This is based on a myopic view of utility. If it actually benefitted the world, the answer is obviously yes, but it nearly never could because an active serial rapist or murderer is a liability to any institution other than a trafficking ring.
From watching how "abandon morality" gets used here and elsewhere in the US left I don't know that it is terribly useful because it gets used for almost anything. Or if it is going to be useful people need to agree on what it actually means. Seems like playing with fire to me unless you are positive all the people reading it are going to understand what you mean. Just an observation.
I'm not saying abandon personal morality, I am saying abandon moralism, i.e. ideology based on moral tenets rather than consequences. The fact that others say bad shit and use similar words means no more to me than the fact that the US describes itself as "liberating" places while we all are (I assume) genuine liberationists.
Wasn't a shot at you and I'm not enough of a nerd to have an opinion about what is right or wrong regarding theory, just something I noticed. It seems to mean different things to everyone.
Pretty much this. The ends justify the means, but that's useless without the caveat that the means should actually be something that helps you achieve your ends.
As to the topic of the OP, I agree with your point but I don't have enough knowledge on the topic to know how useful vets are. The few comments I've seen that deal with peoples' concrete organizing experience as opposed to moral handwringing make it seem that they're more often liabilities than they are assets.
Sure, I have not much of a stance on exactly what proportion of vets can be rehabilitated prior to revolution, my main argument is that their military training is a major plus in some cases as well as their relative fitness, but injuries (physical and mental) and personal chauvinism and myopia are minuses to how useful they are. I'm not saying we need every single one of them or to accept all who apply, just that they have uses that should be seriously considered (and weighed against the detriments!). Vets need vetting, we could say.
"Nearly never could." That's why you're arguing that it's a-ok to court countless actual murderers (imperial troops) for the cause. Because their utility to the imminent revolution that's about to happen any second in the west outweighs the fact that they've been content so far to kill brown farmers in the global south. Got it.
I never said anything about an imminent revolution, but there are other practices like community defense where the necessity is already upon us. If they tell you that it was cool to slaughter brown farmers, you probably don't want them around, but if they want to participate in a party aimed at the destruction of the state that they used to serve, they probably had a change of heart at some point.
This is based on a myopic view of utility. If it actually benefitted the world, the answer is obviously yes, but it nearly never could because an active serial rapist or murderer is a liability to any institution other than a trafficking ring.
From watching how "abandon morality" gets used here and elsewhere in the US left I don't know that it is terribly useful because it gets used for almost anything. Or if it is going to be useful people need to agree on what it actually means. Seems like playing with fire to me unless you are positive all the people reading it are going to understand what you mean. Just an observation.
I'm not saying abandon personal morality, I am saying abandon moralism, i.e. ideology based on moral tenets rather than consequences. The fact that others say bad shit and use similar words means no more to me than the fact that the US describes itself as "liberating" places while we all are (I assume) genuine liberationists.
Wasn't a shot at you and I'm not enough of a nerd to have an opinion about what is right or wrong regarding theory, just something I noticed. It seems to mean different things to everyone.
Sure, I just wanted to explain myself a little in case I wasn't clear.
Pretty much this. The ends justify the means, but that's useless without the caveat that the means should actually be something that helps you achieve your ends.
As to the topic of the OP, I agree with your point but I don't have enough knowledge on the topic to know how useful vets are. The few comments I've seen that deal with peoples' concrete organizing experience as opposed to moral handwringing make it seem that they're more often liabilities than they are assets.
Sure, I have not much of a stance on exactly what proportion of vets can be rehabilitated prior to revolution, my main argument is that their military training is a major plus in some cases as well as their relative fitness, but injuries (physical and mental) and personal chauvinism and myopia are minuses to how useful they are. I'm not saying we need every single one of them or to accept all who apply, just that they have uses that should be seriously considered (and weighed against the detriments!). Vets need vetting, we could say.
"Nearly never could." That's why you're arguing that it's a-ok to court countless actual murderers (imperial troops) for the cause. Because their utility to the imminent revolution that's about to happen any second in the west outweighs the fact that they've been content so far to kill brown farmers in the global south. Got it.
I never said anything about an imminent revolution, but there are other practices like community defense where the necessity is already upon us. If they tell you that it was cool to slaughter brown farmers, you probably don't want them around, but if they want to participate in a party aimed at the destruction of the state that they used to serve, they probably had a change of heart at some point.