Supporting the Troops but Not the Cops: A Hipster Disease

In First Worldist Marxism there is a terrible tendency held by some groups to oppose the police and the violence they commit against the population; but support the their military. Some people have a line of “fuck the police”, yet they welcome the military with open arms. The theory is that the police are class enemies as they enforce class rule, but the troops are victims of that same ruling class. This theory is terribly flawed and reactionary.

Such a position relies on populism, going with whatever the current mood of the people is. If the public opposes police brutality, but supports the military because they are “heroes”; then that is just what they do. They take the position that is popular, and reject the one that is not. This is reactionary opportunism. Rather than placing theory at the forefront of struggle, it relies on jumping from issue to issue in order to attract support. This is a popular tactic of anarchists stemming from their unorganized manner of struggle. In lieu of struggle they anarchically climb aboard whatever bandwagon becomes popular in order to be seen. This is true of some Marxist groups and people in the First World. They prefer hipster populism and attention seeking as opposed to principled struggle.

Mao openly opposed this by saying revolutionaries had to put politics in command, instead of just allowing any unprincipled idea to become enmeshed among the proletarian struggle:

“You should put politics in command, go to the masses and be one with them and carry on the great proletarian cultural revolution even better.”[1]

Groups or individuals that hold this line show their true global class nature, the fact that they are an enemy of Third World people. They are willing to fight against their oppressors, but won’t fight those who oppress the victims of imperialism. As the police oppose their freedom, the troops oppose the freedom of the subjugated countries. These so-called Marxists only support liberating themselves and not those that their county oppresses. Those troops enforce the privilege and wealth they have. It is clear that they wish to unite with soldiers who oppress others, but not the ones who oppress them. They openly ally with those who carry out the most murderous oppression in the world in the name of capital; while complaining of their own which is a slight fraction of it. Why? Because the wealth and living standards of the First World depends on that imperialism being carried out.

You cannot claim the police to be the oppressors of capitalism while calling the troops victims. The troops are hundred times worse. They inflict mass murder, genocide, torture, and rape. All of this is committed against people with far less power than the hipsters who defend the perpetrators. To defend the troops in this manner is to be an outright enemy of the global masses and to support the continued domination of imperialist capital.

The First Worldist hipster is all onboard the très chic of attacking the police, but they balk at pointing out the criminal nature of the imperialist military and their culpability for it. For hipsters it’s about going with what’s popular in attacking. It is not about making rightful attacks on the guilty when it goes against public sentiment. They have an easy job of attacking a guilty target when they have populism on their side, but their cowardice appears when they have to challenge social ideas that are not in style. They fear having to stand up against popular ideas.

It demonstrates quite clearly an inherently unrevolutionary mindset. It also reveals a glaring hypocrisy. Such First Worldists cannot be counted on by the masses of the Third World. In their actions they support the very killers of Third World people. They will rail against their oppressors, but they will not rail against the oppressors who defend their interests, even if it is mass murdering the Third World for their iPhones.

* * *

Source:

[1] Chairman Mao Reviews Mighty Cultural Revolutionary Contingents for the 7th Time, Peking Review, Vol. 9, #47, Nov. 18, 1966, pp. 5-7.

Advertisements

One thought on “Supporting the Troops but Not the Cops: A Hipster Disease

  1. I suppose this tendency is why they are so liberal when it comes to women’s issues. I argued with a dude from CPC about how they changed their prostitution abolitionist stance to a “sex work” legalization one. Just pandering to popular opinion rather than what is just.

Comments are closed.