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 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 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: