I’ve been seeing a bad line of thinking in leftist spaces and in myself and I feel the need to call it out.
The western left’s demonization of the class unconscious proletariat is a symptom of idealism that seems sadly acceptable in leftist social media spaces. Class consciousness is not an achievement to be proud of, you didn’t do it, it happened to you.
Labor aristocracy is not a “sin” of the western working class it is a weapon of the bourgeoisie. Unique material conditions are what lead each of us to class consciousness not some sort of moral/intellectual/educational supremacy. The limited class consciousness in the west’s working class is not an inherit flaw in the masses but a failure of the class conscious to conduct effective agitation. (the word “failure” is not a condemnation but recognition that we have been unable to succeed against the overwhelming power of the imperialist bourgeoisie.)
This extends to demonization of the troops. Yes members of the western armed forces actively benefit from imperialism and do horrific things supporting imperialism but they do this out of a response to their material conditions not because they are evil. That is not to say they are absolved of their crimes. It means many of them could be redeemable.
We have all had liberal and imperialist ideas that we now recognize are wrong. We must be willing to accept those who admit the faults of their past who are willing to fight for a better future. Anyone refusing to forgive comrades who admit to a flawed past is being dishonest about their own flaws. They are engaging in ideological moral supremacy. It is not a dialectical materialists position to refuse something changing into its opposite.
Again this is not a call to absolve the complicit but instead a call to remind us that we have all been complicit in some way and we are the proletariat not above them.
I sort of get your argument but I also don’t get the historical comparison used because as far as I can tell, it’s more uncharted territory than you make it sound. For example:
The USSR was not created as a response to Nazism in order to fight Nazis. No doubt, it was the primary military force that fought and ultimately defeated Nazi Germany. But it wasn’t like Nazi Germany was this established thing, known for genocide, and Lenin was trying to figure out how to fight it, so the working class took over a different, adjoining region specifically to fight Nazi Germany.
For parallels, it may be more insightful to go back and look at Rome or something, but I don’t know much about Rome’s history in general. Just that from the standpoint of looking at downfall of empires, that may be more of a clue as to precedent when it comes to internal collapse and changing of power.
The other point I want to make is that if, in this analogy, US soldiers are like Nazi soldiers (or worse), what does that make the rest of us who live in the imperial core? People who, whether we participate in the maintenance of the machine or not, don’t pull out all the stops we can trying to break it? This, I think, is the main “moral supremacy” point that the OP was trying to make with:
Or if it wasn’t intended that way, I will make it myself: Just how far removed from participating in the oppression are we? (I’m sure some here are among the more marginalized, but not all.) Should the revolution only recruit from and aim for the most marginalized? I don’t think that’s a bad idea as material analysis goes, it’s just, that’s a minority of people in the region who has already sacrificed a lot struggling for basic not-being-immediately-murdered-over-nothing (which still isn’t a solid thing).
Why does it need to be one or the other is the other place my mind goes. I’m aware there have been betrayals in the past, which is why it’s so important to keep an eye out for the patsoc types and the opportunists who are looking to improve their own QOL a bit via reforms and then stop there. But like, if there’s somebody who is ready and willing to put themself in the line of fire for marginalized peoples, why get shy about that? Marginalized peoples are not perfect victims. Their material interests are more aligned with the cause, but their knowledge and experience isn’t de facto ready for revolution. So to this question:
Exclusively? Very little. Maybe the only exclusive thing would be being able to potentially provide insight into how the US military is trained to fight if they are a recent veteran. However, assets are assets, provided we are not confusing help with “taking over.” Putting lots of energy into recruiting veterans though? I would agree that’s not a good place to put energy. Not if it’s at the cost of recruiting from the most marginalized.
To clarify: