
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
This is not materialism. It is moral flattening with Marxist language.
Yes, the U.S. military is an imperial institution, and service members are implicated in what it does. But treating an enlisted 19-year-old, a general, a defense contractor, and a senator as morally identical erases class pressure, hierarchy, coercion, and actual decision-making power.
People can be responsible without being equally responsible. Recruitment works because healthcare, education, housing, and stable work are inaccessible to many people. That does not make enlistment innocent, but it does make “they’re all just selfish class traitors” a lazy analysis.
The machine matters. So do the conditions that feed people into it.
You are dressing up moralism in Marxist language. Marxist materialism has fuck all to do with moral culpability, which is the topic at hand.
If you want to talk about the tactical utility of radicalizing current and former US soldiers, that is where a material analysis is useful. I’ll toss whatever ethical considerations aside if it means advancing the liberation of the global working class.
But trying to use surface-level Marxist language to minimize the moral responsibility of fascist foot soldiers is equally hilarious and disgusting.