capable of selective empathy/personability where to some people they are kind and human, while to others they are cold and cruel.
That even applies to cops, who can be personally affable and charismatic (even if just conditionally) while at the same time standing shoulder to shoulder with complete monsters and being perfectly prepared to commit atrocities against the people.
I feel like there's this assumption that monsters have to always openly be monsters, that if someone is cruel and domineering they must always be so to everyone, that if someone is reactionary in some ways they must be reactionary in all ways. It's certainly true that they must be judged by the worst of their actions and there is a sort of comfort in assuming the villains must only be that because it makes it easier to envision them being brought to account for their actions and the harm both they and the systems that feed them have caused, but when that gets in the way of understanding how they act that assumption can be a problem: these villains are still people, and they're full of cognitive dissonance that allows them to be coldly monstrous to some and warm and caring to others, and regardless of them being people they still need to be stopped, and to face punishment for the grievous harm they have caused.
I think as marxists it is necessary to not have illusions about morality. Often we have to engage in bourgeois morality in order to justify our actions to both those we are trying to win over and ourselves. But in the end, we have to realize our struggle is based on power, not morality. Morality is a mere afterthought that justifies the power relations that exist, not the other way around. Our violence will not punishment as an end, but a mean to transform power relations. Our very position guarantees that all of what we do are just.
That's akin to my point: that it's psychologically appealing to see the people who are causing so much harm as nothing but pits of depravity and bile, and while that is true for some of them most are more complex and some may even do some good things, and that we have to understand that that complexity and nuance doesn't change a single thing about what must be done. There's not some moral scale to weigh their good deeds against their evil ones, and we don't need to pretend that such a scale must tip overwhelmingly one way in order to justify ending the harm they are doing and taking measures to stop further harm.