Killing cannot be a verb on its own, it requires a subject. There’s no such thing as just “killing” on its own, there is always someone on the other side being killed. When that someone is nazis, killing is something to be proud of.
Now that I’m rereading this, how can one look at the act of killing and compare it to picking fucking fruit?
The point I’m making is a grammatical one. The premise of your argument is that the term “killing” without a subject implies a blanket application of all forms of killing, whether they be for necessity or pleasure, of nazis or puppies. The premise of my argument is that the term “killing” without a subject is nonsense. There’s no such thing as killing without a subject.
It is like “picking fruit” only in the sense that “picking” requires a subject. You can’t speak on all “picking” because that doesn’t exist. You can pick clothes, pick fruit, pick up cute boys, whatever. To suggest that there is some nebulous concept of “picking” is just as logical as to suggest the existence of some nebulous concept of “killing.” You can’t pick without a thing to pick, you can’t kill without someone to kill. It is the someone which determines whether the killing is good or bad.
Many actual Soviet soldiers were motivated not by grand ideals of socialism, but by patriotism and simple survival of themselves and their families.
We cannot afford to always be morally ideal. The real world–and particularly, war, which we are all engaging in by being socialists–is ugly. Morals are secondary to victory, which is secondary to survival.
Specifically in regards to killing, killing is nature. Nature is a constant warzone of killing. We ourselves kill every single day just by existing–yes, even those of us who are vegan or pacifist. You cannot escape killing, you can only try and steer who you are killing.
I know when I finally blood myself when this war heats up here I will be heartbroken about it. I have empathy and compassion and see the little child hurting inside even the most wicked fascists. But, there is no choice. If part of the cope is glorifying the killing, if part of what we must use to spurn ourselves to commit the act is the fanfare of war music and attitudes of detachment and sadism, then so be it. Your damn right I’m gonna draw a little tally mark everytime, I would encourage a friendly competition with comrades seeing how many enemies we can end. There is no choice. It’s kill or be killed. It’s whatever it takes.
If part of the cope is glorifying the killing, if part of what we must use to spurn ourselves to commit the act is the fanfare of war music and attitudes of detachment and sadism, then so be it. Your damn right I’m gonna draw a little tally mark everytime, I would encourage a friendly competition with comrades seeing how many enemies we can end.
During war, you must do whatever floats your boat. You must do everything to persevere and see another day, to have a tiny sliver of hope. But for those who are not at war, glorifying killing and also possibly war is a grave mistake. We can look at WWII and come to the conclusion that if not for the bravery and sacrifice of the Soviet people, Nazism would’ve won. But as Socialists, not as individuals, to incorporate the “glory of killing the enemy” into any line would be to incorporate a seed of reaction.
There is no choice. It’s kill or be killed. It’s whatever it takes.
If I have to, I will do the job, but I won’t be happy doing it. The bourgeoisie and fascists salivate killing us particularly because of how they glorified killing. But what will socialists do when war comes and how will we approach educating others and enacting war is yet to come. Right now we live in (mostly) peace, and I’d rather my comrades not turn to the reaction or commit adventurism by salivating the act of killing another human being.
Okay I’m just talking out my ass here and wouldn’t necessarily permanently cosign any of this but:
I guess I see it as, I’d rather someone be spurned into action by questionable motives that we may have to iron out of our society later, than for us to continue to completely lack inertia and accomplish nothing. There just simply isn’t enough fuel burning, Western socialism has no force behind it. Our society has conditioned us to fetishize violence and created murder-curious greedy, selfish, depraved, antisocial beasts of us all. If we don’t have the power to address the source of this disease yet at least we should channel this energy towards something productive? Right now people’s Dark Side energies are being funneled towards fascism, or some aesthetically anarchist indiscriminate/“indiscriminate” mass killing anticiv antinatal misanthropic “burn it all down” nonsense. What if people could instead be encouraged to channel this toxic hatred towards our political class, towards cops, towards middle class white suburban fascists who will be the footsoldiers of the Holocaust and the Barbarossa of tomorrow? What if people who are ruining lives trying to make a living by selling fentanyl to the poor or robbing poor neighbors could be persuaded to victimize the middle class instead? What if would-be school shooters, or those who would shoot up a Black church or a Latino-heavy Walmart, instead shot up a lily-white Target, Starbucks, or even better a country club, or Wall Street? What if all these suicidal left-ish youth used their life more productively against our oppressors? What if socialism was an acceptable outlet for people’s sadism that normally can only be channeled into fascism?
I get this is playing with fire, but how I see things, leftism is so thoroughly corrupted in the US/the West and fascism so normalized and rampant, we may have to try questionable, even downright repugnant methods to win the day. If China was forced to concoct Dengism (which just for the record I can think of much worse) for the sake of pragmatic long-term survival, will we, here in the Heart of the Beast, not have to utilize much worse to win the day?
Also for the record, I want nothing more than to be absurdly wrong. I still try and envision a future for us Westerners that doesn’t end in hellish bloodshed. I refuse to think of things like “love conquers all” as naive or impossible to work, and I do think committing to violence is planting a seed of evil that is simply paying for today with tomorrow, a new disease that will have to excised…much like how the Chinese are dealing with the consequential corruption of Dengism in the now. But, with the board laid out like it is…what, really, are our options?
What if would-be school shooters, or those who would shoot up a Black church or a Latino-heavy Walmart, instead shot up a lily-white Target, Starbucks, or even better a country club, or Wall Street?
Considering all the shooters are fash and “leftist shooter” is a myth, it would be very hard.
Removed by mod
Nah, killing nazis is something to be proud of.
Killing Nazis? Yes!
Killing? No!
Killing cannot be a verb on its own, it requires a subject. There’s no such thing as just “killing” on its own, there is always someone on the other side being killed. When that someone is nazis, killing is something to be proud of.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I will never enjoy the act of killing and will endlessly judge you for choosing to. Comrades who are happy to kill will forever raise my eyebrow.
It must be done, because it is necessary, not because we want to.
I will now disengage, it seems nothing fruitful will come in continuing the conversation.
EDIT: Now that I’m rereading this, how can one look at the act of killing and compare it to picking fucking fruit? How is that not asinine?
The point I’m making is a grammatical one. The premise of your argument is that the term “killing” without a subject implies a blanket application of all forms of killing, whether they be for necessity or pleasure, of nazis or puppies. The premise of my argument is that the term “killing” without a subject is nonsense. There’s no such thing as killing without a subject.
It is like “picking fruit” only in the sense that “picking” requires a subject. You can’t speak on all “picking” because that doesn’t exist. You can pick clothes, pick fruit, pick up cute boys, whatever. To suggest that there is some nebulous concept of “picking” is just as logical as to suggest the existence of some nebulous concept of “killing.” You can’t pick without a thing to pick, you can’t kill without someone to kill. It is the someone which determines whether the killing is good or bad.
Now you’ve got it!
Killing pigs? Yes!
Killing? No!
Curious 🤔
Many actual Soviet soldiers were motivated not by grand ideals of socialism, but by patriotism and simple survival of themselves and their families.
We cannot afford to always be morally ideal. The real world–and particularly, war, which we are all engaging in by being socialists–is ugly. Morals are secondary to victory, which is secondary to survival.
Specifically in regards to killing, killing is nature. Nature is a constant warzone of killing. We ourselves kill every single day just by existing–yes, even those of us who are vegan or pacifist. You cannot escape killing, you can only try and steer who you are killing.
I know when I finally blood myself when this war heats up here I will be heartbroken about it. I have empathy and compassion and see the little child hurting inside even the most wicked fascists. But, there is no choice. If part of the cope is glorifying the killing, if part of what we must use to spurn ourselves to commit the act is the fanfare of war music and attitudes of detachment and sadism, then so be it. Your damn right I’m gonna draw a little tally mark everytime, I would encourage a friendly competition with comrades seeing how many enemies we can end. There is no choice. It’s kill or be killed. It’s whatever it takes.
Great post! However I have some issues…
During war, you must do whatever floats your boat. You must do everything to persevere and see another day, to have a tiny sliver of hope. But for those who are not at war, glorifying killing and also possibly war is a grave mistake. We can look at WWII and come to the conclusion that if not for the bravery and sacrifice of the Soviet people, Nazism would’ve won. But as Socialists, not as individuals, to incorporate the “glory of killing the enemy” into any line would be to incorporate a seed of reaction.
If I have to, I will do the job, but I won’t be happy doing it. The bourgeoisie and fascists salivate killing us particularly because of how they glorified killing. But what will socialists do when war comes and how will we approach educating others and enacting war is yet to come. Right now we live in (mostly) peace, and I’d rather my comrades not turn to the reaction or commit adventurism by salivating the act of killing another human being.
Thank you for engaging with my disagreement.
Okay I’m just talking out my ass here and wouldn’t necessarily permanently cosign any of this but:
I guess I see it as, I’d rather someone be spurned into action by questionable motives that we may have to iron out of our society later, than for us to continue to completely lack inertia and accomplish nothing. There just simply isn’t enough fuel burning, Western socialism has no force behind it. Our society has conditioned us to fetishize violence and created murder-curious greedy, selfish, depraved, antisocial beasts of us all. If we don’t have the power to address the source of this disease yet at least we should channel this energy towards something productive? Right now people’s Dark Side energies are being funneled towards fascism, or some aesthetically anarchist indiscriminate/“indiscriminate” mass killing anticiv antinatal misanthropic “burn it all down” nonsense. What if people could instead be encouraged to channel this toxic hatred towards our political class, towards cops, towards middle class white suburban fascists who will be the footsoldiers of the Holocaust and the Barbarossa of tomorrow? What if people who are ruining lives trying to make a living by selling fentanyl to the poor or robbing poor neighbors could be persuaded to victimize the middle class instead? What if would-be school shooters, or those who would shoot up a Black church or a Latino-heavy Walmart, instead shot up a lily-white Target, Starbucks, or even better a country club, or Wall Street? What if all these suicidal left-ish youth used their life more productively against our oppressors? What if socialism was an acceptable outlet for people’s sadism that normally can only be channeled into fascism?
I get this is playing with fire, but how I see things, leftism is so thoroughly corrupted in the US/the West and fascism so normalized and rampant, we may have to try questionable, even downright repugnant methods to win the day. If China was forced to concoct Dengism (which just for the record I can think of much worse) for the sake of pragmatic long-term survival, will we, here in the Heart of the Beast, not have to utilize much worse to win the day?
Also for the record, I want nothing more than to be absurdly wrong. I still try and envision a future for us Westerners that doesn’t end in hellish bloodshed. I refuse to think of things like “love conquers all” as naive or impossible to work, and I do think committing to violence is planting a seed of evil that is simply paying for today with tomorrow, a new disease that will have to excised…much like how the Chinese are dealing with the consequential corruption of Dengism in the now. But, with the board laid out like it is…what, really, are our options?
Considering all the shooters are fash and “leftist shooter” is a myth, it would be very hard.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod