Our attitude towards soldiers?

[Questionable]

I recently read an article by an ex-US soldier turned PMC about the nature of video games that depict war. He claimed that most media portrayals of the military are silly not because they belittle the heroes, but because most men in the armed forces are unapologetic sociopaths.

He went into detail about how most soldiers care little about the violence they inflict. There was one gut-wrenching example of a man forgetting that he had accidentally killed a woman and child while in pursuit of an insurgent. He concluded that the reason many ex-soldiers become PMC is because violence is what they're good at. They care very little about politics or nations. They simply want to make more money at what they're good at.

Previously, I had the attitude of "Love the soldiers, hate the politicians," but that seems to be out-of-date. During WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and others, a majority of soldiers were working men drafted out of their homes, but nowadays you voluntarily sign up for service. Should we extend our sympathies to the members of the armed forces who were tricked by capitalist propaganda to believe that they were fighting for democracy, instead hating the system that turned them into murderers, or should we condemn them for putting themselves at the disposal of imperialism in the first place?

[daft punk]

Well, in a revolution, who's side do you want them on?

[Questionable]

Well, in a revolution, who's side do you want them on?

Obviously we'd need their firepower, but I don't know if I want people who take pride in their violent nature and don't give a shit about politics to be a part of the revolution.

Maybe someone can enlighten me. That's just my viewpoint for now.

[The Douche]

Soldiers are isolated from the rest of society, and are encouraged to have the sort of mentality you're referring to, and then held up as unquestionable heroes by popular culture.

Its not so much that they honestly love violence or anything in most cases, but it is true that its what they know/are good at.

Plus there is the issue, that as a soldier, to actually acknowledge that what you're doing is bad/wrong is extremely painful, and if you come to the conclusion that war is wrong, or to revolutionary conclusions, you're essentially guaranteed to develop mental problems, like PTSD.

[Decolonize The Left]

I recently read an article by an ex-US soldier turned PMC about the nature of video games that depict war. He claimed that most media portrayals of the military are silly not because they belittle the heroes, but because most men in the armed forces are unapologetic sociopaths.

He went into detail about how most soldiers care little about the violence they inflict. There was one gut-wrenching example of a man forgetting that he had accidentally killed a woman and child while in pursuit of an insurgent. He concluded that the reason many ex-soldiers become PMC is because violence is what they're good at. They care very little about politics or nations. They simply want to make more money at what they're good at.

Previously, I had the attitude of "Love the soldiers, hate the politicians," but that seems to be out-of-date. During WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and others, a majority of soldiers were working men drafted out of their homes, but nowadays you voluntarily sign up for service. Should we extend our sympathies to the members of the armed forces who were tricked by capitalist propaganda to believe that they were fighting for democracy, instead hating the system that turned them into murderers, or should we condemn them for putting themselves at the disposal of imperialism in the first place?

Soldiers are in a very difficult position.

On the one hand, they are the direct instrument of capitalism imperialism. They serve no other purpose than the open protection of the capitalist state, and the aggressive arm of that state when it seeks to further itself materially.

On the other hand, most don't know this or don't care. Most join due to lack of options, possible monetary rewards, inflated notions of honor and service, etc... The entire bourgeois state is aimed at making people want to serve in the army.

So we oppose the army because it is a capitalist army.
But we understand that the soldier most likely feels forced into their situation due to external circumstances.

- August

[ProletariatPraetorian]

The problem with the military is the superiority complex.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

There is also a difference that we can see among soldier, regarding if youre in miltary service thats mandatory compared too a specialised organization which rely on recruting and volunteers. Where the first menthioned is more likly to support the people in case of a revolution. We have seen that in China 89, during the big protests on Tiananmen square, where the regular soldiers didnt want to hurt theire nrothers and sister, so the regime had to take some specialized, brainwashed, forces who commited the massacre. Almost the same happend in Rumania 89, and we saw the same thing last spring in the uprising in the arab world.

When the military is integrated with the rest of society it doesnt start to 'live its own life' so to speak. With own values and ideas, an other exampel is Venezuela where most soldiers and low ranking officers sides with Chavez since he fight for them and theire families (workers and peasents).

[CountryKid]

The problem with the military is the superiority complex.

This. All too many times have I been told that im shit because I never served, and I never will be able too.



Even went as far as to have been told only those who were in the military should be allowed to vote, etc.

[andyx1205]

The soldier is the victim of the national state, where what is right or wrong is determined by the policies of the state, hence, in one situation the soldier may be fighting a just war against fascism, in another, he or she may be carrying out the imperial policies of the state.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

This. All too many times have I been told that im shit because I never served, and I never will be able too.



Even went as far as to have been told only those who were in the military should be allowed to vote, etc.

Just look at what perks are offered to those in the military. When i was in the service my airline baggage fees were waived, when my sister was in she was allowed to bypass security and to this day if either of us hint at our prior service we recieve thanks. The fact is one doesnt need to wear a uniform to be a soldier.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

The soldier is the victim of the national state, where what is right or wrong is determined by the policies of the state, hence, in one situation the soldier may be fighting a just war against fascism, in another, he or she may be carrying out the imperial policies of the state.

Bollocks, the fact is you need to have your convictions squared away before you enlist. Those in the military may have been victims of the circumstances that have driven them to enlist however once theyve embraced that superiority complex theyre just another tool of oppression. The military is not unlike a sports team or the police, you protect your own, right or wrong.

[The Douche]

Just look at what perks are offered to those in the military. When i in the service my airline baggage fees were waived, when my sister was in she was allowed to bypass security and to this day if i slip up and hint at my prior service i recieve thanks. The fact is one doesnt need to wear a uniform to be a soldier.

If we're gonna talk about the perks, I think its more important to mention things like health care and education benefits.

Not shorter lines at the airport (which certainly doesn't apply now, I dunno when you were in).

[Ostrinski]

One of my old co-workers was an Iraq vet and my grandfather is a Vietnam vet and they're the sweetest people ever. It's not on a personal level that we oppose them, but on a structural one.

[Drowzy_Shooter]

IMO, we should treat them with a kind heart (if they aren't jerks). We will catch more flies with honey. The kids I know will go to the military because they wish to serve. I don't believe enough of them are educated on what they're serving. We should try to give them something else to serve.

[The Douche]

One of my old co-workers was an Iraq vet and my grandfather is a Vietnam vet and they're the sweetest people ever. It's not on a personal level that we oppose them, but on a structural one.

I mean, I'm far from one of the "sweetest people ever", but I certainly don't take pleasure in my past military service. And very few people are glad to have taken lives, but see it as "regrettably necessary" or some other sort of justification. Because otherwise, they'd have to say "I killed people for corporate profits".

[Revolution starts with U]

Turn the guns on your "superiors."

[GoddessCleoLover]

Cmoney-the last sentence of your post reminded me of an old quote from a former Marine Corps general, Smedley Butler.

Realpolitik requires that we win over a substantial portion of the rank-and-file military lest we suffer the fate of the German Spartacists. This can be accomplished IMO since most young persons who enlist in the US military do so either from a desire to "serve" or even more often from a lack of opportunity. We must divide the enlisted ranks of the military from the officer corps.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

If we're gonna talk about the perks, I think its more important to mention things like health care and education benefits.

Not shorter lines at the airport (which certainly doesn't apply now, I dunno when you were in).

Well those are the obvious ones, i was hoping i wasnt going to have to point out the obvious.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

A good friend of mine is joining the USMC next year, and they really do think they're serving a good cause. They've said that what inspires them to join is "spreading free speech" to others. I've brought up the point that the military can be abusive of civilians in other nations, and they seem to be under the belief that this is uncommon and usually punished.

I think most soldiers are like this, and really do think they're fighting for the freedom of others, and as such I don't think it's fair to dismiss them all as terrible people.

[The Douche]

Well, in all fairness, the rationalizations that they're essentially forced to make, in order to account for their actions, do tend to make them into rather shitty people.

The other thing is that war really sucks, like, really bad. And it fucks with your psyche, and after you experience it, part of you never wants to see it again, but at the same time, you always feel like something is missing from your life. Thats why lots of soldiers will say that they hated being in Iraq or Afghanistan, but at the same time, be anxious to go back.

Its a difficult thing to describe, and I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a part of me that still itches for it.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

A good friend of mine is joining the USMC next year, and they really do think they're serving a good cause. They've said that what inspires them to join is "spreading free speech" to others. I've brought up the point that the military can be abusive of civilians in other nations, and they seem to be under the belief that this is uncommon and usually punished.

I think most soldiers are like this, and really do think they're fighting for the freedom of others, and as such I don't think it's fair to dismiss them all as terrible people.

Those serving the Third Reich thought they were fighting for a good cause as well. Like i said before, one has to have their convictions sorted out before they enlist, otherwise youll commit anything under the pressure of pack mentality.

[l'Enfermé]

A distinction must be made, between professional soldiers and conscripts. Professional armies attract only the most chauvinistic, nationalist, reactionary and violent elements of society. To add to that, they're also indoctrinated by the bourgeois state.

Anyways, a somewhat related letter by Trotsky. I like especially because it was written about 40-something days before Stalin killed him.

July 9, 1940
Dear Comrade Al,
I believe that we agree with you on all the points of a principled character as they are formulated in your letter of July 6.
It is very important to understand that the war does not nullify or diminish the importance of our Transitional Program. Just the contrary is true. The Transitional Program is a bridge between the present situation and the proletarian revolution. War is a continuation of politics by other means. The characteristic of war is that it accelerates the development. It signifies that our transitional revolutionary slogans will become more and more actual, effective, important with every new month of the war. We have only of course to concretize and adapt them to the conditions. That is why in your first paragraph I would eliminate the word “to modify” because it can produce the impression that we must modify something of a principled character.
We are absolutely in favor of compulsory military training and in the same way for conscription. Conscription? Yes. By the bourgeois state? No. We cannot entrust this work, as any other, to the state of the exploiters. In our propaganda and agitation we must very strongly differentiate these two questions. That is, not to fight against the necessity of the workers being good soldiers and of building up an army based on discipline, science, strong bodies and so on, including conscription, but against the capitalist state which abuses the army for the advantage of the exploiting class. In your paragraph four you say: “Once conscription is made into law, we cease to struggle against it but continue our struggle for military training under workers’ control, etc.” I would prefer to say: “Once conscription is made into law we, without ceasing to struggle against the capitalist state, concentrate our struggle for military training and so on.”
We can’t oppose compulsory military training by the bourgeois state just as we can’t oppose compulsory education by the bourgeois state. Military training in our eyes is a part of education. We must struggle against the bourgeois state; its abuses in this field as in others.
We must of course fight against the war not only “until the very last moment” but during the war itself when it begins. We must however give to our fight against the war its fully revolutionary sense, opposing and pitilessly denouncing pacifism. The very simple and very great idea of our fight against the war is: we are against the war but we will have the war if we are incapable of overthrowing the capitalists.
I don’t see any reason why we should renounce the slogan of a people’s referendum on the war. It is a very good slogan to unmask the futility of their democracy in such a vital question as the war.
I don’t believe that the demand for workers’ defense guards will be eliminated by the demand for universal military training. The approach of the war and the war itself with the rise of chauvinistic moods will inevitably provoke pogroms against the trade unions, revolutionary organizations and papers. We can’t give up defending ourselves. Universal training can only facilitate for us the creation of workers’ defense guards.
“Government ownership ... of all war industries” should be replaced by “national” or by “state ownership.”
Such are the remarks I can make in relation to your letter.
Fraternally
L. TROTSKY

[Susurrus]

FYI here's the article op mentions. Good read.

http://www.mediumdifficulty.com/2012/03/01/call-of-apathy-violent-young-men-and-our-place-in-war/

[Questionable]

Thank you for posting it. It wouldn't let me because my post count was too low (In fact, I can't even quote your message because it still counts as posting a link!).

[Ele'ill]

Put the gun down or turn it around.

[Saviorself]

I've known people in the military on all sides of this. My friend Dennis, who is in the Army, is one of those unapologetic sociopaths who doesn't care about the politics or anyone's freedom, he just wants to kill people. His willingness to kill people actually got him in a little trouble; he has been forced to take a position in the rear echelon where he is unlikely to see much action. We certainly don't see eye-to-eye on most things but we have been friends for a long time and he has been nothing but a good, reliable friend to me. As such, I wish him no ill will.

Another friend of mine, Cole, joined the Navy for a different reason; he truly believes in the "American Dream"; God, apple-pie, white picket fences, freedom, baseball and all that other nonsense. Him and I don't see eye to eye on everything either but he too has been nothing but a good, reliable friend to me and I wish him no ill will.

And this brings us to my friend, Eric, he joined the Army so he could go to school. For him it was nothing more than job that would also pay for his schooling. The fact that he grew up in a military household probably also had something to do with. He did his time, got out and now attends the same school I do.

Joining the military is something I would never do because if I am going to die for any cause, it is going to be my own. Other people, however, are certainly free to do as they wish with their lives. So I have no feelings either way about people who do decide to join the military; their life, their choice.

[The Douche]

I've known people in the military on all sides of this. My friend Dennis, who is in the Army, is one of those unapologetic sociopaths who doesn't care about the politics or anyone's freedom, he just wants to kill people. His willingness to kill people actually got him in a little trouble; he has been forced to take a position in the rear echelon where he is unlikely to see much action. We certainly don't see eye-to-eye on most things but we have been friends for a long time and he has been nothing but a good, reliable friend to me. As such, I wish him no ill will.

Another friend of mine, Cole, joined the Navy for a different reason; he truly believes in the "American Dream"; God, apple-pie, white picket fences, freedom, baseball and all that other nonsense. Him and I don't see eye to eye on everything either but he too has been nothing but a good, reliable friend to me and I wish him no ill will.

And this brings us to my friend, Eric, he joined the Army so he could go to school. For him it was nothing more than job that would also pay for his schooling. The fact that he grew up in a military household probably also had something to do with. He did his time, got out and now attends the same school I do.

Joining the military is something I would never do because if I am going to die for any cause, it is going to be my own. Other people, however, are certainly free to do as they wish with their lives. So I have no feelings either way about people who do decide to join the military; their life, their choice.

No dude, its not simply "their life, their choice". Because its not just their life, their job is to kill people.

What soldiers do is wrong, you should make that clear to people if they express interest in joining the military, you should make it clear to the people in the military that you interact with.

[Saviorself]

No dude, its not simply "their life, their choice". Because its not just their life, their job is to kill people.

It is, quite simply, their life their choice. Saying that a soldier's job to kill people is a gross-over simplification as there are MANY people in the military who aren't in combat jobs and who never killed a single a person.


What soldiers do is wrong

Another blanket statement based on an emotional appeal and not on rational thought or logic. Would you say that the soldiers in WWII fighting to put an end to genocide were wrong for doing what they were doing? Or what about the literally thousands of soldiers, enlisted today, who have spoken out (at no small threat to their well-being) against the unethical actions of some of their fellow soldiers and then men who set them to their purpose? Is what they are doing "wrong"? You would do well to think things out before post them.

You're posting on a website called RevLeft, which is, presumably, short for "Revolution(ary) Left". Now, if there is to be any sort of actual revolution in the United States (or anywhere, for that matter) it will not be accomplished through peaceful means such as "passive protesting" and it sure as hell won't come using the political process of voting. No, the only way it can be accomplished via armed, violent revolution. And therein lies the point: the "soldiers" of the revolution will also have to kill people, that will be part of their "job". So for you to say that all soldiers are bad because some of them have to kill people on occasion is pretty fucking hypocritical.

Hell, even your signature promotes homicide, so you must not think that killing is all bad.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Saviorself; I have no intention of interposing myself between you and Cmoney, but I am curious as to whether you are aware that the phrase "sic semper tyrannis", originally the motto of the slave-owning Commonwealth of Virginia, and notorious for being shouted by white supremacist John Wilkes Booth after his cowardly assassination of Abraham Lincoln has a sinister connotation for anyone to the left of, say, Jefferson Davis?

[Saviorself]

Yes, I am quite aware that it was used by John Wilkes Booth. However, I still think "thus ever to tyrants" is quite appropriate given my disdain for the government and all politicians. What's the point? Are you trying to form some ad hominem against me and insinuate that I am somehow pro-slavery or a white supremacist? If so, I can only laugh at you for being a giant douche nozzle. :lol:

[The Douche]

It is, quite simply, their life their choice. Saying that a soldier's job to kill people is a gross-over simplification as there are MANY people in the military who aren't in combat jobs and who never killed a single a person.

The individuals in the military who serve in non-combat functions exist in order to facilitate combat operations. Cooks feed the dudes who pull triggers, so that they can pull triggers etc.


Would you say that the soldiers in WWII fighting to put an end to genocide were wrong for doing what they were doing?

I do not support any of the imperialist powers in WW2.


Or what about the literally thousands of soldiers, enlisted today, who have spoken out (at no small threat to their well-being) against the unethical actions of some of their fellow soldiers and then men who set them to their purpose?

Oh you mean, people like me?


Is what they are doing "wrong"?

No, because what they're doing is the opposite of your suggestion that service in an imperialist military is simply an individual's choice.


You're posting on a website called RevLeft, which is, presumably, short for "Revolution(ary) Left". Now, if there is to be any sort of actual revolution in the United States (or anywhere, for that matter) it will not be accomplished through peaceful means such as "passive protesting" and it sure as hell won't come using the political process of voting. No, the only way it can be accomplished via armed, violent revolution. And therein lies the point: the "soldiers" of the revolution will also have to kill people, that will be part of their "job". So for you to say that all soldiers are bad because some of them have to kill people on occasion is pretty fucking hypocritical

Blah blah blah...

Killing in self-defense/in defense of revolution is not the same as serving in an imperialist military, this is some really elementary shit.


Hell, even your signature promotes homicide, so you must not think that killing is all bad.

Find where I suggested that it was...

[Saviorself]

The individuals in the military who serve in non-combat functions exist in order to facilitate combat operations. Cooks feed the dudes who pull triggers, so that they can pull triggers etc.

But killing is still not their job, as you tried to claim.


No, because what they're doing is the opposite of your suggestion that service in an imperialist military is simply an individual's choice.

Joining the military is a choice. There is currently no draft so all who enlist in the military do so of their own volition.


Killing in self-defense/in defense of revolution is not the same as serving in an imperialist military, this is some really elementary shit.

"Killing is killing whether done for duty, profit or fun." - Richard Ramirez

Everyone who kills, whether to preserve their own life, in "defense of freedom" or in a revolutionary context does so because they believe it is the right thing to do. If you think soldiers are bad people because they kill, you must think the same about anyone who kills. This is some pretty elementary shit.


Find where I suggested that it was...

Are you REALLY that fucking stupid?! You said it is a soldiers job to kill, and that what soldiers do is wrong. Implying that you think killing is wrong.

[The Douche]

But killing is still not their job, as you tried to claim.

Their job is to facilitate the spread of imperialism by the bullet, there is little difference between pulling the trigger and enabling somebody to pull the trigger, and I will not differentiate between the two.


Joining the military is a choice. There is currently no draft so all who enlist in the military do so of their own volition.

The point is that it has an effect on people other than the individual who enlists. Its more than just "do you wanna be in the army?", its "do you wanna be in the army and be responsible for the deaths of individuals and the plunder of the working class of foreign nations".


Everyone who kills, whether to preserve their own life, in "defense of freedom" or in a revolutionary context does so because they believe it is the right thing to do. If you think soldiers are bad people because they kill, you must think the same about anyone who kills. This is some pretty elementary shit.

We're not talking about philosophical concepts here, where one can muse that it is always morally wrong to take a life. I think soldiers are wrong, not because they kill, but for the reason that they kill. That is pretty fucking obvious to everybody reading, except you. Furthermore, I don't think soldiers are "bad people", I am against capitalism, not "soldiers" as individuals, but the system they defend.

You're trying to set up this straw man argument where I oppose individual soldiers, but thats not what I've said anywhere in this argument.


You said it is a soldiers job to kill, and that what soldiers do is wrong. Implying that you think killing is wrong.

Let me break it down for you:

Soldiers don't just "kill people". They are employees of the state which they serve, in this case, we're talking about soldiers in imperialist countries, which means that their job is to kill people in order to ensure the acquisition of markets or to capture access to natural resources.

I think this is wrong, because I am a communist.

An individual who engages in violence in self-defense is not the same as a soldier, because they not acting of behalf of capitalism as a system. Unless of course, they are (like a boss defending his factory), in which case, they, like a soldier, are functioning as an armed wing of capital.

Do you understand the difference I'm presenting? What exactly are you arguing here? That there is nothing wrong with soldiers doing their jobs?

[Saviorself]

The point is that it has an effect on people other than the individual who enlists. Its more than just "do you wanna be in the army?", its "do you wanna be in the army and be responsible for the deaths of individuals and the plunder of the working class of foreign nations".

You said that joining the military wasn't an individual's choice, when clearly it is as no one is forced to enlist (in the US military). Your rejoinder has nothing to do with the quote you were responding to.


You're trying to set up this straw man argument where I oppose individual soldiers, but thats not what I've said anywhere in this argument.

Funny, when considering you have had more bad things to say about the soldiers themselves than the system they serve. No strawman fallacy on my part.


Soldiers don't just "kill people". They are employees of the state which they serve, in this case, we're talking about soldiers in imperialist countries, which means that their job is to kill people in order to ensure the acquisition of markets or to capture access to natural resources.

I think this is wrong, because I am a communist.

LMFAO! Yeah, 'cause, you know, it's not like there has ever been a Communist army/regime responsible for the slaughter of many innocent people.:rolleyes:


What exactly are you arguing here? That there is nothing wrong with soldiers doing their jobs?

All I am arguing is that I think it is quite stupid for you tell me how I should feel about anything. Whether it be about politics, the military, musical genres or anything else. My mind is my own.

[Os Cangaceiros]

They're just like cops on the world stage. And I hate cops, so I'm tempted to just write soldiers off, too. But unfortunately in our militarized world we'll need a segment of them in order to tear the social fabric apart. Even though our campaign isn't primarily military in nature, it should go without saying.

Almost everyone I've ever known personally who's been in the military or has expressed a great desire to be has been a total scumbag. One notable case was a dude with an SS tattoo on his ankle and a penchant for carving "14/88" in random things at his high school with a knife. :rolleyes: I don't know if he ever got to fulfill his dream of killing brown people in the desert, but judging by the other people I've known in the military, it wouldn't suprise me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Love the soldiers, hate the politicians,"Well it's not about loving soldiers, it's just not hating or ultimately blaming them. In imperialist actions, they are not the cause of the conflict and more importantly the vast majority of enlisted or drafted soldiers have no inherent class interest in the success of the imperialist war. As soldiers they have an interest in opposing their officers and as working class or people (who usually make up most of the non-officers - except in rural countries where soldiers might be also be taken from small farms) the sucess of their ruling class ultimately makes their own class oppressors even stronger. For example in WWI in the US, there was anti-war propaganda that said things like "don't go to war for JP Morgan" and in Vietnam the civil rights struggle led to many black GIs identifying that the war was to help the same system that oppressed them back at home.

So on the one hand we should recognize that the atrocities committed when a few greedy powerful people send tens of thousands of armed men to harass, bomb, kill as well as get attacked and treated with (fully justifiable and correct) hostility by the people they are sent to control are not atrocities of a few sadistic fucks, but inevitable under such conditions. On the other hand we should also see that the class nature of capitalist armies also means that low-level soldiers from working class or oppressed communities are a weak-link and potential achilles heel for imperialist powers. For the US in vietnam the refusals and resistance by GIs led to the US having to abandon the ground war and even hampered the airforce and navy bombings. On a much greater scale, soldiers played roles in the Russian Revolution and Germany at the end of WWI. Working people drafted into the National Guard in Paris played a fundamental role in founding the commune.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

Heres a question, how can we loathe the police yet not share the same sentiment when comes to the military? The military fights to sustain Capitalism, the police oppress the worker, the police are closer to the working class than the military.

[Comrade Gwydion]

Well, in a revolution, who's side do you want them on?

In that case, let's love the bourgouisie.
I mean, who's side do you want their power and money on?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Heres a question, how can we loathe the police yet not share the same sentiment when comes to the military? The military fights to sustain Capitalism, the police oppress the worker, the police are closer to the working class than the military.

Cops aren't essentially tricked into joining up; if a cop suddenly realizes that his role is to brutalize people, he can quit anytime whereas draftees and enlistees can't; the ruling class goes to great lengths to separate cops from the working class (police and corrections unions pretty much always get what they demand, cops in my town are paid $70k to start and that's not including pension and benefits, cops are treated as above the law by our rulers and they hardly ever receive punishment whereas the military routinely throws lower-ranking soldiers under the bus when the US military is caught doing something particularly vile). So it is in a cop's interest to help the state maintain it's repressive apparatus and monopoly on violence whereas, like I said in my last post, enlisted and drafted soldiers in imperialist armies will end up back as wage-workers and so a more powerful class enemy is not really in their class interests and this presents an opening for a worker's movement to be able to drive a wedge into the military.

I think you can say that police and military officers and careerists are very similar in character, but not GIs.

[citizen of industry]

They're just like cops on the world stage. And I hate cops, so I'm tempted to just write soldiers off, too. But unfortunately in our militarized world we'll need a segment of them in order to tear the social fabric apart. Even though our campaign isn't primarily military in nature, it should go without saying.

Almost everyone I've ever known personally who's been in the military or has expressed a great desire to be has been a total scumbag. One notable case was a dude with an SS tattoo on his ankle and a penchant for carving "14/88" in random things at his high school with a knife. :rolleyes: I don't know if he ever got to fulfill his dream of killing brown people in the desert, but judging by the other people I've known in the military, it wouldn't suprise me.

We'll need a segment of them? Who the fuck are you to "command" a "segment" of them. Probably one of the same people who "need" organized labor, a.k.a. unions to realize their revolutionary plans but spend most of their time criticizing both. This whole thread focuses on the psychological aspects of the military and ignores the economic. Take a look at the racial composition of the military for one, and the job security and benefits for another. So glad you'd all think pushing paperwork in a corporate office that exploits labor in xnumber of countries and pulls in millions, much of which is used to pay for politicians and armies, makes one somehow better than the person pulling the trigger.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

Cops aren't essentially tricked into joining up; if a cop suddenly realizes that his role is to brutalize people, he can quit anytime whereas draftees and enlistees can't; the ruling class goes to great lengths to separate cops from the working class (police and corrections unions pretty much always get what they demand, cops in my town are paid $70k to start and that's not including pension and benefits, cops are treated as above the law by our rulers and they hardly ever receive punishment whereas the military routinely throws lower-ranking soldiers under the bus when the US military is caught doing something particularly vile). So it is in a cop's interest to help the state maintain it's repressive apparatus and monopoly on violence whereas, like I said in my last post, enlisted and drafted soldiers in imperialist armies will end up back as wage-workers and so a more powerful class enemy is not really in their class interests and this presents an opening for a worker's movement to be able to drive a wedge into the military.

I think you can say that police and military officers and careerists are very similar in character, but not GIs.

Isnt the belief that theyre helping to improve the area they live in trickery? The evidence that the military is nothing more than a tool of Capitalism and oppression is more evident than that incriminating police. I remember reading something, dont remember what it was called or who wrote it, explaining the hierarchy among the working class, ie. the working class is below the police, the police below the military, and how it keeps the working class divided.

[The Douche]

You said that joining the military wasn't an individual's choice, when clearly it is as no one is forced to enlist (in the US military).

Except, thats not what I said, here's a quote:


No dude, its not simply "their life, their choice". Because its not just their life, their job is to kill people.

Do you see the difference between what I said, and what you're suggesting I said? I did not say anybody is forced to join the military, I said that their decisions has an effect on more than just themselves, so there is more to consider than just an individual's choice, because service in the military implies infringement on the individual autonomy of others.


Funny, when considering you have had more bad things to say about the soldiers themselves than the system they serve. No strawman fallacy on my part.

Why don't you go back through my posts and quote me to support this claim? Let me pull some quotes out for you, unfortunately for you, they support the opposite of your fallacy:


their job is to kill people.


What soldiers do is wrong


the rationalizations that they're essentially forced to make, in order to account for their actions, do tend to make them into rather shitty people.


And very few people are glad to have taken lives, but see it as "regrettably necessary" or some other sort of justification. Because otherwise, they'd have to say "I killed people for corporate profits".

So I haven't condemned individuals, I have explained the mental process which sometimes leads to their reactionary attitudes, and I have addressed pretty clearly the social role they fill, which is why the institution must be opposed.


LMFAO! Yeah, 'cause, you know, it's not like there has ever been a Communist army/regime responsible for the slaughter of many innocent people.:rolleyes:

What are you talking about here? Are you begging me to defend the actions of the USSR or PRC or something? :confused:


All I am arguing is that I think it is quite stupid for you tell me how I should feel about anything. Whether it be about politics, the military, musical genres or anything else. My mind is my own.

Well buddy, this is a message board, it exists for debate. Not to mention, its not real clear what exactly your position is. It would seem that you don't think there is anything wrong with serving in an imperialist army, because you think it is an individual's choice to do so, and we shouldn't be able to comment on this choice, after all, I suppose you think "their mind is their own"?

[Rocky Rococo]

I remember when I was in the military that all my fellows were in favor of more wars because promotions come faster during wartime. I didn't really fit in because I just couldn't bring myself to share that mentality.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Isnt the belief that theyre helping to improve the area they live in trickery? The evidence that the military is nothing more than a tool of Capitalism and oppression is more evident than that incriminating police. I remember reading something, dont remember what it was called or who wrote it, explaining the hierarchy among the working class, ie. the working class is below the police, the police below the military, and how it keeps the working class divided.I don't think you mean hierarchy among the working class. You may be talking about the idea of multiple levels of repression of the working class: the police as the first layer just keeping "order" on the street level, the state guard if the police are inadequate (a major riot or massive strike, for example), and the military if the guard are not sufficient (an actual insurrection).

I have cops in my family and none of them think they are improving the areas they are assigned to and they have never lived in the areas (even cities sometimes) they patrolled. They think they are keeping order - they may think they are improving things in an overall sense, but they have an antagonistic relationship to the communities they work in. In Oakland something like 80% or more police do not live in Oakland and don't come from here. They are often called "street-managers" by anarchists and I think that's an appropriate way to look at their role - they aren't part of the working class even if they come from a working class background. They have an interest in maintaining the system but soldiers are not given extra-benefits by our ruling class (the homeless have always included many vets - who then get harassed - or shot in the face with tear-gas at protests - by cops!) and they can't even quit easily if they don't like what they are doing. The ruling class goes ape-shit when a cop is hurt (and then the cops are given carte blanche to go on a rampage after a cop is shot) whereas the entire purpose of a GI is to be fodder.

Just look at the difference in pay and benefits between cops and GIs or the difference in they way they are treated when caught in a scandal; hell cops in LA or NYC have more body armor than GIs in Iraq at certain points did. Cops are a bulwark for the ruling class, the military is a bulwark but GIs are fodder to be thrown at the military's objectives and then tossed away when the conflict is over. Soldiers have refused orders to fire on workers when brought to stop big strikes or protests (even in Egypt this happened) because they know that at the end of the day (or term of service) that those people are in the same position they will be in - this isn't automatic and the military does a lot to try and cut against these weaknesses, but ultimately these are the contradictions of capitalist armies. Cops on the other hand have an interest in maintain their position and that order of society because they actually benefit from a stronger state.

[piet11111]

Heres a question, how can we loathe the police yet not share the same sentiment when comes to the military? The military fights to sustain Capitalism, the police oppress the worker, the police are closer to the working class than the military.

The police are specifically trained to put down working class opposition while the military are trained to fight foreigners.
Traditionally the police forces are the absolute last to side with the workers.

Most soldiers view themselves as protectors of their country and the people in it so when they are used to oppress a mass movement they tend to be conflicted while for the pigs this is business as usual.

However as examples in the USA and UK show the bourgeois are deeply shaken by current events and are specifically training military elements in dealing with mass protests and supporting the police.

Here is a WSWS article about the London Olympics preparations that gives a clear indication on where law enforcement is heading.
https://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/olym-f01.shtml

[ProletariatPraetorian]

I don't think you mean hierarchy among the working class. You may be talking about the idea of multiple levels of repression of the working class: the police as the first layer just keeping "order" on the street level, the state guard if the police are inadequate (a major riot or massive strike, for example), and the military if the guard are not sufficient (an actual insurrection).

I have cops in my family and none of them think they are improving the areas they are assigned to and they have never lived in the areas (even cities sometimes) they patrolled. They think they are keeping order - they may think they are improving things in an overall sense, but they have an antagonistic relationship to the communities they work in. In Oakland something like 80% or more police do not live in Oakland and don't come from here. They are often called "street-managers" by anarchists and I think that's an appropriate way to look at their role - they aren't part of the working class even if they come from a working class background. They have an interest in maintaining the system but soldiers are not given extra-benefits by our ruling class (the homeless have always included many vets - who then get harassed - or shot in the face with tear-gas at protests - by cops!) and they can't even quit easily if they don't like what they are doing. The ruling class goes ape-shit when a cop is hurt (and then the cops are given carte blanche to go on a rampage after a cop is shot) whereas the entire purpose of a GI is to be fodder.

Just look at the difference in pay and benefits between cops and GIs or the difference in they way they are treated when caught in a scandal; hell cops in LA or NYC have more body armor than GIs in Iraq at certain points did. Cops are a bulwark for the ruling class, the military is a bulwark but GIs are fodder to be thrown at the military's objectives and then tossed away when the conflict is over. Soldiers have refused orders to fire on workers when brought to stop big strikes or protests (even in Egypt this happened) because they know that at the end of the day (or term of service) that those people are in the same position they will be in - this isn't automatic and the military does a lot to try and cut against these weaknesses, but ultimately these are the contradictions of capitalist armies. Cops on the other hand have an interest in maintain their position and that order of society because they actually benefit from a stronger state.

No, i meant hierarchy. The explanation was much more in depth than mine but it was basically saying that both the police and military are working class but dont see themselves as being as low as the general working class population, they believe their occupations make them superior to the general working class population. I wish i could remember what it was because it was a really interesting read.

[ProletariatPraetorian]

The police are specifically trained to put down working class opposition while the military are trained to fight foreigners.
Traditionally the police forces are the absolute last to side with the workers.

Most soldiers view themselves as protectors of their country and the people in it so when they are used to oppress a mass movement they tend to be conflicted while for the pigs this is business as usual.

However as examples in the USA and UK show the bourgeois are deeply shaken by current events and are specifically training military elements in dealing with mass protests and supporting the police.

Here is a WSWS article about the London Olympics preparations that gives a clear indication on where law enforcement is heading.
https://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/olym-f01.shtml

Yes but despite their training dont most police believe they are improving their enviroment?

[Saviorself]

I said that their decisions has an effect on more than just themselves

And I never said they didn't.

Why don't you go back through my posts and quote me to support this claim?
You have already made it quite clear that you think killing, in a military context, is a bad. So I think it is safe to say that you also think anyone who does it is, by proxy, bad. Here are some of your quotes: "The individuals in the military who serve in non-combat functions exist in order to facilitate combat operations. Cooks feed the dudes who pull triggers, so that they can pull triggers etc.", "Their job is to facilitate the spread of imperialism by the bullet, there is little difference between pulling the trigger and enabling somebody to pull the trigger, and I will not differentiate between the two.", "I think soldiers are wrong, not because they kill, but for the reason that they kill"

So I haven't condemned individuals

Yes, you have. It saying what a person does is "wrong" is not considering a condemnation, then I can only wonder what you think that word means.

What are you talking about here? Are you begging me to defend the actions of the USSR or PRC or something?
You said "I think this wrong because I am Communist" - which is funny because the very things you were saying you thought were wrong have also been done under the banner of Communism.

Well buddy, this is a message board, it exists for debate
No shit, Sherlock. That doesn't mean I have to accept people making normative statements.

Not to mention, its not real clear what exactly your position is.

I made that pretty clear in my first post in this thread.

It would seem that you don't think there is anything wrong with serving in an imperialist army, because you think it is an individual's choice to do so, and we shouldn't be able to comment on this choice, after all, I suppose you think "their mind is their own"?
I think joining the military is a stupid thing to do and certainly not a choice I would make but others are free to do as they wish. How many times must this be stated before you are finally capable of grasping such a simple concept?:confused:

[The Douche]

And I never said they didn't.

But those effects on others don't matter? If you oppose imperialism and capitalism, then logically, you would oppose capitalist and imperialist institutions, like the army.


You have already made it quite clear that you think killing, in a military context, is a bad.

Wrong. What I've stated is spreading capitalism and imperialism by the sword is bad.


So I think it is safe to say that you also think anyone who does it is, by proxy, bad.

No, what they do is bad, so they should stop.


Yes, you have. It saying what a person does is "wrong" is not considering a condemnation, then I can only wonder what you think that word means.

What a person does is not a condemnation of the individual, it is a condemnation of their actions, which they can cease.


under the banner of Communism.

And Iraq was invaded under the banner of spreading freedom, do you oppose freedom? What an assinine argument...


That doesn't mean I have to accept people making normative statements.

If you're here to discuss things don't complain about discussing things.


I made that pretty clear in my first post in this thread.

So your position is that its a personal choice to join the military and there is nothing more to it than that?


I think joining the military is a stupid thing to do and certainly not a choice I would make but others are free to do as they wish. How many times must this be stated before you are finally capable of grasping such a simple concept?:confused:

And its a personal choice to exploit the labor of others, so you think people are free to do that if they wish?

[ВАЛТЕР]

From my personal experience, while living in the United States (in a very reactionary state at that) the soldiers/marines/naval personnel/airmen etc. had a very hardline nationalist view of their actions and they defended every single action that the military took with ferocity. As mentioned by other users though, a soldier HAS to justify to himself his actions that he is taking, otherwise the likelihood of psychological damage is high.

I met a designated marksman (squad sniper) or whatever you wanna call it who had a tour of duty in Iraq. He told us about a time when he shot a young man in his ass who ended up bleeding out due to his femoral artery being severed. The young man was apparently mentally ill and was out in the street, this guy told us that zeroed him in and purposefully shot him in the bottom (thinking it would be a good prank I suppose). He shrugged the incident off as nothing serious and then proceeded to talk about how much he loved being a sniper.

He also told me and my friend how his CO's disregarded the entire incident and made sure that he wasn't court marshaled or held accountable for it. The way he talked about it as if it was nothing made me hate him, but at the same time pity him. Just one of my experiences when dealing with soldiers.

[Saviorself]

But those effects on others don't matter? If you oppose imperialism and capitalism, then logically, you would oppose capitalist and imperialist institutions, like the army.

The only matter insofar as they adversely effect me and the people I care about. I oppose the system and those who run it but not everyone who joins the military is mindless nationalist sociopath.


No, what they do is bad, so they should stop.

Don't hold your breath. Or do, whatever.


And Iraq was invaded under the banner of spreading freedom, do you oppose freedom? What an assinine argument...

It wasn't an argument, it was a response to your question.


And its a personal choice to exploit the labor of others, so you think people are free to do that if they wish?

Yes, people are free to do as they wish. Someone is free to try and walk into my house and take my television. They are also free to catch a hollow-point with their chest for trying to do so.

[piet11111]

Yes but despite their training dont most police believe they are improving their enviroment?

They probably do but the real question is what they consider "improvement"
In practice this means throwing the homeless addicts youths the poor and those of different skin color in jail.

The training they get is that everyone out on the street is a suspect and guilty of something and in the station this attitude is cultivated and if they really want to get you on something they will have no problem fabricating something.

Fortunately i live in a rural area where the cops are well behaved and wont do anything that can swing public opinion against them heck they fear writing tickets for anything that isn't DUI or speeding anything else simply is not worth risking public scrutiny :laugh:

[ProletariatPraetorian]

They probably do but the real question is what they consider "improvement"
In practice this means throwing the homeless addicts youths the poor and those of different skin color in jail.

The training they get is that everyone out on the street is a suspect and guilty of something and in the station this attitude is cultivated and if they really want to get you on something they will have no problem fabricating something.

Fortunately i live in a rural area where the cops are well behaved and wont do anything that can swing public opinion against them heck they fear writing tickets for anything that isn't DUI or speeding anything else simply is not worth risking public scrutiny :laugh:

What does the military consider "protecting"? In practice it means killing whoever the the government brands as enemies or terrorists. What im getting at is the two justifications are practically the same, their only difference being that ones actions is domestic and the others is foreign.

[The Douche]

The only matter insofar as they adversely effect me and the people I care about

So you don't care about dead people if you don't know them?


I oppose the system and those who run it

But only insofar as it effects you and those you care about?


not everyone who joins the military is mindless nationalist sociopath.

Strawman, since I never said anything like this. Not to mention, I guess you missed the part where I told you I was a fucking soldier, for six years I might add, with a combat tour of Iraq, to boot.


Yes, people are free to do as they wish.

So you oppose the forced seizure of the means of production from their owners, since they're "people who are free to do as they wish"?

[Saviorself]

So you don't care about dead people if you don't know them?

I care very little for people I don't know, yes.


But only insofar as it effects you and those you care about?

Again, yes.


Strawman, since I never said anything like this.

You didn't, but other people in this thread have.


Not to mention, I guess you missed the part where I told you I was a fucking soldier, for six years I might add, with a combat tour of Iraq, to boot.

Then I guess that would make you a hypocrite.


So you oppose the forced seizure of the means of production from their owners, since they're "people who are free to do as they wish"?

LOL! It seems you missed the point entirely: people are free to do as they wish in that they have the ability. However, all actions carry consequences. Which is the point I was driving at.

[The Douche]

I care very little for people I don't know, yes.

How revolutionary of you.


You didn't, but other people in this thread have.

Where?


Then I guess that would make you a hypocrite.

Actually it is the exact line which I presented. Being in the military is counter-revolutionary, and if you're a revolutionary, and in the military then your obligation would be to refuse to deploy, and to get out as soon as possible.


LOL! It seems you missed the point entirely: people are free to do as they wish in that they have the ability. However, all actions carry consequences. Which is the point I was driving at.

I guess I am missing the point, because you seem to love to talk about moral abstractions, and not political realities. And you didn't answer the question, if you believe people are free to do as they wish, then why do you support communism? Because communism means that people are not free to exploit the labor of others.

[Saviorself]

Where?

I'm tired of digging through this ever-growing thread to find stuff for you. Reread it yourself if you want to know.


Actually it is the exact line which I presented. Being in the military is counter-revolutionary, and if you're a revolutionary, and in the military then your obligation would be to refuse to deploy, and to get out as soon as possible.

The real question is, if you are so revolutionary, why join in the first place?


why do you support communism?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I don't support Communism and never said that I do. I am an Anarchist and don't believe in any government at all. All governments are corrupt.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No, i meant hierarchy. The explanation was much more in depth than mine but it was basically saying that both the police and military are working class but dont see themselves as being as low as the general working class population, they believe their occupations make them superior to the general working class population. I wish i could remember what it was because it was a really interesting read.Well if that's the case, then the view is just idealism. People can feel however they want about themselves and others, but this is transitory and immaterial.

Put as generally as I can: soldiers are one group of workers who are armed and pitted against other groups of workers; cops are people (professionals) armed by the state to keep all workers under ruling class hegemony and order.

The ruling class likes to pump up soldiers when they want people to enlist, but they sacrifice the soldier to their real goals all the time. Every modern imperial army or any capitalist army in modern times for that matter has class divides within it. Officers have traditionally and still to this day largely come from rich families with the real high up muckety-mucks being from the ruling class - they don't fight and often don't even set foot in mud during their experience. For the enlistees... well the people who push papers, mops, and dig ditches back at home are generally the ones doing the same thing with an added possibility of running over a mine or having an explosive lobbed at them. This is not to say that some people go into the military with racist or reactionary views (NAZIs were joining up and trying to recruit US soldiers in Afghanistan) or have a cop piglike mentality, but just to point out that this is a weak-link in powerful countries because ultimately they need force to rule, but they have to draw from the ranks of the oppressed in order to have that force. Police may often come from working class backgrounds but they are not workers to be used against other workers, by their position they are a different class with interests counter to the interests of workers.

[arilando]

What is PMC?

[ВАЛТЕР]

What is PMC?

Private Military Contractor

Companies such as Blackwater.

[Os Cangaceiros]

We'll need a segment of them? Who the fuck are you to "command" a "segment" of them. Probably one of the same people who "need" organized labor, a.k.a. unions to realize their revolutionary plans but spend most of their time criticizing both. This whole thread focuses on the psychological aspects of the military and ignores the economic. Take a look at the racial composition of the military for one, and the job security and benefits for another. So glad you'd all think pushing paperwork in a corporate office that exploits labor in xnumber of countries and pulls in millions, much of which is used to pay for politicians and armies, makes one somehow better than the person pulling the trigger.

whoa man, no need to become upset. :lol: I have no desire to command anyone.

By the way, there's no need to lecture me on the economic reasons people join the military. I come from a small town in rural America, believe me, I know.

[The Douche]

I'm tired of digging through this ever-growing thread to find stuff for you. Reread it yourself if you want to know.



The real question is, if you are so revolutionary, why join in the first place?



HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I don't support Communism and never said that I do. I am an Anarchist and don't believe in any government at all. All governments are corrupt.

I wasn't a revolutionary when I joined, dipshit.

I am an anarchist as well. Anarchism does not oppose just government, nor does it oppose government from the position that they are "corrupt". How do you believe production should be organized, post-revolution, if you don't believe in communism?

[NewLeft]

whoa man, no need to become upset. :lol: I have no desire to command anyone.

By the way, there's no need to lecture me on the economic reasons people join the military. I come from a small town in rural America, believe me, I know.
I was considering the military for a brief second for that reason.. They really don't get any benefits..

[Saviorself]

I am an anarchist as well. Anarchism does not oppose just government, nor does it oppose government from the position that they are "corrupt". How do you believe production should be organized, post-revolution, if you don't believe in communism?

I'm well aware of what Anarchism is.

Ultimately, I think people should take care of their own. I'm thinking small tight-knit tribal communities with cooperation between certain groups as they see fit.

[piet11111]

What does the military consider "protecting"? In practice it means killing whoever the the government brands as enemies or terrorists. What im getting at is the two justifications are practically the same, their only difference being that ones actions is domestic and the others is foreign.

That difference is actually a gigantic one.

The soldiers are fighting "terrorists" that threaten the homeland and they will have a difficult time to start viewing their fellow countrymen as enemy's that threaten their own country.
Cops are trained from day one to see their countrymen as suspects and as people to be oppressed and intimidated by their `authority´

Nobody joins the military to shoot their own neighbors but cops become cops to police their own neighborhood.

[arilando]

I'm well aware of what Anarchism is.

Ultimately, I think people should take care of their own. I'm thinking small tight-knit tribal communities with cooperation between certain groups as they see fit.
Would't that be step backwards, rather than forward?

[The Douche]

I'm just curious as to how "small tight-knit tribal communities" are gonna manage production on the scale of the whole world. Shit, how does a factory play into such a suggestion, much less a city or the world community?

[Saviorself]

Would't that be step backwards, rather than forward?

That all depends on how you look at the situation.


I'm just curious as to how "small tight-knit tribal communities" are gonna manage production on the scale of the whole world. Shit, how does a factory play into such a suggestion, much less a city or the world community?

It's not meant to manage production on the scale of the whole world. I will worry about me and mine and everyone else can do the same. Not that any of this matters because I certainly wont see this in my lifetime, nor will any of you see your Socialist Utopia either. And we've gone severely off topic here.

[The Douche]

That all depends on how you look at the situation.



It's not meant to manage production on the scale of the whole world. I will worry about me and mine and everyone else can do the same. Not that any of this matters because I certainly wont see this in my lifetime, nor will any of you see your Socialist Utopia either. And we've gone severely off topic here.

So you don't believe in collective ownership of the means of production?

[citizen of industry]

whoa man, no need to become upset. :lol:

Who's upset? Perhaps you are reading too much into my post, seeing as how this is the internet and all and we can't judge emotion.


I have no desire to command anyone. By the way, there's no need to lecture me on the economic reasons people join the military. I come from a small town in rural America, believe me, I know.

Then why would you make this very ignorant post:



Originally Posted by Explosive Situation
They're just like cops on the world stage. And I hate cops, so I'm tempted to just write soldiers off, too. But unfortunately in our militarized world we'll need a segment of them in order to tear the social fabric apart. Even though our campaign isn't primarily military in nature, it should go without saying.

Almost everyone I've ever known personally who's been in the military or has expressed a great desire to be has been a total scumbag. One notable case was a dude with an SS tattoo on his ankle and a penchant for carving "14/88" in random things at his high school with a knife. I don't know if he ever got to fulfill his dream of killing brown people in the desert, but judging by the other people I've known in the military, it wouldn't suprise me.

I've known hundreds of people in the military personally, as I was in it, and I can assure you that many were working class folks and not "scumbags." The military has millions of people in its ranks, and you prefer a generalization based on your experience with an unstable high school kid. Perhaps because you are from a "small town in rural America," your perception of the entire military and everyone who has ever been in it is based on your observations of a couple people from your small town. Check out:
http://ivaw.org/
http://www.vvaw.org/

As for "command," just take a look at this pathetic thread. I'll quote from it.


Well, in a revolution, who's side do you want them on?


Obviously we'd need their firepower


we should treat them with a kind heart (if they aren't jerks). We will catch more flies with honey


Turn the guns on your "superiors."


Realpolitik requires that we win over a substantial portion of the rank-and-file military


Put the gun down or turn it around.


we'll need a segment of them in order to tear the social fabric apart.

Fucking shameful. And coming from people who feel free to order "them" around and shout violent slogans but who would never put themselves in their positions and don't even bother to take a materialist perspective and ask why they are where they are. You objectified millions of people like little plastic green army men. "Soldiers." You realize "they" have families and friends who are not soldiers, and are part of the same society and economic system you live in, right? You realize the decision to embark on "killing brown people in the desert" isn't made by them, right? That it is made by the corporations we work for?

[Jimmie Higgins]

On the character of enlistees:

They guy who used to sell me acid in high school joined the military. It was shocking because he was the biggest hippie anyone knew at school - he just was poor, not cut out to sell (profitable) drugs for his main income, and had few other options. In fact he was one of the few people I knew at my high school (a hub for the JROTC) who even talked about how patriotism was bullshit.

The JROTC kids were fucked though. I sat next to this gung-ho rotc woman in US History class and I still remember her whispering to herself "yes... yes... yes" when our teacher was talking about the US invasion of Mexico in the 1800s.

Also I was heavily pressured by recruiters in High School (our town used to have two military bases when I was growing up) and none of them ever called or pulled any of us aside in high school and said: "hey, don't you hate foreigners? Don't you wish America was the most bad-ass country and could invade anywhere?". No they all said, "what are your plans after school, what do you want to do, oh that's tough to get into, did you know you can learn those skills in the military..?"

Maybe things were different in the first couple of years after 9/11 and they would say, "now's the time to defend the country" - but in the mid-90s they acted like it was job-training and that you'd never even know you were in the military other than the uniform. I'm sure by 2004 they were back to that line too since they couldn't meet their recruitment quotas from the start of the Iraq war on to about the start of the recession.

At any rate, all this is beside the point because I'm sure we can find people with more progressive or more reactionary ideas in the military - just like in the workforce (not that the stress levels and experiences are the same, war or even just peace-time military is much more drastic and can probably have much more severe political effects and polarization). It's the class nature of general enlistees and draftees that makes soldiers potentially of major revolutionary importance for the working class. Brecht recognized this lesson when he wrote that famous anti-war poem:


GENERAL, YOUR TANK IS A POWERFUL VEHICLE
It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men.
But it has one defect:
It needs a driver.

General, your bomber is powerful.
It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant.
But it has one defect:
It needs a mechanic.

General, man is very useful.
He can fly and he can kill.
But he has one defect:
He can think.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Who's upset? Perhaps you are reading too much into my post, seeing as how this is the internet and all and we can't judge emotion.

Your post seemed needlessly aggressive to me.


Then why would you make this very ignorant post:

My post wasn't ignorant. It was me re-counting my anecdotal experiences with individuals in the military, hence the "personally" qualifier there.


I've known hundreds of people in the military personally, as I was in it, and I can assure you that many were working class folks and not "scumbags." The military has millions of people in its ranks, and you prefer a generalization based on your experience with an unstable high school kid. Perhaps because you are from a "small town in rural America," your perception of the entire military and everyone who has ever been in it is based on your observations of a couple people from your small town. Check out:
http://ivaw.org/
http://www.vvaw.org/

You're way off base. First, why did you put "small town in rural America" in quotes? I AM from a small town in rural America, I don't see why that needed to be re-quoted back at me. As far as scumbags go, being working class and being a scumbag are not mutually exclusive categories. There are plenty of working class scumbags out there. Being working class says nothing about your moral character. And yeah, I know all about the IVAW. What percentage of the military do they represent? :rolleyes:


You objectified millions of people like little plastic green army men. "Soldiers." You realize "they" have families and friends who are not soldiers, and are part of the same society and economic system you live in, right? You realize the decision to embark on "killing brown people in the desert" isn't made by them, right? That it is made by the corporations we work for?

So what. Cops have families and friends. The wealthy have families and friends. Genocidal dictators have families and friends. What does that have to do with the function they play in the world?

[The Douche]

Who's upset? Perhaps you are reading too much into my post, seeing as how this is the internet and all and we can't judge emotion.



Then why would you make this very ignorant post:



I've known hundreds of people in the military personally, as I was in it, and I can assure you that many were working class folks and not "scumbags." The military has millions of people in its ranks, and you prefer a generalization based on your experience with an unstable high school kid. Perhaps because you are from a "small town in rural America," your perception of the entire military and everyone who has ever been in it is based on your observations of a couple people from your small town. Check out:
http://ivaw.org/
http://www.vvaw.org/

As for "command," just take a look at this pathetic thread. I'll quote from it.















Fucking shameful. And coming from people who feel free to order "them" around and shout violent slogans but who would never put themselves in their positions and don't even bother to take a materialist perspective and ask why they are where they are. You objectified millions of people like little plastic green army men. "Soldiers." You realize "they" have families and friends who are not soldiers, and are part of the same society and economic system you live in, right? You realize the decision to embark on "killing brown people in the desert" isn't made by them, right? That it is made by the corporations we work for?

I think you're misinterpretting ES, here.

[Bolshevik_Guerilla_1917]

I think the role of soldiers goes both ways, on one hand they are sent to protect the world for the fortune-five hundred capitalist system, but on the other hand there are times when they serve a purpose. We are one of the most hated countries thanx to the government and we need a good national defense, NOT a OFFENSE.

[Questionable]

I think the role of soldiers goes both ways, on one hand they are sent to protect the world for the fortune-five hundred capitalist system, but on the other hand there are times when they serve a purpose. We are one of the most hated countries thanx to the government and we need a good national defense, NOT a OFFENSE.

No offense, but this sounds a bit counterrevolutionary to me. As communists, I feel our goal should be the abolition of the capitalist army, not the strengthening of it. If you're referring to a national defense in the sense of what Trotsky did, I agree with you, but asking the bourgeoisie military to protect us from "terrorists" is just asking for trouble.

[The Douche]

I think the role of soldiers goes both ways, on one hand they are sent to protect the world for the fortune-five hundred capitalist system, but on the other hand there are times when they serve a purpose. We are one of the most hated countries thanx to the government and we need a good national defense, NOT a OFFENSE.

No, "we" don't need a "good national defense".

The fact that you identify as an "American", and believe in having a common community with "America" is a little disturbing.

[Arilou Lalee'lay]

My best friend is joining the marines because he's poor with no education, despite all of my efforts to discourage him. I can't really argue with him any more though: it's traveling, adventuring, getting women, and learning to be excellent at combat versus sitting in a cubicle. So, yes, this is a bit outdated:
N4Fe797IL04
but this isn't:
zUzd9KyIDrM

[ProletariatPraetorian]

That difference is actually a gigantic one.

The soldiers are fighting "terrorists" that threaten the homeland and they will have a difficult time to start viewing their fellow countrymen as enemy's that threaten their own country.
Cops are trained from day one to see their countrymen as suspects and as people to be oppressed and intimidated by their `authority´

Nobody joins the military to shoot their own neighbors but cops become cops to police their own neighborhood.

The people that label foreigners as "terrorists" can do the same to countrymen, thus distancing the oppressor from the oppressed.

[StockholmSyndrome]

Maybe this question belongs in a different thread, but what about people who work for government contractors that do USAID contracts and such? Not defense contractors but "humanitarian aid" contractors.