GenZedong

If a current or former imperial troop turns a traitor to the empire, then that is an undeniable win. There have been many cases in US history of its troops turning against and betraying their masters, and joining the anti-war movement, and helping other troops do so also. Every single troop that does so, means less innocent people harmed. This should be encouraged and applauded.

We should see people less as static entities and identities, and more as capable of change. All communist countries (PRC, USSR, Vietnam, Cuba) during their civil wars welcomed traitors who saw the wrongness of the other side to their cause with open arms.

I also doubt the claim that many of these former troops would want you to feel sorry for them. If they didn't think they did anything wrong, then they wouldn't have joined the anti-war movements in the first place.

Frankly speaking, while I have no respect for the American, or most nations', armed forces, I hesitate to ever make that known to these people. I think going overseas to murder, or facilitate the murder of, children in the name of a nation that's been proven to not be in your interests since its very inception is morally reprehensible to say the least, though even that feels like a bit of an understatement.

However, the realpolitik cynic in me recognizes that veterans are a very valuable resource to any leftist movement. A good chunk of them, especially any who have to deal with health issues caused by their service, already hate the system for what it did to them and what they did for it. Those ones are primed to learn more about, and accept, anti-imperialist views and potentially even work towards them.

If they're unrepentant, troll the fuck out of them that's hilarious, but if they seem disillusioned I'd hold off and try to actually make some headway. And if they're on your side already, shitting on them is not a productive use of anyone's time. It won't undo what they did, and everyone involved knows that, so why bother?

I'd say it's uncontroversial and true. The armed forces of the US largely exists to maintain America's imperial dominance abroad, there is nothing valorous about going to the global south to murder the world's poorest for your own personal gain. Vets themselves have often admitted to signing up of their own volition to either have an "adventure" or to make money in some way murdering foreigners. Mike Prysner attempted to shift responsibility by laying blame on Bush, but the reality of it is that he and his friends ended up there of their own volition. Nobody sent them but themselves, there was no draft nor conscription. Plus, even if there was conscription, conscientious objectors are a thing. If people in apartheid South Africa and America during the Vietnam War could do it, there is zero reason for why it wouldn't be viable now.

Here's something that'll come off as "moralistic" and "unscientific" to the stormtrooper apologists here, but it is not in fact okay to murder foreigners in a totally unjust imperialist "operation" and you should expect no sympathy when you're injured or killed by the very people you enthusiastically signed up to murder. The only way you could disagree with this is if you view non-white/non-American lives as less valuable.

This person doesn't have a materialist analysis and doesn't show any kind of seriousness. This is the kind of cynical criticism that is common from online leftists who are disconnected with the real world.

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.

I believe that what the military does, as an institution, is unceasingly evil. Any proper approach to dismantling it, however, must come not from moralization but from a place of dialectics. The bourgeoise as a class is obviously evil; this has been understood ever since they have been understood as a class. The point is how to effectively wage class war toward a revolution.

I don't want to seem like someone who would just slap a bunch of hefty reading materials to get thru, but it's getting quite late for me. Here is the section on War in the Marx I.A.. What is missed is The Military Programme of the Proletarian Revolution by Lenin.

Do not forget that war is the continuation of policy by other means.

Strongly disagree with both the sentiment and the effect of the post.

First off, the benefits for US citizens to go kill and die in foreign countries is marginal at best. They get to have a somewhat stable job for a couple years, get broken down and rebuilt by military ideology and then thrown back into civilian life, maybe with some missing limbs or psychological damage. After that they get healthcare sometimes and fake appreciation on the telly. The poster seems to have forgotten the second half of Parenti's argument, "they're sending our kids to die to line the pockets of the rich". The rich don't go to war, they send your unemployed son to war, and as reward he gets a cheap tin badge or an obituary, and you'll be told that that's good.

Secondly, whatever cruel behaviour exhibited by US soldiers is not simply a byproduct of inherent individual traits of the soldier, but are systemic. Every bit of kindness and sense needs to be systematically excised from the mind of the soldier as soon as he enters the training grounds because the US military in itself needs to be as cruel and bloodthirsty as possible. This does not absolve individual war criminals, but to understand it as part of a system of crime older than that soldier, that will outlive him long after he's overextended his usefulness.

So as a sentiment, I think treating US soldiers as beneficiaries of war -- rather than (lesser) victims of a broader economic system that treats the Reserve Army of Labour as just the Reserve Army -- is misguided and inaccurate.

But with regards to effectiveness, one has to keep in mind that Parenti (et al) weren't just saying things to seem morally correct and on the right side of history. They were actively engaging with the public opinion in order to fight back against those wars. There's a tactic to the communication of showing that, not only the war is immoral and incorrect, but whatever benefits you think you'll get from it are a lie. You will die, your son will die, and it'll have been for nothing. Wars bring no benefit to the US working class. Without nuance, the counternarrative presented by the poster actually embelishes US wars and make them look justified from a selfish position. It's incredibly counterproductive.

It takes an enormous amount of courage to actively resist drafts and the war effort from inside the war machine. You'll be gaslit, slandered, attacked, arrested and maybe even murdered. And instead of joining you, some smartpants will just reproduce what amounts to war propaganda dressed in red/black and abstain from the struggle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_convergence

It's somewhat counter-productive and very idealist to argue that people should only be motivated by morality. The reality is that people are self-interested, even when they include larger groups of people (like family and community) in their sense of self.

White people are harmed by racism. Men are harmed by patriarchy. Torturers are harmed by torturing. None of these facts diminishes the other facts that non-white people are more harmed by racism, that non-men are harmed more by patriarchy, that the tortured are harmed more by torturing.

It is perfectly alright for white people to say that they want to end racism because it harms them. It is perfectly alright for torturers to fight against torture because it destroys them and their families. It is perfectly fine for men to fight patriarchy because it harms them.

We need that convergence of interests to move society in the direction of truth, reconciliation, reparation, and liberation.

It’s a more palpable narrative than “your children are bloodthirsty morons looking to slaughter innocents overseas”.

When people write and craft a narrative, they have an audience in mind.

Direct attacks on a person’s integrity isn’t a popular narrative. But the again, rage bait is a thing, so a change in strategy might have a positive effect.

I'm skeptical about the alleged Mao line. Would like to know what quote they're thinking of because from what I've read of Mao, the likelihood would be that if he's talking about racism in the US at all, it'd be about the dialectical aspect of it, which is not the same as excusing people of any responsibility (which would be a mechanical materialist view).

Mao was a scientist in his own way, as is the practice of ML more generally, and it's important people not confuse a scientific socialist analysis with a priest absolving people of sin.

I'm also not sure I understand the criticism included of Parenti. He was not perfect in his takes, but what is "Chomsky" about pointing out that the US empire sends its own people to die in foreign wars? This is part of its dynamic. Parenti also had things to say on how the "third world" is "not underdeveloped but overexploited". He was clear on the damage being done there, as far as I'm aware.

Prysner I have nothing to say about in the specifics. I know little about him and if he's a veteran of the US military, it's definitely possible he has some baggage and biases that steer some of his takes in a sus direction. But it could also be he is being misrepresented, considering how odd of a portrayal of Mao and Parenti the take seems to be.

I'm also just like "???" about any take with an argument that is "read too many books." People need to read more, if anything, not less! So many "hot takes" on the internet would be so much sharper if they had strong study and comprehension of that study behind them.

Spitballing here:

• If a variety of people with various degrees of leftist credibility all raise a similar idea, it at least shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
• How easy is it to fool someone who's 17 or 18?
• "I was propagandized" is not an absolution from all personal responsibility, but when the vast majority of entertainment and cultural/political/religious leaders in the U.S. tell people joining the military is fine (or even noble), that carries some weight.
• Education is a huge part of building a political movement, and education implies your audience doesn't have all the right answers to start.
• It's really hard to think of revolutionary movements that did not have a lot of help from people who once worked for the enemy. Maybe Cuba?
• It's really easy to think of examples of revolutionary movements that took revolutionary stances on how they treated even potential enemy turncoats. Mao: "Our policy towards prisoners captured from the Japanese, puppet or anti-Communist troops is to set them all free, except for those who have incurred the bitter hatred of the masses and must receive capital punishment and whose death sentence has been approved by the higher authorities."
• There's a contradiction between identifying structural problems and attributing them to the capitalist class, but also insisting on harsh treatment of low-level individual servants of the capitalist class.
• There's a contradiction between leftist views on criminal justice generally and an insistence on harsh treatment of those same low-level servants of capitalism.
• Telling a bunch of guys with guns that they deserve to die and there's nothing they can do to change that will get them to continue to fight. The way to get them to quit is to tell them there's a way they can go home.
• The gap between the harshest rhetoric and actually trying to build a real-world movement reminds me of this line from Parenti: "They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted."

Western leftists are gun shy about including broad, international ideas in their writings and critiques. Make anything global and people point at them like Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" screaming "Trotsky! Trotsky! Trotsky!" So, they tend to stay in their lane, and concentrate on the greatest threat that is effecting the world, the US.