Very warm

First, props for backing a bonafide unpopular opinion so unflinchingly. (A) discusses your argument. (B) challenges it.

It almost sounds like you might be suggesting that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism

Something like that. And little ethical work.

Why not just murder people yourself directly? With a knife maybe? It's pretty low on the list for what actually makes murdering happen. If you work for any company under capitalism, then they're going to be collaborating with evil regimes and whatnot. You're just enable the cogs. Why not be a useful cog for your masters?

Hell anybody selling lemonade is just feeding the troops of genocide. So you might as well just murder people yourself. It only makes sense.

\s duh... Seriously tho this post is beyond sociopathic brainwashing.

I mean yes there is a sort of "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" dilemma when it comes to working. But just with that dilemma, you don't just give up, you try to minimize your participation as much as you can healthily do. And I think not working for a corp who's sole purpose is to develop weapons for killing people is one of those no brainers.

Communists make weapons too tho. It's kind of a whole cycle.
- One, the issue isn't the production of weapons in of itself. Weapons are used for defense, survival, and recreation which are (in my opinion) ethical. The issue is "defense" contractors like Lockheed are not producing weapons to defend against exploitation, oppression, etc. They are produced for imperialist powers to defend the interests of exploitors, oppressors, and war mongers.
  Secondly, I am an anarchist. Statist "communists" are often no better than capitalists to me.
  
  They are produced for imperialist powers to defend the interests of exploitors, oppressors, and war mongers.
  And also to oppose the interests of exploiters, oppressors, and warmongers.
  From causes as good as anarchists in Rojava to as evil as fascists in Israel.
  
  If you think USA gives a shit at all about Rojava, then I have bad news for you. (oil)
  https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2025/04/syrias-kurds-say-trump-aid-cuts-are-feeding-radicalism-isis-camps
It might be a no-brainer if it was all "We are making orphan crushers for the orphans", but the defense industry is much more complex than that. For example, would you say that a Ukrainian working for a Ukrainian defense firm, whose sole purpose is to develop weapons for killing people, is evil?
- We are making orphan crushers for the orphans
  What do you think the MIC does?
  would you say that a Ukrainian
  I don't live in Ukraine. Is that how far you have to go from USA to justify this BS?
- I do think there is nuance to the situation and exceptions. Your example being one. But I would consider Lockheed (the example of the original post) would be the no brainer one. Those weapons aren't going to defending my family from an imperialist power, they are going to death squads in South America and committing genocide in Palestine.
  
  I do think there is nuance to the situation and exceptions. Your example being one. But I would consider Lockheed (the example of the original post) would be the no brainer one. Those weapons aren’t going to defending my family from an imperialist power, they are going to death squads in South America and committing genocide in Palestine.
  But Lockheed-Martin's equipment is going to Ukraine as well. Are the families of Ukrainians not worth defending? And 'death squads' in South America are not particularly likely to be using state-of-the-art US jets and missiles for their murders. And considering the state of things in Taiwan and Europe, if the US doesn't end up on the side of the imperialist powers, I don't know how much I would bet that Lockheed-Martin weapons won't be defending other families from imperialist powers in the near the future,
  Considering the strict controls on defense exports, it is far more relevant to question who the US government chooses (directly or indirectly) to support with Lockheed-Martin's output. When the US is against genocide, as in Ukraine, Lockheed-Martin's output is used to save innocent lives; when the US is for genocide, as in Palestine, Lockheed-Martin's output is used for murder. Though even then I would note that it's not particularly pivotal to the murders committed.
  The correct target for ire in this, other than perhaps capitalism in general for creating a significant disconnect between social responsibility and firms of all industries, is the US government and where it funnels this equipment. The firms themselves are amoral but unexceptional, both in consequences and in nature; and the people who work at them (other than at the highest decision-making levels) are no more immoral than any other cog in the capitalist machine.
  
  But Lockheed-Martin’s equipment is going to Ukraine as well.
  Yes the MIC fuels war and death everywhere. They're profiteers, not heroes. Do you celebrate the weapons sold to russia as well? It's all the same capitalists profiting.
  When the US is against genocide, as in Ukraine,
  The USA is not against genocide in Ukraine. Imperialism is a direct cause of the genocide. Grow up.
  The firms themselves are amoral
  jfc. Is Elmo amoral? Is Bezos amoral? And you think the MIC is somehow amoral? How much corporate propaganda have you been drinking?
  
  With Lockheed you are forced to choose between being complacent with it because they supply Ukraine's defense against occupation by an imperialist power or outright oppose it due to its supplying towards the Palestinian genocide. The genocide is a dealbreaker in any capacity for me. Even ignoring the genocide, the bad outweighs the good to me by a longshot. I oppose it just like how I oppose McDonald's, Amazon, Starbucks, and more.
  
  With Lockheed you are forced to choose between being complacent with it because they supply Ukraine’s defense against occupation by an imperialist power or outright oppose it due to its supplying towards the Palestinian genocide. The genocide is a dealbreaker in any capacity for me.
  But then, is that not just enabling one genocide in exchange for another? Palestinian genocide is a dealbreaker, but Ukrainian genocide is an acceptable price to pay? (I'm not actually accusing you of accepting Ukrainian genocide for not supporting Lockheed-Martin - honestly, fuck Lockheed-Martin as a company - just highlighting that the argument necessitates accepting utilitarian consequences that run contrary to the anti-genocidal goal of the principled stand)
  My point, though, is more that Lockheed-Martin is more than a no-brainer. There is consideration to be had. These firms are amoral, but that means that they are capable of enabling good as well as enabling evil.
  If your choice is designing tractors, which will be sold to farmers recovering from a genocidal civil war in Sudan as well as genocidal colonists in Israel to consolidate their land gains and draw a profit with which to imperialize more, or designing warplanes, which will be sold to those resisting genocide in Ukraine as well as those perpetuating genocide in Israel, which is the moral choice? I don't think it's a no-brainer to say that the weaponry is the more immoral of the two. I'd say that the core immorality is selling to the genocidaires at all - which would not be specific to either industry.
  And the core of the objection is against the idea in the meme that people who work at these firms as engineers are in some way more immoral than the rest of us working for soulless genocide-enabling corporations that provide the tools and funding for genocide.
  Even ignoring the genocide, the bad outweighs the good to me by a longshot. I oppose it just like how I oppose McDonald’s, Amazon, Starbucks, and more.
  I mean, I wouldn't argue with that. But I also wouldn't put much moral weight on whether someone chose to work at one of those places in anything but a pretty high executive capacity.
  
  The reason why I put Palestine over Ukraine is because Palestine is a genocide right now, while Ukraine isn't. Ukraine is two capitalist states fighting.
  I do still also think working for a defense contractor like Lockheed is wrong as working for them is far more direct of a hand in death than most other jobs. And I wouldn't say they are immoral, they are chasing money (which in of itself is immoral) and chose to do it through profitting off of war. They may do good sometimes but it is not out of the goodness of their hearts, its to profit off of killing each other. And just as I do with elections, if the game is pick a lesser evil I will not play.
  And with the McDonald's et al yeah I wouldn't shame those working there, I lost track of my point. Was just trying to say I take action to oppose them, just like I would with Lockheed if I could (I don't live near one and I cant buy their stuff to begin with lol).
  I won't deny its more complicated than I gave it credit for, but I think Lockheed is indefensible of a corporation. Working for them is a deal with the devil. There are reasons why I wouldn't shame someone for working there, but they are exceptions and not the rule.
  
  This person really thinks that the USA is ending genocide in ukraine. wow.
  https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-trump-war-zelenskyy-putin-7fe8c0c80b4e93e3bc079c621a44e8bb
  
  The problem of manufacturing weapons would be significantly less controversial of LM (for ex) had even a few scruples.
  Defending yourself is fine.
  \ Making tools to defend yourself is fine
  \ Making tools for people to defend themselves is fine
  Making and selling those tools for use in attacking is not fine.
  \ Profiteering from harm is not fine.\

If less people worked to make weapons, there would be less weapons made.

How is this a hard concept to understand?

If less people worked to make weapons, there would be less weapons made.
Okay?
How is that relevant?
Do you think that there is a dire shortage of tools for murder, and only the modern defense industry is sustaining the strained supply?
- Do you think that there is a dire shortage of tools for murder, and only the modern defense industry is sustaining the strained supply?
  Israel, Russia, and Ukraine sure seem to think so. None are producing enough munitions domestically to satisfy themselves.
  Less weapons made still means less weapon used.
  
  Israel, Russia, and Ukraine sure seem to think so. None are producing enough munitions domestically to satisfy themselves.
  In the case of Russia and Ukraine, the reason they need to produce more munitions is to prevent the opposition from having the advantage in the war. If both sides were totally stripped of munitions by tomorrow, you wouldn't see a cessation of the war, you'd see a continuation of the war simply with less advanced tools, such as in the civil war in Sudan. And Russia has already demonstrated that it has no shortage of men who are willing to murder people with knives and sledgehammers.
  Don't really know what you think "No more munitions!" is going to achieve here. Certainly don't know what shunning the Western MIC is going to do here, except expose more Ukrainians to Russian genocide.
  Israel isn't producing enough munitions to satisfy itself because it knows it doesn't have to when the US is willing to subsidize their genocide.
  Less weapons made still means less weapon used.
  No, it means less of that particular weapon used.
  
  So do you work for a defense contractor or do you just have great respect for the act of killing in general
  
  Sorry for having the radical idea that mass violence predates specialized weapons industries. Or the radical idea that countries should be allowed to defend themselves against genocidal aggressors. Whichever of the two you're objecting to.
  
  But you are literally arguing in defense of America, which is funding genocide, so now you are just straight up lying
  
  It is pretty radical to argue that a small contingent of Zionist Israelis would be successfully eradicating the people of Palestine if both sides just had sticks, so the U.S. should just keep manufacturing and selling MK-84 bombs. Or we can talk about how absurd a claim it is that the arms industry is looking out for the little guy—you know, the group that can pay for less of their product? Thank god for arms manufacturers—that’s probably what Uyghurs think when they’re stopped at checkpoints by military police
  
  It is pretty radical to argue that a small contingent of Zionist Israelis would be successfully eradicating the people of Palestine if both sides just had sticks, so the U.S. should just keep manufacturing and selling MK-84 bombs.
  Yes, a small contingent of some half-a-million Israeli soldiers and reservists obviously wouldn't be able to shoot any Palestinians if the US wasn't supplying them. This is why nowhere on earth does genocide happen, save when America is supplying someone involved.
  Or we can talk about how absurd a claim it is that the arms industry is looking out for the little guy
  lmao
  Not even trying, are you?
  Thank god for arms manufacturers—that’s probably what Uyghurs think when they’re stopped at checkpoints by military police
  "If only they didn't have stealth jets created by the massive and advanced Chinese defense industry" probably isn't what goes through the minds of most Uyghurs when stopped by military police.
  
  Yeah, that’s a pretty pointless response on the Uyghur front and I don’t think we’re making progress on the “how easily is the genocide carried out” front so let’s just drop everything else and hone in here:
  China’s comprehensive surveillance system is what makes tracking the movements of Uyghurs possible. It is what has made detaining and killing them so easy. So the people that made that system possible are responsible. Please explain how actually it’s nobody’s fault because things just happen.
  
  Yeah, that’s a pretty pointless response on the Uyghur front
  "I wish I was being beaten to death with a homemade truncheon, instead of a mass-produced one"?
  China’s comprehensive surveillance system is what makes tracking the movements of Uyghurs possible. It is what has made detaining and killing them so easy. So the people that made that system possible are responsible. Please explain how actually it’s nobody’s fault because things just happen.
  You're absolutely right. Everyone who makes computers for any company which sells to China is going to hell.
- Defending defense contractors isnt as cool as you think it is, Jesus would be ashamed.

Plus you have deterrance weapons like the F22. It hasn't actually killed anyone, because no one has challenged it. That sort of weapon can keep wars from starting, since they're less likely to win.

Hooray for worthless planes that have never been used on our impoverished enemies! Build more bazillion dollar planes!!! smh.
Not so sure about the deterrence argument. My point is just that defense industry firms are not particularly core to the problem of people murdering each other, and certainly not the workers therein, any more than farmers are guilty of feeding murderers if their client sells to a genocidal state.

I agree: Everyone is terrible.

There’s a big difference between making steel vs knowingly making weapons that are themselves illegal or being used in genocide.

knowingly making weapons that are themselves illegal
Beg pardon
or being used in genocide.
Of course, making other materials to support genocide is much more moral.
- Anyone involved in the production of white phosphorus weapons, cluster bombs, or depleted uranium munitions are knowingly participating in a war crime. Everyone from the assembly line workers to the designers to the executives needs to be locked up.
  Yes, there are other non-weapon items we also need to sanction Israel to prevent access to, such as bulldozers.
  
  Anyone involved in the production of white phosphorus weapons, cluster bombs, or depleted uranium munitions are knowingly participating in a war crime. Everyone from the assembly line workers to the designers to the executives needs to be locked up.
  WP is legal for use as an incendiary and smokescreen, cluster bombs are not banned by the US, DU is not illegal by any treaty I'm aware of.
  Yes, there are other non-weapon items we also need to sanction Israel to prevent access to, such as bulldozers.
  Nothing should be going into Israel from any civilized country, if we were actually discussing questions of morality and interaction through one's labor for internationally trading firms.
  
  Continuing to sell white phosphorus to those who have openly deployed it against civilians is an act so immoral, we should be rioting to bring these manufacturers in.
  
  I mean, I agree that selling weapons to war criminals is horrific. But the manufacturers aren't really at the heart of the problem so much as the US government. There are strict export laws regarding the defense industry. They aren't exactly jumping to sell WP to Russia (statement may be subject to change considering the Trump administration). They're acting in accordance with the desires of their biggest customer, the US government, which is currently (and has been for quite some time) supporting war criminals in Israel.
  
  Ridiculous defense of immoral military contractors, and paired with Russiaphobia instead of mentioning the US allies actually deploying the white phosphorus on civilians. Classic astroturf.
  
  Yeah, I think they'd argue for DU instead of against it. They're not using that against people they're using that against war machines.
  
  There was controversy during the Gulf War about DU munitions from 20mm autocannons. 30 years of study has disproven some of the initial scares, but concerns remain about DU dust from such shells possibly being widely dispersed enough to cause health problems (though not radioactivity-related health problems).
  Tank DU munitions are generally regarded as safe anymore, though.
- OK, I guess we should stop harvesting wheat and making flour because it could possibly be used to support a genocide, but don't even bother thinking about stopping the manufacture of the bombs being dropped.
  
  Or maybe the problem isn't "Weapons are being produced", it's "Authoritarian regimes are being traded with".

I'll go even farther. Have you voted in the last 50 years? Guess what you help elect the president and chief commanding death at the end of the bayonet and the from the top of the drones.

And if you haven't voted (but been able to), you are likewise guilty for allowing the candidate who became president and CiC to commit their crimes (instead of the crimes the other candidate would have committed).
The only way forward is to improve society as a whole.
- Hmm if all the candidates will both be responsible for killing people, are the people who didn't vote responsible? Technically the only innocent people would be the ones who stop the candidates from being elected. but I'll drink to improving society as a whole.
  
  Hmm if all the candidates will both be responsible for killing people, are the people who didn’t vote responsible?
  You'll be responsible for different sets of people being killed.
  There's no option for innocence, as much as folk wish there was.
  
  Kill the killers is the best option until we gaze to long and deep into the abyss...