how do you feel about punishing nazis in their 80s? Or about that lady that got emmett till lynched? or did they get old enough that their crimes are just who cares now to you
the problem is it's immaterial. if you want to kill them that's fine, if you want to call it justice that's fine, but it isn't meaningfully impacting anything so it isn't praxis.
at least for the purposes of the thought experiment. in reality an 80-year-old could still be contributing materially to systemic harm. in which case ridding the world of them is a good thing.
i mentioned nazis in their 80s as in people who were part of the nazi party and were later found and brought to trial during more modern times. This is also why I brought up the emmett till accuser, as she was similarly old and yet still had not faced justice. I'm saying that if you believe those people are still a harm to society, then you must also be able to see why people who were part of the US military system should fall under similar scrutiny. If that is not what you were saying, if there was a miss-step in communication then I'm sorry.
i feel like my point is being lost in the weeds of semantics and not seen for what it is, which is that I think it’s entirely fair for people to have misgivings about people who were part of the imperial complex, regardless of their current sympathies, that’s all
I spent a fair bit of time last night suggesting that maybe a veteran being "repentant" requires supporting their victims in some real way.
Really not sure why you keep going to accusing people of wanting veterans to physically suffer when in most cases its about simply not accepting war crime participants into movements and organizations, and being verbally mean to them about it.
Meme answer: kick old Nazis down the stairs etc. etc.
Serious answer: Not for me to decide, their fates are up to the victims. If they decide death penalty then so be it I will gladly help them. If not then nothing will be done. Theyre fucking old, dying, and harmless, nothing worth taking initiative on.
Tell me where I have mentioned 80 year old men, and tell me where I have mentioned physically hurting veterans as a moral service?
To my knowledge I have only ever argued that veterans should not be accepted as leftists just because after they got back and got all the nice benefits like an education or whatever, they decided to utter the correct phrases and jargon and therefore got baptised into good leftists now. Instead I think the bare minimum is that they should materially support the victims of American wars, who do not get any benefits, who get their schools blown up actually.
Some international solidarity is the bare minimum for a leftist veteran, and not just turning around and being critical of the US military, or doing mutual aid back in AmeriKKKa.
I would say that I take issue with the "improve the world" part of that, cause I dont think these veterans would really want to improve the world so much as improve the immediate circumstances in the US.
But Im not sure if arguing further is going to be very productive, seems like its a lot of semantics now and its getting really late.
This is a really good critique, comrade. We need to be thinking about goals and outcomes. Retribution and justice may be good motivators for people to rally around, but they're immaterial concepts in and of themselves.
At least my overall point is that these soldiers seem to primarily care about their personal outcomes, and the outcomes for people in America.
While largely ignoring the outcomes of countries victimised by Americas military beyond the idea that if there's revolution or reform in the US that will also make the US stop victimising these countries.
It's not fuck you got mine but more like "sorry for you, at least I got mine." The analysis of goals and outcomes can't end at the border of the states.
People like to bring up veterans in thr Black Panthers, but they certainly expressed international solidarity with the victims of US imperialism and supported their struggle.
While my personal experience with veterans of the Middle East is that in most cases their activism is focuses on just getting the US out of interventions, without really focusing on the primary victims.
I agree with you in general, my problem is with the moralistic framing. But largely I think the conclusion is the same. It's an important distinction, though, for acute or other circumstances where a moralistic framing and a materialist framing have different conclusions.
Moralistic framing of this is saying veterans are a lost cause because of past action / sin. Materialist framing would say veterans might be a lost cause because they don't have much revolutionary potential as a demographic, in my opinion, due to a variety of material and cultural influences.
But if somehow veterans as a demographic did have revolutionary potential, it would be important to recognize this and capitalize on it, rather than letting moralism cloud our judgement. Before the draft was abolished, for example, there was less selection for ideological purity, meaning a larger subsection of the demographic might be receptive to anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist sentiment. But I'm skeptical that the "poverty draft" has enough of a similar effect, even among veteran minorities. It may still be a useful long-term goal to see if we can come up with effective strategies to radicalize soldiers/veterans.
deleted by creator
how do you feel about punishing nazis in their 80s? Or about that lady that got emmett till lynched? or did they get old enough that their crimes are just who cares now to you
the problem is it's immaterial. if you want to kill them that's fine, if you want to call it justice that's fine, but it isn't meaningfully impacting anything so it isn't praxis.
at least for the purposes of the thought experiment. in reality an 80-year-old could still be contributing materially to systemic harm. in which case ridding the world of them is a good thing.
deleted by creator
nazi vets in their 80s still cause harm but people who were part of the US imperial machine dont?
deleted by creator
i mentioned nazis in their 80s as in people who were part of the nazi party and were later found and brought to trial during more modern times. This is also why I brought up the emmett till accuser, as she was similarly old and yet still had not faced justice. I'm saying that if you believe those people are still a harm to society, then you must also be able to see why people who were part of the US military system should fall under similar scrutiny. If that is not what you were saying, if there was a miss-step in communication then I'm sorry.
i feel like my point is being lost in the weeds of semantics and not seen for what it is, which is that I think it’s entirely fair for people to have misgivings about people who were part of the imperial complex, regardless of their current sympathies, that’s all
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I spent a fair bit of time last night suggesting that maybe a veteran being "repentant" requires supporting their victims in some real way.
Really not sure why you keep going to accusing people of wanting veterans to physically suffer when in most cases its about simply not accepting war crime participants into movements and organizations, and being verbally mean to them about it.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Meme answer: kick old Nazis down the stairs etc. etc.
Serious answer: Not for me to decide, their fates are up to the victims. If they decide death penalty then so be it I will gladly help them. If not then nothing will be done. Theyre fucking old, dying, and harmless, nothing worth taking initiative on.
I am going to jump on that 80 year old mans head so he becomes a squished man of exactly halved height.
deleted by creator
Tell me where I have mentioned 80 year old men, and tell me where I have mentioned physically hurting veterans as a moral service?
To my knowledge I have only ever argued that veterans should not be accepted as leftists just because after they got back and got all the nice benefits like an education or whatever, they decided to utter the correct phrases and jargon and therefore got baptised into good leftists now. Instead I think the bare minimum is that they should materially support the victims of American wars, who do not get any benefits, who get their schools blown up actually.
Some international solidarity is the bare minimum for a leftist veteran, and not just turning around and being critical of the US military, or doing mutual aid back in AmeriKKKa.
deleted by creator
I would say that I take issue with the "improve the world" part of that, cause I dont think these veterans would really want to improve the world so much as improve the immediate circumstances in the US.
But Im not sure if arguing further is going to be very productive, seems like its a lot of semantics now and its getting really late.
deleted by creator
This is a really good critique, comrade. We need to be thinking about goals and outcomes. Retribution and justice may be good motivators for people to rally around, but they're immaterial concepts in and of themselves.
At least my overall point is that these soldiers seem to primarily care about their personal outcomes, and the outcomes for people in America.
While largely ignoring the outcomes of countries victimised by Americas military beyond the idea that if there's revolution or reform in the US that will also make the US stop victimising these countries.
It's not fuck you got mine but more like "sorry for you, at least I got mine." The analysis of goals and outcomes can't end at the border of the states.
People like to bring up veterans in thr Black Panthers, but they certainly expressed international solidarity with the victims of US imperialism and supported their struggle.
While my personal experience with veterans of the Middle East is that in most cases their activism is focuses on just getting the US out of interventions, without really focusing on the primary victims.
I agree with you in general, my problem is with the moralistic framing. But largely I think the conclusion is the same. It's an important distinction, though, for acute or other circumstances where a moralistic framing and a materialist framing have different conclusions.
Moralistic framing of this is saying veterans are a lost cause because of past action / sin. Materialist framing would say veterans might be a lost cause because they don't have much revolutionary potential as a demographic, in my opinion, due to a variety of material and cultural influences.
But if somehow veterans as a demographic did have revolutionary potential, it would be important to recognize this and capitalize on it, rather than letting moralism cloud our judgement. Before the draft was abolished, for example, there was less selection for ideological purity, meaning a larger subsection of the demographic might be receptive to anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist sentiment. But I'm skeptical that the "poverty draft" has enough of a similar effect, even among veteran minorities. It may still be a useful long-term goal to see if we can come up with effective strategies to radicalize soldiers/veterans.