I sincerely disagree. 15,000 members of the US Armed Forces do not move the needle on the US' imperial might (which ultimately is predicated on financial domination and vassals, not military prowess). 15,000 marginalized people within the armed forces, however, represented a prime tactical advantage for a revolutionary political movement. See: Aaron Bushnell.
Obviously we can talk back and forth all day long about how the US armed forces can never be truly radicalized because of their position as footsoldiers of capital, but the hard material reality is that the American left is deficient in firepower but the military is full of possible fellow travelers. Remember that the Chinese Red Army was mostly made up of Nationalist deserters. How do you expect to be successful without a significant fifth column?
Yeah, 7deadlyfetishes, but I'm taking a very different position here. He more or less came at it from a position of tailism, that the left ought to try to appeal to troops to bring them in. I think something very different, the left still ought to be the vanguard in front, I'm just saying that dismissing the utility of the troops that might be politically aligned with our cause is a mistake. We shouldn't sacrifice even 1 bit of our correctness for the sake of appealing to fascists, troops, cops, etc etc. But you really mean to tell me with a straight face that the correct move, tactically or strategically, is to turn away any would-be collaborators within the institutions we oppose? When they might want to do exactly the same thing we want to do?
I agree with you. Besides, I think disenchantment can be a powerful motivator for somebody to go through a change in values, and start to act in reparation of their victims. It happened in South Africa, it's happening in Colombia, and it is a very important part of moving past damaging conflict.
If they're technical support personnel they'd be even more valuable fifth columnists.
I'll admit that what others in the thread said is true, trans troops are troops first and marginalized second, but if we categorically dismiss the tactical utility of potential collaborators we can't succeed.
Those 15,000 aren't just combat roles and grindable meat; a lot of them are in support and technical roles. There are a lot of roles in which removing 1 person creates a sizable inconvenience for many and can harm operations. You are correct that trans people are overrepresented as saboteurs in the military, but almost all of those people joined pre-transition and seeing the contradictions of US empire radicalized them. The trans people who have transitioned and then joined are more often than not dyed-in-the-wool believers in the US empire who don't have the same opportunity for radicalization.
Which is exactly why I think it's a bad thing that this is happening now. If this happened because they represented a threat in the order of the US military then it'd be a good thing, they'd join the communists. But the fact that it's just happening as a random action to pander to chuds is, in my estimation, an unforced W for American empire and the rare accidental strategic good move, denying the enemy (us!) a valuable advantage in the future.
True, but it's not like they're organized. If this was happening 10 years from now with an actual organized left that could quickly take the opportunity I'd more readily agree with you. Taking the opportunity away from us to turn these people into allies preemptively is surely a negative.
It does beg the question of where they'll go from here.
I sincerely disagree. 15,000 members of the US Armed Forces do not move the needle on the US' imperial might (which ultimately is predicated on financial domination and vassals, not military prowess). 15,000 marginalized people within the armed forces, however, represented a prime tactical advantage for a revolutionary political movement. See: Aaron Bushnell.
Obviously we can talk back and forth all day long about how the US armed forces can never be truly radicalized because of their position as footsoldiers of capital, but the hard material reality is that the American left is deficient in firepower but the military is full of possible fellow travelers. Remember that the Chinese Red Army was mostly made up of Nationalist deserters. How do you expect to be successful without a significant fifth column?
Didn't a big poster start a struggle session and eventually got banned for defending the "troops are workers" position?
Yeah, 7deadlyfetishes, but I'm taking a very different position here. He more or less came at it from a position of tailism, that the left ought to try to appeal to troops to bring them in. I think something very different, the left still ought to be the vanguard in front, I'm just saying that dismissing the utility of the troops that might be politically aligned with our cause is a mistake. We shouldn't sacrifice even 1 bit of our correctness for the sake of appealing to fascists, troops, cops, etc etc. But you really mean to tell me with a straight face that the correct move, tactically or strategically, is to turn away any would-be collaborators within the institutions we oppose? When they might want to do exactly the same thing we want to do?
I agree with you. Besides, I think disenchantment can be a powerful motivator for somebody to go through a change in values, and start to act in reparation of their victims. It happened in South Africa, it's happening in Colombia, and it is a very important part of moving past damaging conflict.
lets not do clean wehrmacht but in the USAF now.
Somehow I don't think those 15,000 trans people in the USAF are majorily frontline infantry
If they're technical support personnel they'd be even more valuable fifth columnists.
I'll admit that what others in the thread said is true, trans troops are troops first and marginalized second, but if we categorically dismiss the tactical utility of potential collaborators we can't succeed.
On reflection I see my point was confusing, that's what I was getting at
Those 15,000 aren't just combat roles and grindable meat; a lot of them are in support and technical roles. There are a lot of roles in which removing 1 person creates a sizable inconvenience for many and can harm operations. You are correct that trans people are overrepresented as saboteurs in the military, but almost all of those people joined pre-transition and seeing the contradictions of US empire radicalized them. The trans people who have transitioned and then joined are more often than not dyed-in-the-wool believers in the US empire who don't have the same opportunity for radicalization.
Not only depriving the military of those skillsets and capacities, but absorbing them for ourselves
There is no outlet to absorb these people though. They just go back to capitalism rather than joining the bolsheviks
Which is exactly why I think it's a bad thing that this is happening now. If this happened because they represented a threat in the order of the US military then it'd be a good thing, they'd join the communists. But the fact that it's just happening as a random action to pander to chuds is, in my estimation, an unforced W for American empire and the rare accidental strategic good move, denying the enemy (us!) a valuable advantage in the future.
Not en masse no, and I think developing the capacity to do so is gonna be an increasingly good bet as things get more tense, fractious and doomy
15,000 marginalized people with military training that just got betrayed by their own government can, also, represent a tactical advantage.
True, but it's not like they're organized. If this was happening 10 years from now with an actual organized left that could quickly take the opportunity I'd more readily agree with you. Taking the opportunity away from us to turn these people into allies preemptively is surely a negative.
It does beg the question of where they'll go from here.
It hasn't happened yet.
Not a lot of time to get organized, but not impossible either... not that I expect anyone to even try.