That is true, however, the word OP used was “okay”, not “good”. The counterargument was that it is “not okay” because it is “useless”.
I see that are two components to the argument here, 1) the implicit argument of whether suicide for political aims is “okay” or not (normalization), and 2) the explicit argument of whether it is “useful” or not.
As such, there is a contradiction here between the fact that suicide is not okay and should be discouraged as a general rule and the fact that Aaron Bushnell died as a martyr because he made the ultimate sacrifice.
Maybe I’m delusional and imagining 1) but this to me is the main issue. Thus, doubling down to defend 2) without acknowledging 1) is strange, so OP should avoid this by clarifying their position.
For instance, BRG, while acknowledging the gravity and impact of Aaron’s actions, took care in his streams to discourage suicide, saying: “A leftist is more useful to Palestine alive than dead.”
Hmmm I agree with you mostly but have another lingering thought swirling around in my head.
What if martyrdom is the collective stepping stone to violent militant action?
If we look at the last 30 years of political activism, there has been a slow process of the collective “people” trying every political tactic available, slowly deeming each one ineffective and then moving onto the next more radical option. Going all the way back to Occupy Wall Street I’ve watched the american left move more left, and more radical, with each and every attempt and failure at some new tactic.
People burning themselves alive is probably one of the final steps before people move onto guns and bombs.
I’m not suggesting it should be advocated for, it’s not going to succeed, but I have a feeling this process of the collective slowly checking off every available tactic except violence is a process that will play out whether we want it to or not before violence becomes an option the collective is ready for.
We’re all mostly hoping for a revolution… Well, “vulnerable people” die in revolutions. Lots of people usually die in revolutions. Bloodless ones are the exception. Personally, I advocate for diversity of tactics, even if some of those tactics are extreme.
But guess what? Lots of people are CURRENTLY dying in Gaza and in the US (denied healthcare) and all over the world due to LACK OF a revolution in tbe imperial core. It’s emotionally jarring to see somebody die in a gruesome way, I understand that. Everyone will have their own reaction. It may even demotivate some comerades. But the status quo has its own gruesome, insidious costs like 2000 covid deaths a week. They’re just not “shocking” like this one. Let’s not privilege this one life over the possibility of agitating to save the 2 million in Gaza whose lives are in the balance.
If you’ve watched his last words, this person was clearly of sober mind and thought this was their best lever to pull for change. They probably thought about it a lot before doing so, and it wasn’t on a whim.
Speaking personally, I am inspired by their sacrifice, and it is spurring me to do more for the Palestinian cause and do more to move towards communism and away from barbarism.
Also, one final clarification. I think that this particular incident has a greater chance of being significant historically because he is a member of the US military. I would not recommend or condone a non-military person to follow in his footsteps because I dont think it would be likely to be effective. Like it or not, military members command a certain gravitas and social status in US society that can be used to great effect, as we are seeing here. This amplified the media coverage greatly.
I’m not suggesting it should be advocated for, it’s not going to succeed, but I have a feeling this process of the collective slowly checking off every available tactic except violence is a process that will play out whether we want it to or not before violence becomes an option the collective is ready for.
If you look at how Chinese people understand the Chinese revolution, their timeline starts at the beginning of the Century of Humiliation. In total, they went through:
social democracy (Sun Yat-sen’s KMT and the Three Principles of the People)
right-wing nationalism (Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT)
civil war (Chinese Civil War)
anti-imperialist war (Second Sino-Japanese War)
Before even arriving at Communist revolution, and even with the CPC, there’s pre-Mao CPC which tried to copy the Soviets and Mao-era CPC that was able to forge their own path through the painful lessons learned from everything up to that point. The Chinese masses also politically developed and matured so that while the Chinese masses of the 1850s century thought a new feudal dynasty with a new emperor was sufficient, the Chinese masses after a century of political development and maturation understood the necessity of socialism.
That is true, however, the word OP used was “okay”, not “good”. The counterargument was that it is “not okay” because it is “useless”.
I see that are two components to the argument here, 1) the implicit argument of whether suicide for political aims is “okay” or not (normalization), and 2) the explicit argument of whether it is “useful” or not.
As such, there is a contradiction here between the fact that suicide is not okay and should be discouraged as a general rule and the fact that Aaron Bushnell died as a martyr because he made the ultimate sacrifice.
Maybe I’m delusional and imagining 1) but this to me is the main issue. Thus, doubling down to defend 2) without acknowledging 1) is strange, so OP should avoid this by clarifying their position.
For instance, BRG, while acknowledging the gravity and impact of Aaron’s actions, took care in his streams to discourage suicide, saying: “A leftist is more useful to Palestine alive than dead.”
Hmmm I agree with you mostly but have another lingering thought swirling around in my head.
What if martyrdom is the collective stepping stone to violent militant action?
If we look at the last 30 years of political activism, there has been a slow process of the collective “people” trying every political tactic available, slowly deeming each one ineffective and then moving onto the next more radical option. Going all the way back to Occupy Wall Street I’ve watched the american left move more left, and more radical, with each and every attempt and failure at some new tactic.
People burning themselves alive is probably one of the final steps before people move onto guns and bombs.
I’m not suggesting it should be advocated for, it’s not going to succeed, but I have a feeling this process of the collective slowly checking off every available tactic except violence is a process that will play out whether we want it to or not before violence becomes an option the collective is ready for.
We’re all mostly hoping for a revolution… Well, “vulnerable people” die in revolutions. Lots of people usually die in revolutions. Bloodless ones are the exception. Personally, I advocate for diversity of tactics, even if some of those tactics are extreme.
But guess what? Lots of people are CURRENTLY dying in Gaza and in the US (denied healthcare) and all over the world due to LACK OF a revolution in tbe imperial core. It’s emotionally jarring to see somebody die in a gruesome way, I understand that. Everyone will have their own reaction. It may even demotivate some comerades. But the status quo has its own gruesome, insidious costs like 2000 covid deaths a week. They’re just not “shocking” like this one. Let’s not privilege this one life over the possibility of agitating to save the 2 million in Gaza whose lives are in the balance.
If you’ve watched his last words, this person was clearly of sober mind and thought this was their best lever to pull for change. They probably thought about it a lot before doing so, and it wasn’t on a whim.
Speaking personally, I am inspired by their sacrifice, and it is spurring me to do more for the Palestinian cause and do more to move towards communism and away from barbarism.
Also, one final clarification. I think that this particular incident has a greater chance of being significant historically because he is a member of the US military. I would not recommend or condone a non-military person to follow in his footsteps because I dont think it would be likely to be effective. Like it or not, military members command a certain gravitas and social status in US society that can be used to great effect, as we are seeing here. This amplified the media coverage greatly.
If you look at how Chinese people understand the Chinese revolution, their timeline starts at the beginning of the Century of Humiliation. In total, they went through:
feudal rebellion (Taiping rebellion)
feudal reforms (Self-Strengthening Movement)
spontaneous anti-imperialist struggle (Boxer rebellion)
bourgeois revolution (Xinhai revolution)
student-led uprising (May 4th Movement)
social democracy (Sun Yat-sen’s KMT and the Three Principles of the People)
right-wing nationalism (Chiang Kai-shek’s KMT)
civil war (Chinese Civil War)
anti-imperialist war (Second Sino-Japanese War)
Before even arriving at Communist revolution, and even with the CPC, there’s pre-Mao CPC which tried to copy the Soviets and Mao-era CPC that was able to forge their own path through the painful lessons learned from everything up to that point. The Chinese masses also politically developed and matured so that while the Chinese masses of the 1850s century thought a new feudal dynasty with a new emperor was sufficient, the Chinese masses after a century of political development and maturation understood the necessity of socialism.