China may also have provided Iran with a long-range early-warning radar that spots stealth aircraft meant to evade detection, people familiar with the matter tell NBC News
You have no real argument so you’re inventing shit to argue against, debate pervert.
You are the only one trying to quantify moral culpability, and you’re the one trying to claim “materialism” in your “analysis” of the innocence of fascist foot soldiers. You’re the one misusing baby’s first Marxist terminology to try to morally whitewash the fascism inherent to every atom of the imperialist machine.
The imperialist machine reproducing itself through financial incentive isn’t fucking insightful, it’s basic Marxism 101 shit. It’s also non-unique and fundamentally flattens moral considerations because everyone does what they do for reasons. And it’s already been addressed why selling out your fellow workers for financial benefit isn’t a defense.
Graduate from middle school and read more than half the Manifesto, I beg of you.
But it really is an indictment of the Western left that the sole purpose of your “material analysis” seems to be negotiating the minutiae of moral culpability of individuals in the fascist machine. Fully defanged bastardization of actual theory from people whose only exposure is memes and videos.
You’re not avoiding moral culpability. You’re making a moral claim and then refusing any distinctions inside it.
Calling every participant a class traitor who deserves no sympathy is not material analysis. It is a culpability claim. My point is not that material incentives make enlistment innocent. My point is that agency, hierarchy, coercion, information access, and decision-making power change the kind and degree of responsibility.
“Everyone has reasons” is not a rebuttal. Some reasons are structurally produced, some roles are coerced, some roles command, some profit, some design policy, and some are recruited into executing it. If your framework cannot distinguish those positions, it is not more radical. It is just less precise.
Yes, I understand the point you keep mindlessly parroting because I actually read your comments before replying. I’ll address it once again: analyzing marginal moral culpability is a fundamentally idealist notion at best so to try to involve rudimentary “materialist analysis” is laughable. The system recreates itself, people are influenced by material interests, great. Baby-level Marxism.
If you want to do actual material analysis, first you’re gonna have to put some work in and study concrete material data, not some abstract fantasy of a clean wehrmacht impoverished US soldier forced to kill people cause they wanna go to fucking college. Then use that analysis to determine the class character of different segments of the people you’re examining, so that you can then identify real praxis opportunities, weak points in the structure, organizing and radicalization potential.
Then you can go out and do shit instead of bloviating about the marginal moral purity of fascist footsoldiers and questioning whether non-bootlickers have ever experienced “real hardship” like these “poor” middle class settlers (then panicking when your adhom doesn’t apply and falling back on freshman-level debate tactics)
You are trying to exit the moral argument after making one.
“Class traitor,” “deserves no sympathy,” and “selling out fellow workers” are moral culpability claims. If culpability analysis is useless idealism, stop making culpability claims. If culpability matters, then agency, hierarchy, coercion, role, and decision-making power matter.
And yes, a serious class analysis would require concrete data about different segments of the military: class background, recruitment pathway, role, incentives, command authority, and organizing potential. That supports my point. It means distinguishing segments inside the institution, not collapsing recruit, commander, contractor, policymaker, and profiteer into one condemned category.
That is the difference between analysis and category assignment.
Again again: morality and moral statements are not what I’m arguing against, I’m arguing against a bastardization of baby-level Marxism that conflates material analysis for moral analysis to try to justify marginal culpability. From a moral perspective, I don’t care what self-benefit you and your settler friends got from the child-killing machine, you’re morally monsters and deserve to rot in pain.
From a Marxist perspective, we can examine the systemic mechanisms that produce this human behavior so we can try to engage with it to achieve desired outcomes, e.g. the liberation of the global working class (not the moral absolution of the white imperial “working” class). But to use echoes of memes of Marxist theory for a moralist analysis like you keep pathetically attempting to do is an idealist perversion of Marxism.
I’ll remind you of the dumbass “argument” you tried to start this with:
You have no real argument so you’re inventing shit to argue against, debate pervert.
You are the only one trying to quantify moral culpability, and you’re the one trying to claim “materialism” in your “analysis” of the innocence of fascist foot soldiers. You’re the one misusing baby’s first Marxist terminology to try to morally whitewash the fascism inherent to every atom of the imperialist machine.
The imperialist machine reproducing itself through financial incentive isn’t fucking insightful, it’s basic Marxism 101 shit. It’s also non-unique and fundamentally flattens moral considerations because everyone does what they do for reasons. And it’s already been addressed why selling out your fellow workers for financial benefit isn’t a defense.
Graduate from middle school and read more than half the Manifesto, I beg of you.
But it really is an indictment of the Western left that the sole purpose of your “material analysis” seems to be negotiating the minutiae of moral culpability of individuals in the fascist machine. Fully defanged bastardization of actual theory from people whose only exposure is memes and videos.
You’re not avoiding moral culpability. You’re making a moral claim and then refusing any distinctions inside it.
Calling every participant a class traitor who deserves no sympathy is not material analysis. It is a culpability claim. My point is not that material incentives make enlistment innocent. My point is that agency, hierarchy, coercion, information access, and decision-making power change the kind and degree of responsibility.
“Everyone has reasons” is not a rebuttal. Some reasons are structurally produced, some roles are coerced, some roles command, some profit, some design policy, and some are recruited into executing it. If your framework cannot distinguish those positions, it is not more radical. It is just less precise.
Yes, I understand the point you keep mindlessly parroting because I actually read your comments before replying. I’ll address it once again: analyzing marginal moral culpability is a fundamentally idealist notion at best so to try to involve rudimentary “materialist analysis” is laughable. The system recreates itself, people are influenced by material interests, great. Baby-level Marxism.
If you want to do actual material analysis, first you’re gonna have to put some work in and study concrete material data, not some abstract fantasy of a
clean wehrmachtimpoverished US soldier forced to kill people cause they wanna go to fucking college. Then use that analysis to determine the class character of different segments of the people you’re examining, so that you can then identify real praxis opportunities, weak points in the structure, organizing and radicalization potential.Then you can go out and do shit instead of bloviating about the marginal moral purity of fascist footsoldiers and questioning whether non-bootlickers have ever experienced “real hardship” like these “poor” middle class settlers (then panicking when your adhom doesn’t apply and falling back on freshman-level debate tactics)
You are trying to exit the moral argument after making one.
“Class traitor,” “deserves no sympathy,” and “selling out fellow workers” are moral culpability claims. If culpability analysis is useless idealism, stop making culpability claims. If culpability matters, then agency, hierarchy, coercion, role, and decision-making power matter.
And yes, a serious class analysis would require concrete data about different segments of the military: class background, recruitment pathway, role, incentives, command authority, and organizing potential. That supports my point. It means distinguishing segments inside the institution, not collapsing recruit, commander, contractor, policymaker, and profiteer into one condemned category.
That is the difference between analysis and category assignment.
Again again: morality and moral statements are not what I’m arguing against, I’m arguing against a bastardization of baby-level Marxism that conflates material analysis for moral analysis to try to justify marginal culpability. From a moral perspective, I don’t care what self-benefit you and your settler friends got from the child-killing machine, you’re morally monsters and deserve to rot in pain.
From a Marxist perspective, we can examine the systemic mechanisms that produce this human behavior so we can try to engage with it to achieve desired outcomes, e.g. the liberation of the global working class (not the moral absolution of the white imperial “working” class). But to use echoes of memes of Marxist theory for a moralist analysis like you keep pathetically attempting to do is an idealist perversion of Marxism.
I’ll remind you of the dumbass “argument” you tried to start this with: