Permanently Deleted

  • 420blazeit69 [he/him]
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is no different from "you have agency, you can just not commit crimes" personal responsibility rhetoric we see from the right. Either we believe people's material conditions influence their behavior in a way that at least lessens their responsibility or we don't.

    • cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      This is no different from “you have agency, you can just not commit crimes” personal responsibility rhetoric we see from the right.

      This is the rhetoric on the surface and in form, but in essence it serves to recognize the poor and the racialized as less than fully human, it's an attempt to paint them as not deserving of the full rights enjoyed mostly only by white cishet men. It infantilizes, pathologizes, or paints the others as barbaric savages, etc.

      Either we believe people’s material conditions influence their behavior in a way that at least lessens their responsibility or we don’t.

      We (Marxists) don't. Material conditions influence behavior and ideology, of course, but we don't justify crime because of that. If we just broadly removed responsibility of individuals because material conditions influence their behavior, we would end up removing responsibility from even the most heinous colonizers and genociders, which we do not do. We do understand how the capitalist system leads to these crimes, but we don't justify them because of it. There is a lot of difference between a poor person doing crime to help feed their family and a well-off westerner being a racist.

      We don't justify any and all crimes committed by the poor, even if we recognize the role of material conditions. If a poor person steals to feed their family, we justify it because we hold human life above private property, and we support the class struggles that lead to liberation.

      From Hegel's Philosophy of Right quoted in Losurdo:

      A man who is starving to death has the absolute right to violate the property of another; he is violating the property of another only in a limited fashion. The right of extreme need (Notrecht) does not imply violating the right of another as such: the interest is directed exclusively to a little piece of bread; one does not treat another as a person without rights.

      Us speaking about crime being driven primarily by material conditions is not a justification of it, it's an explanation, a step towards actually dealing with crime in society by addressing its root causes instead of trying to avenge it (like the current capitalist states do).

      People in the west are racist and consume racist propaganda willingly, out of rational self-interest. They benefit from it in several different ways (justification of the global order with the west on top, avoidance of state repression, social acceptance, etc.). Part of the reason why they do so is because they aren't actually aware how they can benefit from denouncing the propaganda and becoming socialists, they aren't aware of their class interests and some more long-term, universal ones. This is the point where our counter-propaganda and organizing needs to come in, we cannot just debunk the propaganda, we have to offer a positive alternative that promises people (relatively) immediate material benefits. This article goes into more details.

      • LeninWeave [none/use name]
        ·
        9 months ago

        There is a lot of difference between a poor person doing crime to help feed their family and a well-off westerner being a racist.

        Astounded that this even needed to be said.

      • pillow
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        deleted by creator

      • UmbraVivi [he/him, she/her]
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        People in the west are racist and consume racist propaganda willingly, out of rational self-interest. They benefit from it in several different ways (justification of the global order with the west on top, avoidance of state repression, social acceptance, etc.). Part of the reason why they do so is because they aren't actually aware how they can benefit from denouncing the propaganda and becoming socialists, they aren't aware of their class interests and some more long-term, universal ones. This is the point where our counter-propaganda and organizing needs to come in, we cannot just debunk the propaganda, we have to offer a positive alternative that promises people (relatively) immediate material benefits. This article goes into more details.

        You cannot argue that people buy into propaganda willingly and list "Avoidance of state repression and social acceptance" as benefits. Propaganda implicitly threatens state repression and social shunning for deviating from the imposed narrative, that is absolutely coercive. You also go on to say that there is no positive alternative, so how can you say that the consumption and acceptance of racist propaganda is at all "willing" when there is both implicit coercion and active suppression of alternatives?

        • cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          You cannot argue that people buy into propaganda willingly and list “Avoidance of state repression and social acceptance” as benefits.

          Why not? Do we not "buy out" of propaganda willingly even though we risk state repression by being communists? It's a choice we make. Not all of the ways apply to all the people, these relationships are complex for each individual, but they fall into clear patterns when looking at classes. But people do still make the choice to go counter to this. Plenty of people even in the west are not currently cheering on the genocide of Palestinians and making excuses for SS members. Plenty of people make sacrifices and help others even if it runs counter to their personal interests or societal expectations. They do this for a variety of reasons, but the point is that they do make the choice. People develop class consciousness and realize they have interests apart from the immediate ones.

          You also go on to say that there is no positive alternative

          I don't say this. The positive alternatives do exists. I said a key point of our communist propaganda should be centered around the positive alternatives, and that is true. If we want any hope of achieving socialism out of anything but the worst desperation and the worst living standards, we have to have a vision that will entice people to join us and not stay with the status quo.

          As for alternatives when it comes to the racist propaganda, people are aware they can be not racist, and many aren't racist, but the people that you see cheering for genocide and making excuses for SS members have made the choice to do so. They aren't the victims in this scenario. On every social media now you see both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel posts. You also see plenty of posts debunking the Israeli propaganda, but the racists just ignore or even attack this and continue to post their cheers for genocide.

          Propaganda implicitly threatens state repression and social shunning for deviating from the imposed narrative, that is absolutely coercive.

          Yes it does, but that doesn't stop everyone from deviating. Plenty of people deviate and even go directly counter to it. Again, in your model of propaganda, why and how are any of us communists then? Being a communist runs directly counter to nearly all incentives and falls directly under state repression. I think you give too much credit to the propaganda machine of the west and too little to the actual people, whether they buy into it or not.