Check out this GOP site attacking anti-war Americans, and linking Obama with Ayers

[MarxistMan]

Hello all, this is just to warn you against The Republican Party and T Party histeria in the nation. These people are crazy.

check out this site, it's a site done by a loyal fan of neocons and the Republican Party, and critisizing anti-war americans, and linking Bill Ayers, with Obama. Note: This site looks like its done by a radical ultra-nationalist american, you know one of those people who think that the US constitution is God-ordained, and the US founding fathers were saints. These people are very dangerous and crazy. In that site they are even attacking Oliver Stone, Bruce Willy and other actors. Remember that fascists have desdain for artists and intellectuals:

http://www.capveterans.com/national_veterans_memorials_protection/id110.html

Check this other link with a picture that says: "Now it's personal". Sounds like the murder threats of the T Baggers against Gabrielle Giffords:

http://www.americans-working-together.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpat h=http://www.americans-working-together.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/billboard2.jpg&target=tlx_new


.

[Ele'ill]

Portland :lol:

(I think)


http://www.capveterans.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/fuck_the_troops3.jpg

[ComradeMan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is an example of how to alienate people. The banner saying "fuck the troops" serves nothing other than to alienate the hundreds of thousands of people involved with the US army and their families etc. It's shortsighted and bad propaganda. Why not show an injured soldier for example, the cannon fodder and have a banner saying "bring the troops home"?

Although I doubt not that their sentiments be sincere I think their propaganda and way of going about things is wrong. On the face of it they just look like a rather small group of angry students and drop-outs and won't really be taken seriously by the vast majority of people whom they are seeking to convince.

[Milk Sheikh]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is an example of how to alienate people. The banner saying "fuck the troops" serves nothing other than to alienate the hundreds of thousands of people involved with the US army and their families etc. It's shortsighted and bad propaganda. Why not show an injured soldier for example, the cannon fodder and have a banner saying "bring the troops home"?


Good point.:) People listen if and only if they're told how they are being deceived, how they are suffering, how it's in their best interests to end this all. Merely stating something, even if it be a fact, is useless; explaining how that fact affects their lives and hopes and dreams will have a better effect.

[hatzel]

I like how the OP seems to think that we've...you know...never heard of the Tea Party before..."hey, guys, look at this right-wing group I've discovered! And they say some craaaaazy shizzle" :laugh:

[Ele'ill]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is an example of how to alienate people. The banner saying "fuck the troops" serves nothing other than to alienate the hundreds of thousands of people involved with the US army and their families etc. It's shortsighted and bad propaganda. Why not show an injured soldier for example, the cannon fodder and have a banner saying "bring the troops home"?

Although I doubt not that their sentiments be sincere I think their propaganda and way of going about things is wrong. On the face of it they just look like a rather small group of angry students and drop-outs and won't really be taken seriously by the vast majority of people whom they are seeking to convince.

http://portland.indymedia.org/media/images/2007/03/356336.jpg

[Ele'ill]

In Portland, a city with a relatively large leftist presence, it becomes cool for some to hold the most extreme views and then present them. As you can see- there are about three people in the first photo and quite the weak number in the second. I wasn't there for this but I can make a very educated guess that the message wasn't incredibly popular. I'm sure a lot of us feel the same as those in these photos- 'those troops aren't mine' and 'fuck their atrocities' however, networking with say IVAW, would be a more strategic course of action- which perhaps they eventually did. With this said I have less of a problem with the second picture and more of a problem with the first.

[Ele'ill]

Good point.:) People listen if and only if they're told how they are being deceived, how they are suffering, how it's in their best interests to end this all. Merely stating something, even if it be a fact, is useless; explaining how that fact affects their lives and hopes and dreams will have a better effect.

There are usually people handing out flyers and hanging back to talk to groups coming out of stores and such. Let's not twist around the purpose of demonstration- if I watched what was going on in WI I'd have no idea- it takes a little effort from both parties.

[resurgence]

This is an example of how to alienate people. The banner saying "fuck the troops" serves nothing other than to alienate the hundreds of thousands of people involved with the US army and their families etc. It's shortsighted and bad propaganda. Why not show an injured soldier for example, the cannon fodder and have a banner saying "bring the troops home"?
.

Last I heard the US Army wasnt a conscript one and therefore we are talking about people in a wealthy country with social welfare deliberately deciding to take money in order to kill, torture and devil knows what people who are no threat to them or their families. So yes "Fuck the Troops!". And "Bring the Troops home"? As if soldiers of capitalist professional armies are people you want to have around the place anywhere.

[Amphictyonis]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is an example of how to alienate people.

Support the capitalists but not capitalism! Wait, I mean...

The "troops" should be given jobs here at home. There's a reason so many people join the military. Some are sociopaths and want to kill, fuck them, others have no career waiting for them out of highschool and no college to go to. These are the ones we should empathize with. The capitalist system no matter what generates 'surplus population' because full employment can never be reached. If full employment were actually facilitated capitalism would implode- profits would be impossible. Workers would be able to demand too much. Capitalists depend on a unemployed population to nip at the feet of the employed. People within this (structurally) unemployed population many times end up in prisons or in the military.

Heck, with modern advancing technology the US could dominate the globe with hardly any troops at all. I somewhat agree with you, the troops aren't really the problem the the general mentality they hold is a problem. Especially after boot camp.

[Tim Finnegan]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is an example of how to alienate people. The banner saying "fuck the troops" serves nothing other than to alienate the hundreds of thousands of people involved with the US army and their families etc. It's shortsighted and bad propaganda. Why not show an injured soldier for example, the cannon fodder and have a banner saying "bring the troops home"?
A very fair point, especially given that "the troops" are largely working class, quite often from impoverished backgrounds, and disproportionately comprised of people of colour. The very people that the left has the best opportunities to win over- the working class, particularly African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans- are on the end of that "fuck" far more than the upper class white people who start the damn wars.


Last I heard the US Army wasnt a conscript one...
And last thing I heard, Starbucks doesn't press-gang their baristas. Doesn't mean I can't be pissed off about how they treat them,

[Ele'ill]

A very fair point, especially given that "the troops" are largely working class, quite often from impoverished backgrounds, and disproportionately comprised of people of colour. The very people that the left has the best opportunities to win over- the working class, particularly African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans- are on the end of that "fuck" far more than the upper class white people who start the damn wars.

Then you'd support cops as well, no? (I mean support as in sympathize with)



And last thing I heard, Starbucks doesn't press-gang their baristas. Doesn't mean I can't be pissed off about how they treat them,

When Starbucks hires workers those workers are expecting a job serving customers- it's basically food industry/customer service. When someone enlists in the military they are aware of shooting, bombing, occupying etc.. They are being trained to kill.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I joined the military and they trained me to run a nuclear reactor. I haven't shot a gun since boot camp.

Just saying.

[Ele'ill]

I joined the military and they trained me to run a nuclear reactor. I haven't shot a gun since boot camp.

Just saying.

But your purpose is to make sure that the military killing machine operates at 100% efficiency.

[Tim Finnegan]

Then you'd support cops as well, no? (I mean support as in sympathize with)
Is there a significant enough class division within the police force to warrant it? In my experience, the police plant themselves firmly in the middle class (or "managerial class" or "coordinator class", or however you fancy it) and against the workers.


When Starbucks hires workers those workers are expecting a job serving customers- it's basically food industry/customer service. When someone enlists in the military they are aware of shooting, bombing, occupying etc.. They are being trained to kill.Sure enough, and that's a black mark on their soul (metaphorical or literal, you pick). However, that's not how the majority of the working class see it, and wandering into a working class community and proclaiming it to be a nest of murdering fascists isn't going to win you any friends. "Against the war, for the troops" is, however distasteful we may individually feel it to be, a position that contemporary left-wing movements are compelled by circumstance to take.

[Ele'ill]

Sure enough, and that's a black mark on their soul (metaphorical or literal, you pick). However, that's not how the majority of the working class see it, and wandering into a working class community and proclaiming it to be a nest of murdering fascists isn't going to win you any friends. "Against the war, for the troops" is, however distasteful we may individually feel it to be, a position that contemporary left-wing movements are compelled by circumstance to take.

I think the issue is that this relatively true message requires too much back-story to uphold its validity within the immediate circumstances- it's an overly complex punch-line. It boils down to tactics and conveying a message clearly.

With this said I think they have every right to voice their anger at an occupation which acts as a global police force I just don't think they were specific enough.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R-V6V8RIfpI/AAAAAAAAMQk/72NwzWFTx_w/s400/frag+the+war.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WMpSC7nK3os/RdfzguwfVPI/AAAAAAAAADE/mxMplrmTJYw/s320/Traitor+frag+protest.1.gif

[Lt. Ferret]

as someone who obviously deals with troops every fucking day of my life, nobody i know is a torturing murderer, and i know many people that have had multiple deployments. they go overseas, get paid and dont get taxed, and come home.

blaming "the troops" for the actions of some deranged individuals is like blaming all black people for the crimes of a few. its stupid, its wrong, and its irrational.


so yeah, protests where people scream "fuck the troops" might as well say "fuck niggers" in its ignorance.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Last I heard the US Army wasnt a conscript one and therefore we are talking about people in a wealthy country with social welfare deliberately deciding to take money in order to kill, torture and devil knows what people who are no threat to them or their families. So yes "Fuck the Troops!". And "Bring the Troops home"? As if soldiers of capitalist professional armies are people you want to have around the place anywhere.
I think you have it a little twisted. I know a few people who have joined the military because they don't really see another option and are pretty anti-military themselves. They get out of school, can't pay for college(Or if they somehow can will be in debt for decades if they do), can't find a job, and don't want to be homeless/living at a shelter. So they join the military and hope they will never have to be deployed. And if they do I'm pretty sure they'd jump ship and head to Canada. Point being not everyone in the military is a guy who grew up on first person shooters and thought it would be cool to go shoot people in real life.

[Ele'ill]

as someone who obviously deals with troops every fucking day of my life, nobody i know is a torturing murderer, and i know many people that have had multiple deployments. they go overseas, get paid and dont get taxed, and come home.

I've seen lots of sharks but never seen a shark attack something- sharks don't attack anything ever.


blaming "the troops" for the actions of some deranged individuals is like blaming all black people for the crimes of a few. its stupid, its wrong, and its irrational.


so yeah, protests where people scream "fuck the troops" might as well say "fuck niggers" in its ignorance.

The purpose of 'troops' as in 'military' is to function as a killing machine. Their purpose is to kill and destroy- from the cook to the infantry soldier and they facilitate each other's roles to maintain 100% efficiency. :rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

inasmuch as anyone who works is a supporter of capitalism, i suppose. but nobody says fuck the workers.

[Ele'ill]

inasmuch as anyone who works is a supporter of capitalism, i suppose. but nobody says fuck the workers.

My occupation doesn't inherently involve directly participating in the most brutal and horrific acts possible within that system with the purpose of maintaining that system which is, to put it absurdly brief and overly light, very anti worker.

I assume that 'inasmuch as anyaoyea who works ain supporter of capoilistm' is in reference to our past conversations. :rolleyes:

[Lt. Ferret]

no but i dont do anything that involves torturing civilians to death, so i dont see why im included in fuck the troops. i would imagine "fuck the troops who indulge in torturing people to death" is more accurate but not as good a slogan.

[Ele'ill]

no but i dont do anything that involves torturing civilians to death, so i dont see why im included in fuck the troops. i would imagine "fuck the troops who indulge in torturing people to death" is more accurate but not as good a slogan.

'Torturing civilians' isn't exclusively the main problem. 'Fuck the troops who occupy and kill on behalf of the ruling class'- oh.

[Jose Gracchus]

I dunno about you all, but I intend on fighting to win. And that means substantial working class elements from the military-security apparatus must defect or desert. Or we'll all end up like Rosa Luxembourg. :(

[RGacky3]

inasmuch as anyone who works is a supporter of capitalism, i suppose. but nobody says fuck the workers.


Do you really actually believe that its the same thing? Or are you just tyring to say something.

[bcbm]

inasmuch as anyone who works is a supporter of capitalism, i suppose. but nobody says fuck the workers.

yes our continued existence as "workers" or "troops" supports the reproduction of these constricting and ultimately repressive and destructive subjectivites and we must abandon and/or destroy them in order to achieve our full human potentialities.

[ComradeMan]

http://portland.indymedia.org/media/images/2007/03/356336.jpg


All very risqué etc, but how does that create solidarity among the workers or spread class-consciousness?
:rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

I think the issue is that this relatively true message requires too much back-story to uphold its validity within the immediate circumstances- it's an overly complex punch-line. It boils down to tactics and conveying a message clearly.
Yeah, that's the problem with holding a position outside of the narrowly defined "mainstream"- it so often does not fit on a reasonably sized placard!


With this said I think they have every right to voice their anger at an occupation which acts as a global police force I just don't think they were specific enough.

http://bp2.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R-V6V8RIfpI/AAAAAAAAMQk/72NwzWFTx_w/s400/frag+the+war.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_WMpSC7nK3os/RdfzguwfVPI/AAAAAAAAADE/mxMplrmTJYw/s320/Traitor+frag+protest.1.gif
That's perhaps a bit closer to the mark. :lol:


I've seen lots of sharks but never seen a shark attack something- sharks don't attack anything ever.
When you consider that most sharks don't attack anything, ever, but that the poor public image they have is part of the reason that the animal rights movement has had such a hard time challenging the brutal and inhumane practices of shark finning... That's not the best analogy. :(

[Lt. Ferret]

Do you really actually believe that its the same thing? Or are you just tyring to say something.


yeah, i do. you work, you support capitalism, and you let the government tax your labor, to continue its military adventures.

i wish more communists ran to the hills but it wont happen anytime soon.

[B5C]

I don't hate the soldiers. They doing a job that most Americans will not do. I just hate them being a tool for American Imperialism and the MIC.

I was an Army brat for most of my life and my father served 20 years. The only reason he stayed because the US Army helped to support my family. If he found another job that would support my family he would. Yet during the times of the early 80s recession. There were no jobs for a struggling artist and then my mother got pregnant with me, so this left my father with a last option. Sign up.

[Bud Struggle]

All very risqué etc, but how does that create solidarity among the workers or spread class-consciousness?
:rolleyes:

That's not Revolution--that's Street Theatre.

[Ele'ill]

All very risqué etc, but how does that create solidarity among the workers or spread class-consciousness?
:rolleyes:


By lighting the effigies of those who oppress them on fire. I thought that was obvious.


That's not Revolution--that's Street Theatre.

Yes, it quite literally is! People love skits and stuff! Hence demonstration. You're on the right track bud!


yeah, i do. you work, you support capitalism, and you let the government tax your labor, to continue its military adventures.

i wish more communists ran to the hills but it wont happen anytime soon.

I am one hundred percent positive that I already replied to this.


I don't hate the soldiers. They doing a job that most Americans will not do. I just hate them being a tool for American Imperialism and the MIC.

I was an Army brat for most of my life and my father served 20 years. The only reason he stayed because the US Army helped to support my family. If he found another job that would support my family he would. Yet during the times of the early 80s recession. There were no jobs for a struggling artist and then my mother got pregnant with me, so this left my father with a last option. Sign up.

So he signed up to kill on behalf and in defense of the system that didn't provide enough jobs to begin with. This sounds like perpetual war against the working poor.

[Tim Finnegan]

So he signed up to kill on behalf and in defense of the system that didn't provide enough jobs to begin with. This sounds like perpetual war against the working poor.
The same could be said of anyone who labours on behalf of bourgeois institutions- bank tellers, government clerks, the cafeteria workers in government buildings, whatever. The only fundamental distinction is this "signed up to kill" business, and it really is more complicated than that seems to allow. These people aren't joining the SS, after all.

[Ele'ill]

The same could be said of anyone who labours on behalf of bourgeois institutions- bank tellers, government clerks, the cafeteria workers in government buildings, whatever.

Those occupations, without getting into specifics and at face value, are not the same in purpose served.



The only fundamental distinction is this "signed up to kill" business, and it really is more complicated than that seems to allow. These people aren't joining the SS, after all.

It strikes me as being one of the most lethally invasive and transparent occupations one could 'apply for'.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

But your purpose is to make sure that the military killing machine operates at 100% efficiency.

Oh yes absolutely. Without a nuclear navy there it would be much more difficult for the US to impose its will wherever it wants.

That being said I was responding to you saying everyone in the military was trained to kill. I've had non of this, just a lot of training on nuclear physics, engineering, and technology.

Blaming someone like me for what happens is like blaming the man who shoveled coal deep in the belly of a dreadnought for the British occupation of India.

[B5C]

So he signed up to kill on behalf and in defense of the system that didn't provide enough jobs to begin with. This sounds like perpetual war against the working poor.

Also the US Army taught him to become a engine repair and air conditioning service. He never had to go too a lot of war zones he was mainly support and as a trainer. The only two war zones he had to go was occupation of Panama and NATO invasion of Kosovo.

Why do they always send in the poor? Is always a logical question.
zUzd9KyIDrM

[Tim Finnegan]

Those occupations, without getting into specifics and at face value, are not the same in purpose served.
Mechanically, yes, but they all serve the same end, which is to say, they all uphold the capitalist system. If that is your issue with servicepeople- and I would argue that it is indeed a legitiamte issue- then it must be more widely applied. Otherwise you're not actually addressing this as an anti-capitalist, merely as an anti-militarist.


It strikes me as being one of the most lethally invasive and transparent occupations one could 'apply for'.Of course, but that doesn't justify glossing over the complex and varied motivations of those who join. An impoverished African-American lad who joins up because it is the one place where he get an education, spends the entirety of his time fixing transport aircraft, and never once fires a gun in anger, is not the same as an upper-class WASP who signs up to be a front line officer for the sake of nationalistic glory manifested through shooting Muslims.


Why do they always send in the poor? Is always a logical question.
Exactly. The last time when the upper classes actually "did their duty", as they would have it, was in WWI, and that mostly acted as the final scouring of the aristocracy, the young bourgeoisie generally finding something less landmine-y to do with their four years.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I believe people in the military use the patriotic stuff to make them feel better as their marriage falls apart. Extremely few fucks join because they want to kill muslims. Or, at the very least, muslims exclusively.

[Lt. Ferret]

edit : this was inappropriate.

[Ele'ill]

Mechanically, yes, but they all serve the same end, which is to say, they all uphold the capitalist system. If that is your issue with servicepeople- and I would argue that it is indeed a legitiamte issue- then it must be more widely applied. Otherwise you're not actually addressing this as an anti-capitalist, merely as an anti-militarist.

Is it not applied widely? Police, banks, military, politicians


I believe a public display of dissatisfaction towards the occupation(job) works just fine.






Of course, but that doesn't justify glossing over the complex and varied motivations of those who join. An impoverished African-American lad who joins up because it is the one place where he get an education, spends the entirety of his time fixing transport aircraft, and never once fires a gun in anger, is not the same as an upper-class WASP who signs up to be a front line officer for the sake of nationalistic glory manifested through shooting Muslims.

What are your thoughts on 'Fuck the police?'





Exactly. The last time when the upper classes actually "did their duty", as they would have it, was in WWI, and that mostly acted as the final scouring of the aristocracy, the young bourgeoisie generally finding something less landmine-y to do with their four years.

Find a purpose through assisting in the carpet bombing of others. :rolleyes:

Set a village ablaze- go to college. :rolleyes:

Maim children etc..

What's the attraction to it? Money? Fuck them.

[Ele'ill]

well my marriage is falling apart, insomuch as shes a cheating whore now and were done. cept im not a patriot so i dont have anything to fall back on.

balls in your court, awkward mcgee.

I understand you're going through some shit but don't post like that here where it isn't allowed. If you feel the absolute compulsive need to post something of the like- pm me or turn your computer off. It's offensive.

[The Douche]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is an example of how to alienate people. The banner saying "fuck the troops" serves nothing other than to alienate the hundreds of thousands of people involved with the US army and their families etc. It's shortsighted and bad propaganda. Why not show an injured soldier for example, the cannon fodder and have a banner saying "bring the troops home"?

Although I doubt not that their sentiments be sincere I think their propaganda and way of going about things is wrong. On the face of it they just look like a rather small group of angry students and drop-outs and won't really be taken seriously by the vast majority of people whom they are seeking to convince.

As a currently serving US Army enlisted man, allow me to say, with no hesitation

FUCK THE TROOPS.

[B5C]

As a currently serving US Army enlisted man, allow me to say, with no hesitation

FUCK THE TROOPS.

I only thank you because you have a right to do so, and I proud of it. Even though most of military are not murders. A good chunk of them only to serve because there was no options left.

[Ele'ill]

there was no options left.

I've seen the 'no options left' scenario play out with quite a few friends and upon talking things over with them, watched them realize that they were going to fight for the future survival of 'no options left' actually existing.

They had options left- those options just weren't as easy as 'sign up and fall in line'.

[ComradeMan]

As a currently serving US Army enlisted man, allow me to say, with no hesitation

FUCK THE TROOPS.

Well done. What does that achieve? :rolleyes:

[Bud Struggle]

Well done. What does that achieve? :rolleyes: Everytime someone says that it puts off the Revolution for another 50 years.

[Le Libérer]

Everytime someone says that it puts off the Revolution for another 50 years.

How so? I thought when the troops start turning against their government, its a sign revolution is nigh.

[resurgence]

Everytime someone says that it puts off the Revolution for another 50 years.

Why? :confused:

[RGacky3]

How so? I thought when the troops start turning against their government, its a sign revolution is nigh.


Why? :confused:

Don't .... just .... don't. Believe me, your not gonna get anything.

[Ele'ill]

Everytime someone says that it puts off the Revolution for another 50 years.

You mean 'What does that achieve?' puts the revolution off or 'Fuck the troops' puts the revolution off?

[Lt. Ferret]

I understand you're going through some shit but don't post like that here where it isn't allowed. If you feel the absolute compulsive need to post something of the like- pm me or turn your computer off. It's offensive.


were having a discussion about fuck the troops, and im being offensive?

[Ele'ill]

were having a discussion about fuck the troops, and im being offensive?

Yes.

[RGacky3]

You know whats really innappropriate? Bringing up personal stuff in this threat, whats even more innappropriate is someone trying to respond to it who does'nt have the excuse of having a shitty thing happen.

Leave it alone.

[Lt. Ferret]

thecultofabelincoln brought up divorce in the military. is spraying insults vaguely acceptable, as long as its not pinpointed? this whole thread is fucking stupid and only getting stupider. we're debating "fuck the troops" for god's sake.

[Ele'ill]

thecultofabelincoln brought up divorce in the military. is spraying insults vaguely acceptable, as long as its not pinpointed? this whole thread is fucking stupid and only getting stupider. we're debating "fuck the troops" for god's sake.

Stop.

[Lt. Ferret]

i edited my post. if the guys that quoted me want to edit theres thatd be nice.



okay guys so fuck the troops. knowwhatimsayin? :thumbup1:

[Bud Struggle]

How so? I thought when the troops start turning against their government, its a sign revolution is nigh.

All I'm sating is that by saying "fuck the troops" you put people off, Proletarians that have sons and cousins or fought on Vietnam or Korea. You have to win these people to your cause not insult them swo they listen to Glenn Beck.

Remember the military is 99% Proletarian.

[Tim Finnegan]

Is it not applied widely? Police, banks, military, politicians

I believe a public display of dissatisfaction towards the occupation(job) works just fine.
I don't believe that it is widely applied, no. I've seen lots of people with signs saying "fuck the bankers" (a commendable sentiment), but not so many with signs saying "fuck bank tellers", which would be the logical conclusion of a broad "fuck the ____" policy.


What are your thoughts on 'Fuck the police?'First and foremost, that "the police" is far more ambiguous a term than "the troops", as it refers to an institution as well as to a collection of individuals. The slogan arose as a protest against systematic racism within an institution, not as a declaration that all police officers should individually go and die in a hole.


Find a purpose through assisting in the carpet bombing of others. :rolleyes:And the same cannot be said of the guy who works in the plant that makes the planes? What is it about stepping into a uniform that transforms your collaboration from merely distasteful to outright heinous?


Set a village ablaze- go to college. :rolleyes:

Maim children etc..

What's the attraction to it? Money? Fuck them.That is a counter-productive attitude if you wish to win the working class to your movement. Around one in thirty Americans has served or is serving in the military, most of them working class, and you cannot hope to win mass support if you insist on alienating them, their families, and their friends by declaring them to be murderous baby-killing fascists.

[Luís Henrique]

What are your thoughts on 'Fuck the police?'

No.

I would prefer to force them into sexual abstinence.

But the discussion, at this level of abstraction, is ridiculous. What police, secret political police, or traffic guards? Anti-riot squads or crime-scene teams?

"Fuck the troops" isn't revolutionary, it is petty-bourgeois posturing. "No blood for oil", even if it is simplistic in its assumption that those wars have a single cause, is much more appropriate if the objective is to raise opposition to war.

Luís Henrique

[resurgence]

Remember the military is 99% Proletarian.

No its not...They maybe from Proletarian backgrounds but they are not part of the Proletariat in the Marxist understanding of the term. They the hired guns of the Capitalist class.

[Tim Finnegan]

No its not...They maybe from Proletarian backgrounds but they are not part of the Proletariat in the Marxist understanding of the term. They the hired guns of the Capitalist class.
That the particular form their wage labour takes is used to sustain the capitalist system does not make them non-proletarian. That's like saying that the clerk who files eviction notices isn't a proletarian, because he too serves in the waging of class war.

[resurgence]

That the particular form their wage labour takes is used to sustain the capitalist system does not make them non-proletarian. That's like saying that the clerk who files eviction notices isn't a proletarian, because he too serves in the waging of class war.

Is a hired gun of the mafia also a proletarian? They are part of the state, the means of domination and not part of production and distribution as such.

[Tim Finnegan]

Is a hired gun of the mafia also a proletarian?
Well, arguably, yes. When did we decide to equate "proletarian" with "virtuous"?


They are part of the state, the means of domination and not part of production and distribution as such.Does "proletariat" necessarily refer to participation in "production and distribution as such"? If it does, then you're certainly excluding the aforementioned government clerk. If, instead, we understand "proletarian" as referring those compelled to sell their labour power because they own no capital, then both of them are most certainly proletarians, merely proletarians in distasteful occupations.

[resurgence]

Well, arguably, yes. When did we decide to equate "proletarian" with "virtuous"?
.

No Im not...But you are confusing the membership of the apparatus of capitalist domination with the proletariat.

[RGacky3]

I seriously doubt hitmen for the mafia work for a wage.

BTW these arguments when you get into is a hitman a proletarian or not are a waste of time. The exact definition does'nt really matter that much.

[B5C]

I seriously doubt hitmen for the mafia work for a wage.

BTW these arguments when you get into is a hitman a proletarian or not are a waste of time. The exact definition does'nt really matter that much.

Ok how about the shoe maker who has to make boots for the Army? How about the farmer who has to give his food too the state to support the Army?

[RGacky3]

they work for a wage so chances are I'd classify them as proletariat.

THe more important question is why does it matter?

[Bud Struggle]

No its not...They maybe from Proletarian backgrounds but they are not part of the Proletariat in the Marxist understanding of the term. They the hired guns of the Capitalist class.

But these guys haven't read Marx--and wouldn't believe him if they did. Thay are working people from working class families and they think they are helping the world become a better place. You say, "Fuck them" and you created enemies out of them and their friends and family forever.

You try to instruct them--maybe you have a chance.

If people take everything Marx says as 100% accurate--Communism will look like, well it will look like it does in the world today.

Besides as Luis Henrique said--calling people names like this is just Bourgeoisie posturing.

[ComradeMan]

I seriously doubt hitmen for the mafia work for a wage.

BTW these arguments when you get into is a hitman a proletarian or not are a waste of time. The exact definition does'nt really matter that much.

:laugh:

Fundamentally, said Michael Corleone, I am surrounded by businessmen, not loyal soldiers...;)

The mafiosi are the capitalists par excellence except they do not have the "legal" monopoly on violence as the state does and don't abide by the same ethics- but their "maths" works on the same bases.

[Ele'ill]

I don't believe that it is widely applied, no. I've seen lots of people with signs saying "fuck the bankers" (a commendable sentiment), but not so many with signs saying "fuck bank tellers", which would be the logical conclusion of a broad "fuck the ____" policy.

I think that has to do with the fact that bank tellers aren't involved in decision making or operational processes in the same way that say retail clerks don't have a choice but to accept a wage job, aren't involved in corporate decisions to cut jobs etc use labor violations to their advantage etc where as military personnel are most definitely part of the machine of harm. In fact I'd argue that they are to the full extent and are concious about it if by a slim chance not before enlistment than most certainly after indoctrination and training.


First and foremost, that "the police" is far more ambiguous a term than "the troops", as it refers to an institution as well as to a collection of individuals. The slogan arose as a protest against systematic racism within an institution, not as a declaration that all police officers should individually go and die in a hole.

I think it's identical to 'fuck the troops' and related sentiment however I want to point back to my original statement made about the slogan being a broken punch-line- perhaps its lack of usage in comparison to 'fuck the police' gives it an alien appearance. I think the messages are identical as the 'troops' are police abroad.


And the same cannot be said of the guy who works in the plant that makes the planes? What is it about stepping into a uniform that transforms your collaboration from merely distasteful to outright heinous?

I wouldn't blame the common worker of a weapon's manufacturer for the deaths caused by the intent of others. I would blame those at the top, their interests, their intent, their sales and distribution.



That is a counter-productive attitude if you wish to win the working class to your movement. Around one in thirty Americans has served or is serving in the military, most of them working class, and you cannot hope to win mass support if you insist on alienating them, their families, and their friends by declaring them to be murderous baby-killing fascists.

Many of them are murderous with babies being among the death tolls. I never claimed they were fascists. What's dishonest is the attempt to censor outrage at the existence of such occupations as police and police abroad. As I stated earlier I personally wouldn't have used the wording seen on the banner but I have a hard time rejecting it outright.

[Tim Finnegan]

No Im not...But you are confusing the membership of the apparatus of capitalist domination with the proletariat.
The "apparatus of capitalist domination" is, fundamentally, capitalist society. None of us are outside it, we're just embedded to varying depths.


I seriously doubt hitmen for the mafia work for a wage.
I do not understand the concept of "wage labour" to refer to a literal hourly wage.


I think that has to do with the fact that bank tellers aren't involved in decision making or operational processes in the same way that say retail clerks don't have a choice but to accept a wage job, aren't involved in corporate decisions to cut jobs etc use labor violations to their advantage etc where as military personnel are most definitely part of the machine of harm. In fact I'd argue that they are to the full extent and are concious about it if by a slim chance not before enlistment than most certainly after indoctrination and training.
Well, yes, military personnel are often involved in the direct causing of harm in a way which civilian workers are not, but that's a moral criticism of those servicemen who consciously volunteer to do harm, not a political criticism of all servicepeople. I certainly so reason to give a Department of Defence clerk a pass while damning an army cook, just because one of them happens to wear a uniform.


I think it's identical to 'fuck the troops' and related sentiment however I want to point back to my original statement made about the slogan being a broken punch-line- perhaps its lack of usage in comparison to 'fuck the police' gives it an alien appearance. I think the messages are identical as the 'troops' are police abroad.It's similar, certainly, but not identical; "fuck the police" is a statement against individual police officers insofar as they represent an institution plagued with injustice, while "fuck the troops" is a statement against individual servicepeople in and of themselves. It's intended as an inversion of slogans like "support our troops", which are explicitly in reference to individual sevicepeople, and to the the military establishment- and, in fact, are sometimes used as statements against that establishment, as in "Support the troops, end the war".


I wouldn't blame the common worker of a weapon's manufacturer for the deaths caused by the intent of others. I would blame those at the top, their interests, their intent, their sales and distribution.But you'd plane an air force mechanic, an army medic and a navy janitor? Again, I must ask, what is it about uniforms that is so despicable?


Many of them are murderous with babies being among the death tolls. I never claimed they were fascists. What's dishonest is the attempt to censor outrage at the existence of such occupations as police and police abroad. As I stated earlier I personally wouldn't have used the wording seen on the banner but I have a hard time rejecting it outright.You can express as much outrage as you like, but you must remember that for that outrage to actually build up to anything, for it to be more than a scream into the void, you need popular support, and that is not something that you can ever win by actively alienating a huge portion- quite possibly the majority- of the working class. I mean, nobody's asking you to turn up at military funerals and weep, just not to turn up at then and laugh.

And I apologise for the use of "fascist". It was merely intended as a generic slur against servicepeople, not as an attempt to put words in your mouth.

[resurgence]

But these guys haven't read Marx--and wouldn't believe him if they did. Thay are working people from working class families and they think they are helping the world become a better place. You say, "Fuck them" and you created enemies out of them and their friends and family forever.
.

So what?

In my experience Proletarians have a tougher and tougher position on Imperialist troops the closer they get to seeing them in action. Maybe if they raped your mum or shoved a broom stick up your dad's ass or killed your mate you wouldnt be saying these things. Armies do NOT exist just look nice and be there you know?

[resurgence]

The "apparatus of capitalist domination" is, fundamentally, capitalist society. None of us are outside it, we're just embedded to varying depths.
.

The state is outside of society in that it is over it. Its not waitresses who come out on the street to suppress rebellions or factory hands that go off to foreign lands to make sure resources stay under Imperialist control...I mean seriously, THINK!

[Tim Finnegan]

The state is outside of society in that it is over it. Its not waitresses who come out on the street to suppress rebellions or factory hands that go off to foreign lands to make sure resources stay under Imperialist control...I mean seriously, THINK!
The state is itself part of the "apparatus of capitalist domination" of which you spoke; it is, as Marx said, "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie", only "above society" in the reactionary image of the state as a council of wise elders presiding over the nation from atop Mount Olympus. A Marxist understand of the bourgeois state demands a recognition that it is necessarily preceded by a ruling bourgeoisie, which means that the nature of the state is determined by the prevailing form of social relations, and thus that the state is contained within society.

And, yes, some proletarians are engaged in the maintenance of capitalist society. So what? Some slaves whipped other slaves, but that didn't make them freemen. As Marxists, we cannot allow our materialistic understanding of class to devolve into mere "us and them" moralising. Don't you recall the Bolsheviks' sincere calls for the army of the Provisional Government to defect in the name of class solidarity?

[resurgence]

And, yes, some proletarians are engaged in the maintenance of capitalist society. So what?

Can you not see the difference between maintaining capitalist society and actually enforcing its existence?

[Tim Finnegan]

Can you not see the difference between maintaining capitalist society and actually enforcing its existence?
In the sense that you're using the term "enforcing"? Not fundamentally, no. It seems to me a question of degrees; as I said, we're all part of the capitalist apparatus, we're merely embedded to different degrees.

[Lt. Ferret]

the only time i ever killed a baby was my numerous abortions.

[resurgence]

the only time i ever killed a baby was my numerous abortions.

Ha, ha, very funny...Not.

[Lt. Ferret]

who's kidding.

[RGacky3]

I do not understand the concept of "wage labour" to refer to a literal hourly wage.


I'd means getting paid for your labor, not a product or service. a hitman is not getting paid for his labor.

[The Douche]

I'd means getting paid for your labor, not a product or service. a hitman is not getting paid for his labor.

Salespeople?

[Tablo]

Didn't read the entirety of the thread, but I think the point is that troops are class traitors. I don't think it is a good idea to say "fuck the troops" as I think many are legitimately good people that either want out or actually think they are doing the right thing.

We should oppose their occupation and try not to alienate other people with slogans like "fuck the troops". We should especially avoid that stuff in the south as almost everyone down here has a family member that is either a vet or on active duty.

I definitely prefer the slogans telling troops to turn their guns around and shoot their officers. Provides a much better message for the public.

[RGacky3]

Salespeople?

Some of them, look the bigger question is WHY DOES IT MATTER???

[Ele'ill]

Well, yes, military personnel are often involved in the direct causing of harm in a way which civilian workers are not, but that's a moral criticism of those servicemen who consciously volunteer to do harm, not a political criticism of all servicepeople.

What's the difference? The result is political.



I certainly so reason to give a Department of Defence clerk a pass while damning an army cook, just because one of them happens to wear a uniform.

A DoD 'clerk' and military service person are a world apart from common workers through intent, training, indoctrination, impact made so on and so forth. I think I've already addressed this adequately in my previous post.



It's similar, certainly, but not identical; "fuck the police" is a statement against individual police officers insofar as they represent an institution plagued with injustice, while "fuck the troops" is a statement against individual servicepeople in and of themselves. It's intended as an inversion of slogans like "support our troops", which are explicitly in reference to individual sevicepeople, and to the the military establishment- and, in fact, are sometimes used as statements against that establishment, as in "Support the troops, end the war".

I completely disagree. I think the two slogans are identical in meaning as you've almost stated in the above segment of your post. As in the burning of the soldier effigy representing the US Military apparatus and all of its desires, an effigy of a police officer burning would hold the same meaning. It's a rail against the sett- people and purpose.


But you'd plane an air force mechanic, an army medic and a navy janitor? Again, I must ask, what is it about uniforms that is so despicable?

If your sibling was beaten to death in their home would you blame those standing outside keeping a lookout any less than those actually doing the beating? The driver? The encouraging word givers, egging it on? Those working in collaboration running paperwork or products in a van for profit to manifest future 'missions'?

Can they defect and change? Yes, absolutely, but they would no longer be troops or police at that point.



You can express as much outrage as you like, but you must remember that for that outrage to actually build up to anything, for it to be more than a scream into the void, you need popular support, and that is not something that you can ever win by actively alienating a huge portion- quite possibly the majority- of the working class. I mean, nobody's asking you to turn up at military funerals and weep, just not to turn up at then and laugh.

That's quite literally not at all what's being said- leftist movements aren't strengthened by moving back to center. In conjunction with other actions, networking and movement building such banners, actions and demonstrations stir the pot and further radicalize populations. It gives network and validity to those feeling the same. Otherwise we'd live in a world of horrible people being challenged by impotent moderates with a 'well, ok.' attitude.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'd means getting paid for your labor, not a product or service. a hitman is not getting paid for his labor.
Well, the original term used was "hired gun", which I understand to refer to a stereotypical "Mob Goon". Obviously, professional assassins are slightly more complex affair, but that's something general to all contract labour under capitalism.
Either way, the point was, the fact that your labour power is applied by the capitalist to the dealing of bodily harm does not remove you from the ranks of the proletariat, even if it removes you from the workers' movement.


What's the difference? The result is political.
Because you're implying that all military service is morally equivalent to the immediate personal involvement in the killing of civilians, which simply does not follow. You cannot conflate a general and political criticism with a specific and personal criticism.


A DoD 'clerk' and military service person are a world apart from common workers through intent, training, indoctrination, impact made so on and so forth. I think I've already addressed this adequately in my previous post.I don't think you have, because none of these differences are fundamental. They do not remove the individuals in question from the proletariat, but merely, as I suggested above, remove them from effective participation in the worker's movement.


I completely disagree. I think the two slogans are identical in meaning as you've almost stated in the above segment of your post. As in the burning of the soldier effigy representing the US Military apparatus and all of its desires, an effigy of a police officer burning would hold the same meaning. It's a rail against the sett- people and purpose.Do you really think that the phrase "the troops", in common usage, refers to the military establishment? Certainly, militaristic propaganda-sources would have us believe that support for "the troops" necessarily entails support for the military establishment, but those are the same sources that proclaimed support for "the workers" necessarily entailed support for the Third Reich. They have little to offer us.

I entirely support railing against the military establishment, and I would even say that a careful shaming of service personnel could be part of that. But I don't think you can effectively attack the establishment through it's pawns; that would be like attempting to bring overthrow the national government by beating up municipal garbage workers.


If your sibling was beaten to death in their home would you blame those standing outside keeping a lookout any less than those actually doing the beating? The driver? The encouraging word givers, egging it on? Those working in collaboration running paperwork or products in a van for profit to manifest future 'missions'?Wait, so it's not just uniformed servicepeople which you consider problematic? I'm not entirely following you, here.


Can they defect and change? Yes, absolutely, but they would no longer be troops or police at that point.The Red Army was not comprised of "troops"? :confused:


That's quite literally not at all what's being said- leftist movements aren't strengthened by moving back to center. In conjunction with other actions, networking and movement building such banners, actions and demonstrations stir the pot and further radicalize populations. It gives network and validity to those feeling the same. Otherwise we'd live in a world of horrible people being challenged by impotent moderates with a 'well, ok.' attitude.Will such alienating propaganda actually "radicalise" the population at large? Or will it merely radicalise a small part of it, while driving the greater mass- who are unsurprisingly offended by the sentiments expressed by "fuck the troops"- into the arms of fascists, proto-fascists and various other reactionary undesirables?

I don't think I'm alone in this, either. The SWP played (and play) a major role in organising the British anti-war movement, and although they certainly share your goals in regards to "stirring the pot", they've fairly consistently avoided anything that may be seen as demonising enlisted servicepeople, for the reason that it would simply push the working class into the arms of the fascists- who, in the UK, have been quite cunning in switching to a (heavily qualified) anti-war stance when it became apparent that Team Bush was losing popular support.

[psgchisolm]

I don't get how the US army is different from the Red Army other than conscription?