Socialism vs. militarism...

[Machjo]

I often read intentionally disparaging comments about this or that being 'socialist' and so not good. Yet oftem the same people who make thse comments are prepared to support much more spending on the military than they oppose in other services. It just seems to me that the military is viewd by some as a kind of sacred cow and the ideal job-creation programme without having to admit that it's essentially welfare-statism.

How is it that spending on education let's say, is socialist, yet twice as much spending on the military is capitalist?

I just don't get it.

[Bonam]

Education isn't a good example of socialist spending either. An educated workforce is needed for continued success and expansion of a capitalist system and so education is a crucial component thereof.

Now in regards to the military, the reason that it is not "socialist" is because it is one of the actual valid duties of the state, that cannot reasonably be carried out wholly by private means. A nation must defend its sovereignty, its borders, its interests abroad, etc. These things require a national military force.

[M.Dancer]

If socialism aspires to be classless then the military is the antithesis of socialism.

[August1991]

How is it that spending on education let's say, is socialist, yet twice as much spending on the military is capitalist?

I just don't get it.

An individual can pay for their own education. For example, there are many private schools in Canada and people pay for driver's lessons.

OTOH, while it is possible to hire private security services, this is unfeasible at the level of a city or more certainly a country.

Hence, everyone agrees that the State should be responsible for national security (the military) but some people think that the State should not provide education services. As it is, in Canada, education is under provincial jurisdiction. There is no federal department of education.

[Machjo]

Education isn't a good example of socialist spending either. An educated workforce is needed for continued success and expansion of a capitalist system and so education is a crucial component thereof.

Now in regards to the military, the reason that it is not "socialist" is because it is one of the actual valid duties of the state, that cannot reasonably be carried out wholly by private means. A nation must defend its sovereignty, its borders, its interests abroad, etc. These things require a national military force.

Sorry, I should have clarified. I wasn't using the terms in their strictest sense, but rather in the common sense that any government intervention in the economy is 'socialist'. I will add a few comments to yours, however:

Seeing that one common goal of many socialists is equality, whereas capitalism is generally defined as minimalist government intervention in the economy, then wouldn't education be socialist by that definition?

Now of course the military generally aims at defending a social hierachy, which in that sense is not socialist at all, but more corporatist. But in the sense that it implies a social obligation on each to his compatriots (in this case, in the defense of his compatriots against military aggression), it also implies, in a general sense, that Canada doesn't just comprise individuals, but individuals who belong to a collective, which is socialist in that sense. And on that front, why would we have an obligation to defend our compatriots against aggression but not against lack of education or ignorance? In that sense, the education vs military comparison is valid.

[Machjo]

If socialism aspires to be classless then the military is the antithesis of socialism.

On that front, you're right, unless it's a citizen's force or a military force benefitting all of society and not just the elites.

[Machjo]

An individual can pay for their own education. For example, there are many private schools in Canada and people pay for driver's lessons.

OTOH, while it is possible to hire private security services, this is unfeasible at the level of a city or more certainly a country.

Hence, everyone agrees that the State should be responsible for national security (the military) but some people think that the State should not provide education services. As it is, in Canada, education is under provincial jurisdiction. There is no federal department of education.

Well, if I'm not responsible for your education, then why wouldI be responsible for your defense? It is in fact possible to arm myself and defend my own private property and to hell with your defence along with your education.

[Machjo]

And not all individuals can pay for their own or their children's education.

[Machjo]

Hence, everyone agrees that the State should be responsible for national security (the military) but some people think that the State should not provide education services. As it is, in Canada, education is under provincial jurisdiction. There is no federal department of education.

Does everyone agree? What about extreme libertarians or anarchists?

And even among those who agree in principle, can they agree on whom the collective comprises? Some say all Canadians. Many in Quebec say all Quebecers, or at least Francohpne Quebecers. Yet others, such as in the Oka crisis, say our own military was the enemy to stand up against. Yet others may see earth as their homeland and so support a world military to defend their fellow man, not their fellow Canadian alone.

So your assertion that all agree is false. So again, the parallel between education and the military stands.

[M.Dancer]

On that front, you're right, unless it's a citizen's force or a military force benefitting all of society and not just the elites.

Armed forces are hierarchical, even so called imaginary ones that only benefit the elite as well as the other imaginary ones that don't. There are the generals, officers, NCOs and enlisted....someone to give orders and someone to follow them.

[Machjo]

Armed forces are hierarchical, even so called imaginary ones that only benefit the elite as well as the other imaginary ones that don't. There are the generals, officers, NCOs and enlisted....someone to give orders and someone to follow them.

True. But seeing that even the most socialist of organizations are hierarchical to at least some degree, I interpreted the comments along a relative scale. Relatively speaking, a citizen's force is still less hierarchical than a professional force. And a professional force dedicated to defending the interests of an elite would still be higher up on the social pecking order than one defending the citizenry. On a relative scale, it still holds true.

[August1991]

Well, if I'm not responsible for your education, then why wouldI be responsible for your defense? It is in fact possible to arm myself and defend my own private property and to hell with your defence along with your education.

Machjo, think about it.

If I protect my home, my neighbours are also protected. (Think of fire service. The fire could spread.)

OTOH, if I pay for your education, what do I get? (You get a higher salary and I get at most a civilized neighbour.)

-----

These are not easy choices but in general we have mixed them. Fire service is a local decision. Education is a private/shared local decision. National security is a larger public decsion.

And not all individuals can pay for their own or their children's education.

Good point. But by your logic, we should give all our money to China or India. Compared to anyone in Canada, people in China, India or Africa cannot pay for their children's education. So, I think my (and your) education tax dollars should go abroad. No?

IOW, we are not discussing what is right in principle but what will accomplish the most.

Does everyone agree? What about extreme libertarians or anarchists?

I wasted my time. Machjo, you're an idiot. Edited August 22, 2009 by August1991

[Machjo]

Machjo, think about it.

If I protect my home, my neighbours are also protected. (Think of fire service. The fire could spread.)

OTOH, if I pay for your education, what do I get? (You get a higher salary and I get at most a civilized neighbour.)

If I educate you, you can become a contributing member of the society in which I live. This is not possible if I don't educate you unless you can educate yourself. And if you fail to become educated, you then become a burden on society, be it through crime or panhandling, both of which are harmful to me, either to my safety if you become a criminal, or to my general peace if you become a panhandler.

-----

Good point. But by your logic, we should give all our money to China or India. Compared to anyone in Canada, people in China, India or Africa cannot pay for their children's education. So, I think my (and your) education tax dollars should go abroad. No?

Yes, we are responsible for educating the Chinese and Indians. If the Chinese become more educated, they can develop that much faster socially and so become less of a military threat to the world. The same applies to Afghanistan. Educated Afghans are less likely to join the Taliban. It is in our own best interest to educate our neighbours, whether they are our personal neighbours or national neighbours.

IOW, we are not discussing what is right in principle but what will accomplish the most.

Accoplish the most for whom?

I wasted my time. Machjo, you're an idiot.

It's OK if you have no better argument; I won't take it personally.

[Oleg Bach]

Police are our standing army..we are militarists! You can stand at the podium and pass all the laws you want - if you can not enforce that law with a man carrying a gun that can kill the resister - then your laws are useless - Politicans - buisness elite and the judicary are nothing without their army - sad part is they don't even respect police. With out this standing army - any citizen can walk up to any judge or politican or Prime Minister for that matter and cuff him up side the head and say 'shut up'

[Pliny]

I often read intentionally disparaging comments about this or that being 'socialist' and so not good. Yet oftem the same people who make thse comments are prepared to support much more spending on the military than they oppose in other services. It just seems to me that the military is viewd by some as a kind of sacred cow and the ideal job-creation programme without having to admit that it's essentially welfare-statism.

How is it that spending on education let's say, is socialist, yet twice as much spending on the military is capitalist?

I just don't get it.

I think August is correct that justice and defence are considered proper mandates of government. In securing the sanctity of person and property some level of militarism may be necessary depending upon circumstance. There may be no necessity for a full-time standing army. As long as the military is defending the country they are held in esteem. If they start defending the hierarchy then they are not protecting the people, the sanctity of person and property, but the State. It is a different purpose than what is intended. The problem with the State is that it will use the military to forward it's interests and thus becomes an active force for change and abandons it's role as a protective force.

Education, falling into the hands of the State, is then subject to policies of indoctrination and propaganda. The system in Canada is never the problem with education or it's quality. The problems are always lack of resources and support and, more recently, lack of parental involvement or societal shortcomings.

[M.Dancer]

True. But seeing that even the most socialist of organizations are hierarchical to at least some degree, I interpreted the comments along a relative scale. Relatively speaking, a citizen's force is still less hierarchical than a professional force. And a professional force dedicated to defending the interests of an elite would still be higher up on the social pecking order than one defending the citizenry. On a relative scale, it still holds true.

And a force comprised of flying yogic defenders even more so....

...do you have any idea what you are talking about?

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't see how a national military isn't socialist. It is owned and controlled by the state. Who cares if militaries are almost always state-owned and run, they are still state-owned and run.

And private military entities working on a national level do exist. Blackwater is a private company hired by the U.S. gov to defend national interests militarily.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Education isn't a good example of socialist spending either. An educated workforce is needed for continued success and expansion of a capitalist system and so education is a crucial component thereof.

The way our education system is built upon wrote memorisation, yes. That system of education is built for capitalism, and is not actually all that good at educating anyone. That does not mean that all education must exist for the good of capitalism.

Now in regards to the military, the reason that it is not "socialist" is because it is one of the actual valid duties of the state, that cannot reasonably be carried out wholly by private means. A nation must defend its sovereignty, its borders, its interests abroad, etc. These things require a national military force.

Do you read what you write before you hit the "add reply" button? You should try it sometime.

What you just described is a socialist construct. The military is, in fact, one of the greatest socialist institutions that we have.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Malaclypse the Younger

[Malaclypse the Younger]

If socialism aspires to be classless then the military is the antithesis of socialism.

O rly? Splain.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Well, if I'm not responsible for your education, then why wouldI be responsible for your defense? It is in fact possible to arm myself and defend my own private property and to hell with your defence along with your education.

An army of you, a dog, and some birds that landed on your property does not make a military.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Armed forces are hierarchical, even so called imaginary ones that only benefit the elite as well as the other imaginary ones that don't. There are the generals, officers, NCOs and enlisted....someone to give orders and someone to follow them.

I think you're confusing socialism with anarchy. There is no rule with socialism about lack of hiearchy.

[Machjo]

An army of you, a dog, and some birds that landed on your property does not make a military.

Well, if you've got millions of people each sitting on his land with a rifle defending his turf, then that alone would make Canada a Vietnam even for the US. Remember how the US lost that one?

[Machjo]

And just another point about the military being socialist. My father is retired military and I used to be in the military for a short stint. When I was in the military, the military paid a low wage but provided everything I needed, medical, uniform, socks, even boxer shorts, runners, shorts, t-shirt, food, etc. Our whole day was planned out by superiors for days on end. On slow days we might hang around and play games and still get paid for it, and we seldom needed to find work for ourselves since there was always someone else responsible for keeping us busy. We had little freedom to think for ourselves and had low wages, yet were pampered from head to toe never needing to worry about food, clothing, exercise, etc. all of which was planned and provided for us. As for equality, we all got paid along the same pay scale even if one outperformed the others in any way, until we got promoted, again at a fixed and non-negotiable pay scale. If that's not a socialist structure, you tell me what is.

I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with such a structure depending on the organization, and some structures need to be organized like that. But to support such a structure and then pretend to oppose socialism is hard to do while keeping a straight face.

[Malaclypse the Younger]

Well, if you've got millions of people each sitting on his land with a rifle defending his turf, then that alone would make Canada a Vietnam even for the US. Remember how the US lost that one?

We don't have that. We've got some farmers, who often live very far apart, with bolt-action hunting rifles. I would not leave it up to them to defend our country from foreign invaders.

Our military, however, has some of the best snipers in the world. Those are the people I would count on to fuck up any hopes anyone might have of successfully invading Canada.

[Pliny]

And just another point about the military being socialist. My father is retired military and I used to be in the military for a short stint. When I was in the military, the military paid a low wage but provided everything I needed, medical, uniform, socks, even boxer shorts, runners, shorts, t-shirt, food, etc. Our whole day was planned out by superiors for days on end. On slow days we might hang around and play games and still get paid for it, and we seldom needed to find work for ourselves since there was always someone else responsible for keeping us busy. We had little freedom to think for ourselves and had low wages, yet were pampered from head to toe never needing to worry about food, clothing, exercise, etc. all of which was planned and provided for us. As for equality, we all got paid along the same pay scale even if one outperformed the others in any way, until we got promoted, again at a fixed and non-negotiable pay scale. If that's not a socialist structure, you tell me what is.

I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with such a structure depending on the organization, and some structures need to be organized like that. But to support such a structure and then pretend to oppose socialism is hard to do while keeping a straight face.

I can tell you enjoyed the military and especially not having to worry about your essentials. The responsibility of providing your essentials was given to government and paid for out of the economy which I am sure you never considered but certainly enjoyed the benefits and lack of responsibility towards having to supply them to yourself.

All organizations have structure and hierarchy so are thus socialist. Even the family unit as an organism is socialist in nature. The military is an organization within government. It's purpose is expressly the defense of the nation.

The goal of an ideological socialist[/] government is to make the government the single controller of all organizations according to it's ideal. In order to do so it requires control of the nation's economy so it can sustain itself and it uses the police and military to ensure all organizations buckle to it's ideal. That would be a totalitarian nation. Socialism is an evolutionary process toward that State. It seems innocuous at early stages but soon overrides the will of the people and becomes more important as an institution than the society it is contracted to protect.

A free republic would have a government, an organization and thus necessarily socialist in structure, but it's purpose would not be to control the economics of the nation it governs. It would only ensure the people had the freedom and security necessary to the creation of an economy.

A government that lets the people create the economy by protecting the sanctity of person and property, basically making it safe to produce wealth and retain it, will see wealth develop. A government that doesn't protect those rights, or is untrustworthy itself to maintain that right, creates instability in the economy and is not conducive to the production of wealth. If wealth can be taken away at the government's whim or at the hands of criminals and thieves who are not held to respect the sanctity of person and property, no one will make the effort to produce it.

Edited August 28, 2009 by Pliny