hopefully i don’t get called a lib for this but i have been feeling quite a bit of uncertainty when it comes to Jewish people who have been indoctrinated into Zionism and Americans , and partially people from other western nations , who have either due to economic distress or due to indoctrination joined the military . don’t get me wrong both are absolutely privileged , especially those Jewish people who live in occupied Palestine , however i feel that they aren’t fully responsible for their harmful beliefs . of course this doesn’t excuse acting on their beliefs , but from testimonies of people who have rid themselves of those beliefs its not an easy thing to do (i have been particularly affected by Matt Leib’s , of the BadHasbara podcast , comparison between fighting off his heroin addiction and his Zionism) .
they are of course not the people who are most victimised , however i feel somewhat uneasy about blaming them for not doing the work of deindoctrinating themselves , especially as , especially those who joined the American military , they are really mistreated . a lot of propaganda is explicitly about making those who benefit from the ideology maintained by it to feel unsafe , therefore , in their minds , justifying violent actions .
like this mostly matters for those who are on the path if deindoctrinating themselves , even if they themselves have not realised that yet , for example a ex military member who is struggling with trauma over actions they made in while deployed or someone who has been raised in a Israeli settlement questioning the morality of living there , beyond the usual labor Zionist stuff . i definetly don’t think that , sorry for the extreme example , someone who relives pressing down the trigger of a sniper riffle and the bloody effects of what happened after , especially if they were aware then or were made aware later that the person they killed was a noncombatant , that their actions were wrong . i think that helping them towards the realisation that its a wider issue is the better option .
like this isn’t very well put together but like just wanted to throw this out and have someone say if i’m not insane or just the usual over empathic stuff .
on language
feel free to replace each usage of “person” with “entity” , i wanted to make this more readable to those outside the ΘΔ space
Ultimately it is difficult to brainwash people against their perceived material interests. People latch on to narratives where the perceived cost going against it is worse than going with it.
“Blame” may end up being an attempt to draw a clean line between a person and their environment where none such exists. If, for example a class of people refuse to support a peoples’ self determination and progression then they probably have a vested interest against it, and then attempting to convince the former to against their perceived interests maybe futile.
If you can make a narrative reflecting the truth where the target person could potentially see benefits within the short term and ends up being a material benefit to the cause, then it may be worth it. I just have very little sympathy for those who managed to level up to the very minimum of humanity by being sorry for their participation in war crimes. If they are truly sorry then they can join the resistance* (actual not nominal).
We should be materialists and not based on vibes. Growing up in the west and attempting to shed liberal frameworks is not easy because for a lot of us it goes against our class interests.
(*I don’t believe in idealistic nonsense about submitting oneself to some imagined neutral court to be “punished” for said war crimes. Make yourself useful instead.)
We should be materialists and not based on vibes. Growing up in the west and attempting to shed liberal frameworks is not easy because for a lot of us it goes against our class interests.
Which class? It goes not against the class interest of the proletariat.
The history of all hitherto existing human society is the history of class struggles. - Marx
There were subjugated non-proleteriat classes now and then.
The term class is not something categorically distinct and opposed to gender and nation. Genders and nations are classes for example.
Dominic Losurdo’s class struggles is a good one for further reading if interested.
Your answer answered not my question. You said, that shedding liberal frameworks goes against our class interest. Also, about which class are you speaking, that we are part off?
Genders and nations are classes for example.
Genders are definitely not a class. Also not a nations. This is wild, where did you read it?
As a westerner, you are part of a class that subjugates the global south.
Nations of peoples and genders are definitely classes.
Genders are definitely not a class. Also not a nations. This is wild, where did you read it?
I mean you could at least feign reading what I wrote.
If one is not to consider nations as classes then what part of marxism would national liberation theory come from? What of Engel’s Orgin of the Family with regards to gender (which has since been developed further)? Think about the consequences here if you do not think about them as classes.
This is not wild stuff. This is basic marxism. Otherwise you will end up with the likes of the ACP and Trots
As a westerner, you are part of a class that subjugates the global south.
Nations of peoples and genders are definitely classes.
Classes are the result of the social division of labor under the constraint of economic scarcity. Members of different classes differ economically from one another in terms of their position in the system of social production. Or to let Lenin speak:
The fundamental criterion by which classes are distinguished is the place they occupy in social production, and, consequently, the relation in which they stand to the means of production. Appropriation of one part or another of the social means of production and its application to private enterprise, to undertakings organised for the sale of the product, is the fundamental distinction of one class in present-day society (the bourgeoisie) from the proletariat, which is deprived of the means of production and sells its labour-power.
Gender and nation are not a class. This is in total contradiction to Marxism. You can talk about an Australian working class, but you can’t talk about Australians as a class per se. That makes no sense. Same with gender.
If one is not to consider nations as classes then what part of marxism would national liberation theory come from?
It is about oppressed peoples in an colonised country fighting against imperialism, even if this means that the working class allies itself with the own bourgeoisie. But this does not create a class of its own. In the end the own bourgeoisie has to be fought as well.
What of Engel’s Orgin of the Family with regards to gender (which has since been developed further)? Think about the consequences here if you do not think about them as classes.
This book does not state genders as classes. It shows clearly what the origin of family is and how it is strongly connected to private property.
This is not wild stuff. This is basic marxism. Otherwise you will end up with the likes of the ACP and Trots
Definitely not, really. It is pretty clear, what a class is. You can’t call everything a class. That seems to be antagonising with something.
You have now got a problem, either marxism-leninism as a science of political theory is inadequate or your understanding is incomplete (including what you quoted).
Let’s take your Australian as example. Let’s make him a white male factory worker. Could he, despite being a proleterian, subjugate women or non-whites? If he were to do so, does he do so as individual or as part of a class with systemic features that allows him to enact his power? What do we say is the first division of labor? What is the relationship of the proleteriat in the imperial cores with those from the peripheries? How would a liberal answer these questions? What do you make of Losurdo (or Sankara? Claudia Jones? Kollontai? Fonesca? Fanon? Rodney?)
These aren’t gotchas. And I’m side-stepping your condescension in attempt to answer in good faith but my patience is thin. (It’s fine not to know and explore. It is not fine to confidently double down on ignorance, which is the impression you are giving off)
Would you be happy for me to use your responses and turn it into a post? I’m sure you are not the only one who thinks like this.
