Chile to call 57,000 18 year olds to fill 11,340 positions in military

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/17/chile-military-drafts_n_1015849.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=662412,b=facebook


I dont know if writers are still striking at Huffpo. if so, i apologize.

[RedSonRising]

Deadly mistake for the Chilean state. Forced conscription will only further fuel the students and workers already protesting and mobilizing against the structures and policies within the country.

[Os Cangaceiros]

If your country is experiencing social unrest, it's generally not a good idea to start forcing members of the very social group that's causing the unrest into your armed forces. :unsure:

[Aleenik]

Epic fail by the government of Chile.

[GatesofLenin]

Pinochet, anyone?

[RadioRaheem84]

Pinochet, anyone?

Even after Pinochet stepped down, his shadow lives on in the Constitution he helped ratify.

The military still has total control when needed.

[El Louton]

The Chilean Government is just simply adding fuel to the students fire of rage.

[piet11111]

Angry youth getting military training and weapons what could possibly go wrong.

[GatesofLenin]

Even after Pinochet stepped down, his shadow lives on in the Constitution he helped ratify.

The military still has total control when needed.

Time for a new Constitution then. I'm sure the majority of Chileans would approve.

[阿部高和]

In of itself, a state will need a strong military, so I don't really see anything wrong with conscription (Defense of the proletarian state would be defense of everyone--however, bourgeois states...

[Le Socialiste]

Well, that's one way to shoot yourself in the foot...;)


In of itself, a state will need a strong military, so I don't really see anything wrong with conscription (Defense of the proletarian state would be defense of everyone--however, bourgeois states...

There is no justification for conscription, regardless of any state's declared ideology. Not to mention it can (and usually does) backfire on the government. There are better ways to defend the gains of a revolution than to rely on state-enforced coercion to join one's military.

[Kamos]

In of itself, a state will need a strong military, so I don't really see anything wrong with conscription (Defense of the proletarian state would be defense of everyone--however, bourgeois states...

Well, there is only one thing wrong with it. If your proletarian state involves conscription, I'll go as far as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to avoid it. Fuck militarism. A revolution isn't successful if anything more than a defensive force comprised of volunteers is needed to defend it.

[阿部高和]

Well, there is only one thing wrong with it. If your proletarian state involves conscription, I'll go as far as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to avoid it.

You will not be missed.

[Kamos]

You will not be missed.

Neither would I miss your police state.

[thefinalmarch]

In of itself, a state will need a strong military, so I don't really see anything wrong with conscription (Defense of the proletarian state would be defense of everyone--however, bourgeois states...
There's something tremendously wrong with your conception of a workers' state.

[danyboy27]

Deadly mistake for the Chilean state. Forced conscription will only further fuel the students and workers already protesting and mobilizing against the structures and policies within the country.

Depend, the move strike me has relatively smart. the goal is to divide the movement, and giving well paid governement positions in order to incorporate some of their element in the bourgeois class will do just that.

sure some people will rebel but in that kind of economy, most will just take the badly needed money and do the job.

[Seth]

Well, there is only one thing wrong with it. If your proletarian state involves conscription, I'll go as far as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to avoid it. Fuck militarism. A revolution isn't successful if anything more than a defensive force comprised of volunteers is needed to defend it.

So, the Bolsheviks were unjust to intervene to help the revolutionaries in other countries? Stalin was unjust to have conscription in world war II? Should a defensive force of volunteers have fended off the wehrmacht?

I'm starting to think libertarian socialism is full of holes.

[El Louton]

Capitalism is just one big hole which sucks in everything it can and leaves it in a pile of shit. :)

[Kamos]

So, the Bolsheviks were unjust to intervene to help the revolutionaries in other countries? Stalin was unjust to have conscription in world war II? Should a defensive force of volunteers have fended off the wehrmacht?

I'm starting to think libertarian socialism is full of holes.

As a libertarian socialist you should really know that the Soviet Union's socialism was already fucked when Stalin took power. Conscription or not, the situation was bad there already. And believe it or not, conscription infringes on one of your most important personal liberties: your right to live. So yes, Stalin was unjust to enact conscription. Yeah, Nazi Germany would have established supremacy over Europe, and in a way the actual end result was better. But this notion of "greater good" that you suggest is absolutely disgusting and I really don't see why you've become a libertarian socialist when you disagree with their core principles.

[Seth]

As a libertarian socialist you should really know that the Soviet Union's socialism was already fucked when Stalin took power. Conscription or not, the situation was bad there already. And believe it or not, conscription infringes on one of your most important personal liberties: your right to live. So yes, Stalin was unjust to enact conscription. Yeah, Nazi Germany would have established supremacy over Europe, and in a way the actual end result was better. But this notion of "greater good" that you suggest is absolutely disgusting and I really don't see why you've become a libertarian socialist when you disagree with their core principles.

The USSR or Stalin's socialism is not the question, the issue is "if you have conscription ima run away!" which is helpful to no one. Imagine if soviet people did that.

For what its worth some type of conscription would be necessary in socialism, and I see no reason for so many libertarians to oppose that. IMO only self-centered traitors would "run away to Saudi Arabia."

[Kamos]

The USSR or Stalin's socialism is not the question, the issue is "if you have conscription ima run away!" which is helpful to no one. Imagine if soviet people did that.

For what its worth some type of conscription would be necessary in socialism, and I see no reason for so many libertarians to oppose that. IMO only self-centered traitors would "run away to Saudi Arabia."

Call me a self-centered traitor if you want, then. However, you can't force me to follow you to the death if I don't want to. Don't you see how this is antithetical to socialism? The whole point of socialism is to make the people, the average Joes matter, to make them more than just the puppets of the establishment. The revolution is not something that will be fought by standing army against standing army, but rather an uprising on a massive scale that will not need to resort to rank-and-file warfare to achieve victory. Now that both the moral and the practical argument for conscription is gone, what else do you have to say in favor of forcing people to march to their deaths?