GenZedong

The post is vulgar Marxism and highlights a worrying trend on the Left where we've begun to conflate victimhood with goodness, insisting that a true victim cannot also be a perpetrator because a victim must always be sympathetic. This is a moralistic, unscientific conclusion that ignores ample evidence to the contrary such as how cops and soldiers are still ultimately proles* within the class dynamics of a capitalist society and subject to all the same neglect and abuses. They are enforcers of the system and benefit from the system, yes. They are also victims of it and exploited by it. This is nuance; not a contradiction and it's not "infantilizing" anyone to point this out.

What's more the user is wrong about Parenti, Prysner, and Mao for separate reasons.

Parenti is speaking primarily to an American audience which has been desensitized to the suffering of foreign peoples because of the chauvinism inherent in our culture that conditions us to dehumanize whatever is alien to us from a young age; thus the easiest way to make anti-imperialism an appealing position to Americans is by pointing out how Americans are harmed by hawkish foreign policy. You don't have to like it but it has been the most successful anti-war talking point in America so far and it's only because of it that greater discussions on the effects of imperialism have been made possible by teaching Americans to have empathy first for their own and then for others.

Prysner was speaking passionately and angrily. He drew these emotions from the memory of his dead friends, with whom he obviously had a close connection (they were his friends after all). Naturally their memory is the first invoked because he had a stronger bond with them than anyone in Iraq and so were the first to come to his mind. This doesn't mean he values Iraqi lives less and it's disingenuous to suggest that it does. Obviously his friends are going to mean more to him than strangers. That is totally, normally human.

Mao is partially correct in his analysis though I don't know for certain how much of said analysis is being excluded by the user quoting him as I haven't read the work in question. Regardless: White Americans are responsible for racism up to a point. But racism itself predates the USA and is an integral feature of the capitalist system. What I assume Mao is referring to when he says White Americans "aren't responsible" for racism is that White Americans can't simply get rid of racism without also getting rid of capitalism because capitalism keeps white supremacy in place. The issue is more than simply cultural; it is systemic. Without systemic change any victories on the cultural front are meaningless and temporary.

As much as we may want to pretend like agents of empire are all faceless ghouls that exist for no other reason than to rape children and murder babies this is not a Marxist analysis but us venting our frustrations. Or at least it should be. Reality is not black and white; there are layers of complexity. I'm not saying we should sympathize with imperial cops/soldiers or try to advocate for them and bring them over to our side or whatever. I won't tolerate anyone accusing me of such. That is slander and you can look through my many posts of celebrating the deaths of cops & soldiers to see that is not what I believe at all. What I am saying is that if you go out and tell people you're trying to persuade to become Marxists that agents of empire are all inherently evil to the core and believe in nothing but rape and murder the only thing you will succeed in doing is convincing people that you're crazy and just want to kill people and they will be unable to distinguish you from a fascist.

We can beat our enemies without dehumanizing them and that requires an analysis free of pearl-clutching moralism. Leave that to the liberals.