Honoring a Fallen Soldier

[Red Menace]

I honestly don't know where you guys stand on this, but so far I seem to be the only one, that believes what i do.

We had a tribute at our school to a fallen soldier who died in Iraq who went to our school. It was this big ceremony, and the entire school showed up, and the family of the soldier was there, and friends, and everyone. Bill Richardson, our governor was scheduled to be there, but he was too busy running the campaign trail to be there <_<

I couldn&#39;t help but find it unfair, as to why this particular soldier got this kind of recognition. My school is the rich-upper class school of our city, and pretty much our whole state, where as all the other schools lack any real funds and are pretty much real shitty. The students are predominantly white.

It seemed unfair that you should be rewarded because of the school you go to, my school is a public school, and you go to whichever school is in the district you live in, so pretty much if you live in the upper class part of town, you go to an upper-class school, and vice versa.

Anyways I thought it was unfair that this soldier a white student from an upper class high school, received this kind of recognition. What about the 4000 other soldiers who had died, what about the million Iraqi civilian casualties? Where&#39;s their tribute? I just didn&#39;t see this kind of tribute happening in our state for an African American student, or a Hispanic one.

Am I wrong, am i being too critical? or am i right?

[Faux Real]

It really sounds like a propaganda technique to make the students and mourners more "patriotic" and nationalists. Maybe not, I don&#39;t know what the mood was like there. I&#39;m not sure if Bill Richardson supports the war or not, but depending on what the mood was like it could have been a pro-war sentiment if there were plenty of flags hanging around. If not, it might have contributed to the anti-war sentiment, but I doubt it since it was just this one guy.

Maybe it wouldn&#39;t have been so bad had it been a funeral for numerous soldiers, but this is pretty shallow. The soldier might have not even wanted this type of recognition in the first place&#33;

[lvleph]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 06:38 am
It really sounds like a propaganda technique to make the students and mourners more "patriotic" and nationalists. Maybe not, I don&#39;t know what the mood was like there. I&#39;m not sure if Bill Richardson supports the war or not, but depending on what the mood was like it could have been a pro-war sentiment if there were plenty of flags hanging around. If not, it might have contributed to the anti-war sentiment, but I doubt it since it was just this one guy.

Maybe it wouldn&#39;t have been so bad had it been a funeral for numerous soldiers, but this is pretty shallow. The soldier might have not even wanted this type of recognition in the first place&#33;
+1000

[Marsella]

We shouldn&#39;t honour serial killers regardless if they are black or hispanic or white.

They all deserve to be equally condemned as scum.

[RNK]

You should inform people in your school that you should have 100,000 more of those to honor the fallen civilians of Iraq. Or maybe just one or two or three more, to honor the people that soldier most likely murdered while over there.

[TC]

Regardless of the "but its not the *soldiers* fault that they had to go to Iraq to kill/rape/maim/torture, they just followed orders given to them by the politicians and generals who are really to blame", which is the line frequently given for "supporting our troops&#33;" both now and at the Nuremberg trial, to give a grand ceremony for a dead soldier and not a dead car mechanic, a dead teacher, a dead accountant, or a dead nurse, demonstrates not mere tolerance towards soldiers fighting wars but reverence.

Whatever argument used to excuse their behavior ("Just following the Fuhrer&#39;s orders&#33;" "I needed to murder people to go to college without debt&#33;" ) such arguments can in no way begin to rationalize venerating it, unless you also support the actions they&#39;ve taken.

Clearly this type of "respect" as with the ridiculous poppy&#39;s in england is in fact glorifying and supporting wars of aggression.


We shouldn&#39;t honour serial killers regardless if they are black or hispanic or white.

They all deserve to be equally condemned as scum.

Very well put.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 12:36 pm
We shouldn&#39;t honour serial killers regardless if they are black or hispanic or white.

They all deserve to be equally condemned as scum.
Soldiers are not all scum. Ultimately they are people that the revolution will have to reach out to.

These ceremonies are completely nationalist, and reactionary though.

Devrim

[Marsella]

Soldiers are not all scum. Ultimately they are people that the revolution will have to reach out to.

These ceremonies are completely nationalist, and reactionary though.

Devrim

Possible, although unlikely.

They may well form part of a revolutionary movement.

But I honestly doubt it.

More likely they will be on the wrong sides of the barricades.

But I was talking about American soldiers here.

There is really no excuse for becoming one, economically or otherwise. Joining the army of Micronesia or some other obscure place which is not involved in thuggery might be a different thing

But when you are knowingly consenting to the oppression of the population of a country then I can scarcely count you as an ally.

The Nuremberg &#39;defence&#39; doesn&#39;t cut it.

Even those whom are conscripted and don&#39;t opt to go to jail are, in a sense, supporting the system. It does depend on which country, sometimes refusing conscription has far worse consequences than joining, and I certainly don&#39;t condemn them as much as I do their western counterparts.

And of course, the generals and leaders have the paramount blame.

But historically, armies are full of reactionaries who would put a bullet in your head without a second thought.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 10:12 am

More likely they will be on the wrong sides of the barricades.

Then we will lose.

[jaffe]

There is really no excuse for becoming one, economically or otherwise.

If you have a family to support joining the army can be a quik way to make some money.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:16 am

There is really no excuse for becoming one, economically or otherwise.

If you have a family to support joining the army can be a quik way to make some money.
So is selling crack.

Economic incentive is no argument for joining the armed forces, since for the most part their pay isn&#39;t exactly great anyway.

Other jobs are always available. And they don&#39;t involve you being a hired thug for the ruling class.

If you want to support your family, flip burgers.

The idea that you should have to kill other people&#39;s families to feed your own reeks of hypocrisy.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Martov+November 14, 2007 06:10 pm--> (Martov @ November 14, 2007 06:10 pm) The idea that you should have to kill other people&#39;s families to feed your own reeks of hypocrisy. [/b]
And your argument reeks of moralism.


Martov
Even those whom are conscripted and don&#39;t opt to go to jail are, in a sense, supporting the system. It does depend on which country, sometimes refusing conscription has far worse consequences than joining, and I certainly don&#39;t condemn them as much as I do their western counterparts.

It is not about &#39;supporting the system&#39;. Everybody&#39;s work supports the system.

We have some comrades who are joining the army soon, and as everybody knows the Turkish army is not known for its human rights record. What do you suggest we do, kick them out of the organisation?

When the times comes to it, and soldiers are sent out to attack the working class, which is something that people in this country remember, I would rather have communists in the barracks arguing why soldiers shouldn&#39;t shoot on workers than not have them their.

Devrim

[Marsella]

And your argument reeks of moralism.

How so?

Well yes, I find it morally repugnant that someone in a first world country would enter a job which requires them to kill other people in other countries for the benefit of their leaders, their &#39;education&#39;, their family, their future. Do you?

I am sure some would argue that US marines don&#39;t know better - that they are not aware of the system which they support.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

And I also oppose it for other non-moralistic reasons.


It is not about &#39;supporting the system&#39;. Everybody&#39;s work supports the system.

Correct, but no where else is it more glaringly obvious then when you are a police officer or a soldier. There is no link between soldiers and police officers and workers.

I did not raise the argument that because you are a worker you therefore support capitalism. That is why I said &#39;supporting the system&#39; in quotation marks because I clearly do not follow that line of reasoning.


We have some comrades who are joining the army soon, and as everybody knows the Turkish army is not known for its human rights record. What do you suggest we do, kick them out of the organisation?

Of course not.

You have misrepresented what I have said. In America or any other developed country which does not have conscription there is no excuse to join the army.

I am not sure of the situation in Turkey so I can hardly comment.


When the times comes to it, and soldiers are sent out to attack the working class, which is something that people in this country remember, I would rather have communists in the barracks arguing why soldiers shouldn&#39;t shoot on workers than not have them their.

So would I Devrim, but I would certainly not rely on it or expect a change of heart.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 09:56 pm
You have misrepresented what I have said. In America or any other developed country which does not have conscription there is no excuse to join the army.

I don&#39;t think so (my emphasis):

Even those whom are conscripted and don&#39;t opt to go to jail are, in a sense, supporting the system. It does depend on which country, sometimes refusing conscription has far worse consequences than joining, and I certainly don&#39;t condemn them as much as I do their western counterparts.


Correct, but no where else is it more glaringly obvious then when you are a police officer or a soldier. There is no link between soldiers and police officers and workers.

Well except in our country for example the overwhelming majority of workers have at some point been soldiers.

In the US I think that many working class people join the army as a job. They don&#39;t see it as something where they will &#39;kill other people in other countries for the benefit of their leaders&#39;.


I am sure some would argue that US marines don&#39;t know better - that they are not aware of the system which they support.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

What you seem to be saying here is that anyone who doesn&#39;t agree with us now will be on the other side come a revolution. It totally dismisses any concept of the development of class consciousness.

Devrim

[Marsella]

Even those whom are conscripted and don&#39;t opt to go to jail are, in a sense, supporting the system. It does depend on which country, sometimes refusing conscription has far worse consequences than joining, and I certainly don&#39;t condemn them as much as I do their western counterparts.

So I have clearly not argued that all soldiers are scum.


Well except in our country for example the overwhelming majority of workers have at some point been soldiers.

Which makes it all the more disgusting - that they are now killing workers in other countries.

But your former occupation does not determine your class status.

Just because you worked in a factory and now employ others does not make you a worker. However, it is highly probably that soldiers will end up returning to the ranks of the working class. And as I have said, Turkey is vastly different from America, unless you can show me how this is not so.

Incidentally, do you see a difference between police officers and soldiers?


In the US I think that many working class people join the army as a job. They don&#39;t see it as something where they will &#39;kill other people in other countries for the benefit of their leaders&#39;.

So just because they do not see it, it is okay?

I am sure that Nazi soldiers regarded their jobs highly honourable and did not see, in their eyes, that they were going to &#39;kill other people in other countries for the benefit of their leaders.&#39; Although that is exactly what they did.

But as I have said, ignorance is no excuse.


What you seem to be saying here is that anyone who doesn&#39;t agree with us now will be on the other side come a revolution. It totally dismisses any concept of the development of class consciousness.

I don&#39;t think so.

If you want class consciousness to enter the picture, then soldiers and police officers will rarely become class conscious in the proletarian sense.

Their interests rest solely with the perpetuation of the current system. Soldiers mainly become conscious of their exploitation only when they begin losing wars such as was the case in Russia and Germany in 1917/1918

And even then they may stumble to right-wing ideologies.

The Paris Commune didn&#39;t mess around - they abolished the police and introduced an armed citizens militia.

So yes Devrim, I can understand your points which you are making, yet it is difficult to see how the US Army and its soldiers are ever going to support a radical change to the economic conditions.

But perhaps that is more indicative of how remote a revolution is in America, rather than a refutation that all soldiers are indeed reactionary.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 10:29 pm
Incidentally, do you see a difference between police officers and soldiers?

Yes.


So yes Devrim, I can understand your points which you are making, yet it is difficult to see how the US Army and its soldiers are ever going to support a radical change to the economic conditions.

But perhaps that is more indicative of how remote a revolution is in America, rather than a refutation that all soldiers are indeed reactionary.

Yet US soldiers in Vietnam did mutiny.

Devrim

[Marsella]

Yes.

Could you please expand?


Yet US soldiers in Vietnam did mutiny.

But quite importantly, conscription was involved in that war.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Martov+November 17, 2007 10:45 pm--> (Martov @ November 17, 2007 10:45 pm)
Yes.

Could you please expand?

[/b]
Yes, I think that the polic are activly involved in the day to day repression of workers, and the defence of capital. I don&#39;t think that they will break from that role. Maybe the way you look at soldiers.


Originally posted by Martov+--> (Martov)
[email protected]
Yet US soldiers in Vietnam did mutiny.

But quite importantly, conscription was involved in that war.[/b]

And who is to say as the crisis deepens that conscription won&#39;t be introduced again.

More to the point though you also wrote of conscript soldiers earlier.


Martov
Even those whom are conscripted and don&#39;t opt to go to jail are, in a sense, supporting the system... and I certainly don&#39;t condemn them as much as I do their western counterparts

Devrim

[Marsella]

I should have made myself clearer, I was referring (in my mind at least) to Vietnam.

And yes, I think the correct decision if one was placed in that scenario would be to avoid being conscripted by leaving the country or serving time in jail. Clearly others thought differently. Still, there is a choice.

And as I have said, the consequences depend on the country.


Yes, I think that the polic are activly involved in the day to day repression of workers, and the defence of capital. I don&#39;t think that they will break from that role. Maybe the way you look at soldiers.

Yes it is a similar view although their roles differ.

Police seem to defend capitalism, whilst soldiers seem to advance capitalism by supporting in struggles over countries to appropriate their resources or to fulfil their leaders&#39; foreign policy aims.


And who is to say as the crisis deepens that conscription won&#39;t be introduced again.

It may well be.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 08:27 am
I should have made myself clearer, I was referring (in my mind at least) to Vietnam.

And yes, I think the correct decision if one was placed in that scenario would be to avoid being conscripted by leaving the country or serving time in jail. Clearly others thought differently. Still, there is a choice.

But you are missing the point. Maybe to resist the draft was the best strategy. Does that mean that you completely write off anybody who didn&#39;t resist it, and ended up in the army?

So yes, advocate draft dodging, but don&#39;t write soldiers off after that.

Soldiers who hadn&#39;t dodged the draft did rebel in Vietnam. The task of the communists is to be involved in these types of struggles, not sitting their morally condemning soldiers for not having dodged the draft.

Devrim

[guerilla E]

Originally posted by devrimankara+November 18, 2007 12:25 pm--> (devrimankara @ November 18, 2007 12:25 pm)
[email protected]November 18, 2007 08:27 am
I should have made myself clearer, I was referring (in my mind at least) to Vietnam.

And yes, I think the correct decision if one was placed in that scenario would be to avoid being conscripted by leaving the country or serving time in jail. Clearly others thought differently. Still, there is a choice.

But you are missing the point. Maybe to resist the draft was the best strategy. Does that mean that you completely write off anybody who didn&#39;t resist it, and ended up in the army?

So yes, advocate draft dodging, but don&#39;t write soldiers off after that.

Soldiers who hadn&#39;t dodged the draft did rebel in Vietnam. The task of the communists is to be involved in these types of struggles, not sitting their morally condemning soldiers for not having dodged the draft.

Devrim [/b]
Leftist Conscripts are more useful in the army than in jail. We know the situation in Turkey now, if you are in jail, you serve no purpose for anyone, and if you become too political, you might end up in F-types. How many Dev Genc and Dev Sol teens starved to death, silently, even now even the most prominent activists in prisons are muted by the media.

In terms of conscription; it is very easy to say &#39;i&#39;d skip the country or just go to jail&#39; without actually having to make this choice, which seems to come from people who will most certainly not have to make such sacrifice.

The jail term, also, is applied every time you reject the conscription call, therefore you can effectively give yourself a life sentence (or until maximum age of conscription) by rejecting being drafted.

Left wing soldiers in the cogs of imperialism serve more purpose than left wing prisoners confined behing the bars of imperialism. Conscription means that the system will force you, break you, to join the army and by skipping the country you are effectively removing yourself as an opposition, which is a very difficult choice to make, as leaving this country without having done your conscription generally calls for less than legal methods of border jumping, as you will NOT be granted a visa and will be arrested as soon as you get near an airport/checkpoint.

Therefore, because the conscripts are forced soldiers, I will personaly never view them as a warrior class or the enemy. Police, maybe, Special Police/Cevik, definetly, but not soldiers. Their commanders are the enemy, their generals are the enemy, but your regular grunt is forced into his position, and the regular grunt comes from regular people, with most of the dying ones coming from actually poor villages and shanty towns.

[Patchd]

Well I don&#39;t think they should hold any tribute for any soldier who dies fighting in conflicts, but then, we don&#39;t live in a Socialist state now do we :rolleyes:

I think you should be more pissed off that they are holding a tribute to someone who was part of the armed wing of the bourgeoisie period.

But of course, this is nonetheless, another example of the inequalities within different strata/classes of bourgeois society, even in this "classless" (according to David Cameron) society.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14, 2007 01:13 am
Am I wrong, am i being too critical? or am i right?
You&#39;re 100% correct&#33; :)

[toater]

sorry just to clarify, is the general concensus on this forum that all soldiers, regardless of nationality and conflict are doing an immoral job, and is this the case for all soldiers in any part of history? Or is it only recently that soldiers have become morally repugnant?

[The Douche]

In America or any other developed country which does not have conscription there is no excuse to join the army.

Are you going to try and kick me out of the communist movement?

I&#39;m in Iraq right now, this very second.

I know a number of other communists and anarchists who are in various stages of military terms. I know a few more who have served and are out now.

I&#39;m not trying to defend my job in anyway. I was a communist when I joined, as were most of the other military leftists I know, and all of them had very good reasons. I knew a lot that were homeless/on the verge of homelessness before they enlisted.

But you say they can just get a different job, flipping birgers for instance. Do you think a person who flips burgers can support a family? If said person joins the army his family gets a place to live for free, and a garunteed paycheck every month.

If you don&#39;t understand why the poor join the military then you probably don&#39;t know hardship.

Damn the military all you want, but you will not win any revolution without thier support. I know it for a fact, cause I see a counter-insurgency operation going on in real life everyday, and a kid with a political science degree and a library of books won&#39;t last a week against an infantryman.

[Marsella]

Are you going to try and kick me out of the communist movement?

Who said you were ever in a communist movement?

You are a silly puppet for an imperialist power.

Don&#39;t kid yourself.


I&#39;m in Iraq right now, this very second.

Here&#39;s hoping an IED comes your way. Or is it the other way around? :lol:


I know a number of other communists and anarchists who are in various stages of military terms. I know a few more who have served and are out now.

I&#39;m not trying to defend my job in anyway. I was a communist when I joined, as were most of the other military leftists I know, and all of them had very good reasons. I knew a lot that were homeless/on the verge of homelessness before they enlisted.

So let&#39;s see, you don&#39;t defend your job, yet you continue to do it...

You do know that communists are not so much concerned with the ideals you hold, but rather your actions. Claiming you are a communist whilst placing bullets in Iraqi&#39;s heads really doesn&#39;t cut it.

And no, homelessness is not an excuse to join a bunch of thugs.

I make no pretense about that.


But you say they can just get a different job, flipping birgers for instance. Do you think a person who flips burgers can support a family? If said person joins the army his family gets a place to live for free, and a garunteed paycheck every month.

Yes. Earning a minimum wage does allow you to survive. You won&#39;t be keeping up with the Jonses but yes, you can survive. I know because I have lived through that.


If you don&#39;t understand why the poor join the military then you probably don&#39;t know hardship.

Its probably got more to do with the fact that I have family members who have been torn apart by your armies bullets rather than &#39;the oh so great hardship I have suffered.&#39;

Boo-hoo me, I am just a rich yuppie political science student...


Damn the military all you want, but you will not win any revolution without thier support.

Like any communist would want a revolution with the support of a bunch of bullying thugs. Our revolution does not depend on you. It depends on the working class.


I know it for a fact, cause I see a counter-insurgency operation going on in real life everyday, and a kid with a political science degree and a library of books won&#39;t last a week against an infantryman.

You meant to say that you were aiding the counter-insurgency operation.

And no, a kid with a political science degree will not last a week against infantry.

But the armed working class has a very decent chance.

So you have several options, to step aside, to join or to follow your bosses.

[toater]

well put mate, sadly no free accom for UK, but very cheap and regular pay? sadly not under JPA.

still mustnt grumble, no-one gives a fcuk anyway :angry:

[The Douche]

QUOTE]Who said you were ever in a communist movement?

You are a silly puppet for an imperialist power.

Don&#39;t kid yourself.[/QUOTE]

So you hold the ability to decide who is and who is not a communist? I don&#39;t deny that I advance imperialism.


Here&#39;s hoping an IED comes your way.

As an anti-imperialist I would see the benefit of such a thing happening.


So let&#39;s see, you don&#39;t defend your job, yet you continue to do it...

You do know that communists are not so much concerned with the ideals you hold, but rather your actions. Claiming you are a communist whilst placing bullets in Iraqi&#39;s heads really doesn&#39;t cut it.

And no, homelessness is not an excuse to join a bunch of thugs.

I make no pretense about that.

Sorry, I have obligations to people that I can&#39;t fulfil if I&#39;m in jail for refusing to follow orders.

I don&#39;t claim to be a communist. Ever heard of RASH? How about RAAN? How about the IWW? How about the Socialist Party? All of which I have done work for/with/been an organizer/member for in the past.

Ever been homeless?


Yes. Earning a minimum wage does allow you to survive. You won&#39;t be keeping up with the Jonses but yes, you can survive. I know because I have lived through that.

The minimum wage in my state is &#036;6.15 an hour. So a person making that, working 40 hours a week (unlikely as most full time jobs now only give you 30 to 35 hours) will make &#036;984 before taxes. How will they pay rent and utilities while providing for a baby on that? Not to mention the cost of getting to work. Assuming they can find a job. Which in some parts of the country (backwards semi-rural ones like mine) is very hard.


Its probably got more to do with the fact that I have family members who have been torn apart by your armies bullets rather than &#39;the oh so great hardship I have suffered.&#39;

Boo-hoo me, I am just a rich yuppie political science student...

And I&#39;ve beaten and arrested by the police. Do I oppose the police because of that? No, I oppose the police because they defend private property, because I use a class analysis to come to my descisions, not emotion. Surely there are scientific reasons to oppose the armed forces of an imperial country, but they&#39;re not the ones you rush to. You instead accuse "my army" or hurting you and your family directly. Its about as much my army as it is every other US citizen&#39;s, considering thier tax dollars bought the bulletts which tore your family members apart. So I guess no US citizen can really be a communist.


Like any communist would want a revolution with the support of a bunch of bullying thugs. Our revolution does not depend on you. It depends on the working class.

It depends on the victory of the working class against the forces of state and capital. I&#39;ve seen what our armed forces can and will do, untrained people who snatch up a rifle and 100 rounds don&#39;t fare well against them. The unorganized and untrained working class cannot defeat the US war machine. It must be subverted.


You meant to say that you were aiding the counter-insurgency operation.

And no, a kid with a political science degree will not last a week against infantry.

But the armed working class has a very decent chance.

So you have several options, to step aside, to join or to follow your bosses.

Yeah I am, at no time do I try to deny this. Maybe one day you could understand the traumatic psychological effect this has on anti-war soldiers, but I doubt you could.

What makes you qualified to say that the armed working class has a chance? Having seen both, the working class, and the US military, I would side with the team that has heavy artillery, tanks, and smart bombs. But hey, what do I know.

To join? Join what? The communist movement which you claim no soldier can contribute to?

[toater]

I reckon calling any squaddie a "silly puppet" will result in you getting a serious filling in. Ironically, the people you are so quick to call puppets are the very people who risk their lives for your rights to have your ill informed ideals.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:02 pm
I reckon calling any squaddie a "silly puppet" will result in you getting a serious filling in. Ironically, the people you are so quick to call puppets are the very people who risk their lives for your rights to have your ill informed ideals.
Nah, this is the wrong line of thought. I don&#39;t risk my life for the rights of the people back home. I risk my life cause I don&#39;t wanna go to jail. And the cause I&#39;m ordered to fight for, its not in defense of freedom, its an imperialist venture.

There is no justifying it like that.

[toater]

thats a tough stance for morale cmoney. but to a certain degree i agree. you dont fight for your country, you fight for your regiment or corps. you fight for your oppo. often things like queen and country, whilst vital, are too hard to grasp in theatre, thats hen the rot sets in.

[synthesis]

This is silly. Just because people are wrong does not make them bad people. Many soldiers enlisted because they believed Saddam was a threat, because they bought into the vilification campaign against him without knowing the history of U.S.-Iraqi relations, or because they see it as just another occupation. Again, they are wrong; the onus is on us to show them what&#39;s right.

[counterblast]

The homeless scenario is irrelevant. We don&#39;t honor homeless persons who murder housewives and pawn their jewelry for cash. Taking capital to survive doesn&#39;t stipulate that you kill someone.


This is silly. Just because people are wrong does not make them bad people. Many soldiers enlisted because they believed Saddam was a threat, because they bought into the vilification campaign against him without knowing the history of U.S.-Iraqi relations, or because they see it as just another occupation. Again, they are wrong; the onus is on us to show them what&#39;s right.

And you propose that we show them that "they&#39;re wrong" by glorifying them?

[RedStarOverChina]

Let&#39;s find out how many Iraqis this dead guy killed and honor them instead.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 09:42 pm
thats a tough stance for morale cmoney. but to a certain degree i agree. you dont fight for your country, you fight for your regiment or corps. you fight for your oppo. often things like queen and country, whilst vital, are too hard to grasp in theatre, thats hen the rot sets in.
Yeah it is rough on morale, I think about it every day over here. I wouldn&#39;t say that I fight for anything other than to save my own ass/the guy next to me. I&#39;m not proud of what I do, in fact I&#39;m ashamed of it.

I want to make it clear, I&#39;m not supporting honoring this dead soldier, or any dead imperialist soldier. I&#39;m simply arguing against this infantile line of thought that Martov is promoting. Enlisted soldiers are working class, often times the most disenfranchised section of it.

[synthesis]

And you propose that we show them that "they&#39;re wrong" by glorifying them?


No, by at least giving them the benefit of the doubt that at some point in time they may be capable of sympathizing with our intentions. There are soldiers who disagree with the war. When I said "this is silly," I was referring to the discussion, not the ceremony, which I do not support.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 02, 2007 08:22 am


And you propose that we show them that "they&#39;re wrong" by glorifying them?


No, by at least giving them the benefit of the doubt that at some point in time they may be capable of sympathizing with our intentions. There are soldiers who disagree with the war. When I said "this is silly," I was referring to the discussion, not the ceremony, which I do not support.
According to Martov, such soldiers, like myself, do not exist.

[toater]

thats because martov was an idiot. i havent met any soldier that supports the war. you fight because you are told to fight, simple as. and cmoney if you&#39;re ashamed of your service then leave. no soldier wants to fight, but we do and we&#39;re proud of serving. and asfor the blinded fool who said "lets honour the dead iraqis" that shows up your lack of knowledge as to whats happening on the ground. i wonder if youre all so quick to condemn soldiers who fought in stan, where a us/uk presence has brought real and lasting change for the better. there will always be legacy issues with war, thats unavoidable. are you all so quick to attack allied troops in ww2? if you are then youre youre as self contradictory as you appear.

[bugsy]

thats because martov was an idiot. i havent met any soldier that supports the war. you fight because you are told to fight, simple as. and cmoney if you&#39;re ashamed of your service then leave. no soldier wants to fight, but we do and we&#39;re proud of serving. and asfor the blinded fool who said "lets honour the dead iraqis" that shows up your lack of knowledge as to whats happening on the ground. i wonder if youre all so quick to condemn soldiers who fought in stan, where a us/uk presence has brought real and lasting change for the better. there will always be legacy issues with war, thats unavoidable. are you all so quick to attack allied troops in ww2? if you are then youre as self contradictory as you appear.
This argument about squaddies has very little to do with the original title of the thread; which was about honouring a dead soldier.

People often say that the best way to combat any form of "ism" is to actually engage the corresponding folks in conversation. So, for instance, talking to, say, Asians, Chinese, blacks, fascists etc, gives you a much better idea of their thought processes. So how come suddenly everybody knows what squaddies think, but without having a fucking clue about military life?

I served six years in the British Army (RAMC) and in that time I met some very fine minds, who provided me with endless highly instructive and interesting discussions on just about every aspect of life. Those on here who think that squaddies are just thugs and "baby-killers" really should try talking to a few ex or serving squaddies. They might find that they&#39;re they victims of their own prejudices.

Just a thought.

MsG

[Dros]

Originally posted by Martov+November 14, 2007 06:09 pm--> (Martov &#064; November 14, 2007 06:09 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 03:16 am

There is really no excuse for becoming one, economically or otherwise.

If you have a family to support joining the army can be a quik way to make some money.
So is selling crack.

Economic incentive is no argument for joining the armed forces, since for the most part their pay isn&#39;t exactly great anyway.

Other jobs are always available. And they don&#39;t involve you being a hired thug for the ruling class.

If you want to support your family, flip burgers.

The idea that you should have to kill other people&#39;s families to feed your own reeks of hypocrisy. [/b]
Your attitude here, while I agree with most of what your saying, reeks of petty-bourgois ideology. Workers who need to feed their children are not thinking about the moral or geopolitical consequences of their actions. You obviously are well-off enough to not need to join the army to eat. But some people think that is their only option. You are not in a possition to catagorically denounce them.

But generally, I agree with you.


Edit: My point is, we can&#39;t blame everybody who joins the military. I don&#39;t support them, but I know that some of them were desperate and needed to join the army to survive. And while that doesn&#39;t make it ok, it does mean that I can&#39;t denounce them. However to toast or who ever the fuck you are, if you are proud of you service to a morally bankrupt, imperialist, patriarchal, death machine, I don&#39;t know what makes you think you are a leftist. I don&#39;t support the US military in Iraq, "Stan" (where they fucked up an entire country), nor anywhere else where they fight an imperialist war for the self interest of their bourgoisie masters.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:02 pm
the people you are so quick to call puppets are the very people who risk their lives for your rights to have your ill informed ideals.
fuck off

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 12:33 am
Let&#39;s find out how many Iraqis this dead guy killed and honor them instead.
Couldn&#39;t have said it better myself.

[toater]

"They might find that they&#39;re they victims of their own prejudices."

didnt think I had any prejudices. either way, a discussion about respecting serving soldiers and honouring the dead, go hand in hand. covenant remember?

[bugsy]

"They might find that they&#39;re they victims of their own prejudices."

didnt think I had any prejudices. either way, a discussion about respecting serving soldiers and honouring the dead, go hand in hand. covenant remember?
Aah&#33; Sorry about that, Toater&#33; I wasn&#39;t actually referring to you with that remark. Just the mongy way I wrote it, I suppose.

MsG

[toater]

no worries MsG. that rings a bell, youre not a regular of a certain rumour site now are you?

[bugsy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:46 pm
no worries MsG. that rings a bell, youre not a regular of a certain rumour site now are you?

no worries MsG. that rings a bell, youre not a regular of a certain rumour site now are you?
Yuss&#33; Tis Oi, Sorr&#33; Are you a member there too?

MsG

[Marsella]

cmoney

So you hold the ability to decide who is and who is not a communist? I don&#39;t deny that I advance imperialism.

Your ideas decide whether you are a communist or not.

Putting bombs through defenseless civilians homes is kind of a major set back.

Get it?


As an anti-imperialist I would see the benefit of such a thing happening.

It would probably be more beneficial if you pulled a [name of soldier who killed fellow soldiers]. TC knows, but unfortunately the name has slipped me.


Sorry, I have obligations to people that I can&#39;t fulfil if I&#39;m in jail for refusing to follow orders.

So in other words, you value your own life than that of poor foreigners.


I don&#39;t claim to be a communist. Ever heard of RASH? How about RAAN? How about the IWW? How about the Socialist Party? All of which I have done work for/with/been an organizer/member for in the past.

I don&#39;t give a flying fuck what ism you subscribe to.

I am more interested in what actions you take.

And you did say
Are you going to try and kick me out of the communist movement? so forgive me for making &#39;assumptions.&#39;


The minimum wage in my state is &#036;6.15 an hour. So a person making that, working 40 hours a week (unlikely as most full time jobs now only give you 30 to 35 hours) will make &#036;984 before taxes. How will they pay rent and utilities while providing for a baby on that? Not to mention the cost of getting to work. Assuming they can find a job. Which in some parts of the country (backwards semi-rural ones like mine) is very hard.

In America there are about 2 million on a minimum wage,

There is probably a considerable sum earning below that, illegally.

Now, does that justify them being employed as serial killers?

Fuck off&#33;

If you are struggling, quite simply get another job.

I would have more respect for a person who does that, rather than decides that their self-worth is higher in value than a poor person in another country.

And as I have said, don&#39;t expect to be living in a two story house. But if you aspire to that, then I suggest going to business school.


And I&#39;ve beaten and arrested by the police. Do I oppose the police because of that? No, I oppose the police because they defend private property, because I use a class analysis to come to my descisions, not emotion. Surely there are scientific reasons to oppose the armed forces of an imperial country, but they&#39;re not the ones you rush to. You instead accuse "my army" or hurting you and your family directly. Its about as much my army as it is every other US citizen&#39;s, considering thier tax dollars bought the bulletts which tore your family members apart. So I guess no US citizen can really be a communist.

Sure, cops can be nice people.

So can soldiers.

Their class interests are directly opposed to that of the working class.

And yes, it is quite hard to make a &#39;material class analysis&#39; when a bomb goes off outside your house, or a relative ends up being diced and sliced courtesy of American liberators.

And yes, the American population does, by and large, support those very attacks. If they did not, they would instantly demand that congress withdrawal those soldiers. If they did not, they would be filled with as much disgust as I am.

Really, they don&#39;t give a shit. The difference is a change in opinion is possible.

But there is the world of difference between pulling the trigger and paying your taxes.

So fuck off with that stupid analogy.


It depends on the victory of the working class against the forces of state and capital. I&#39;ve seen what our armed forces can and will do, untrained people who snatch up a rifle and 100 rounds don&#39;t fare well against them. The unorganized and untrained working class cannot defeat the US war machine. It must be subverted.

Who said anything about unorganised and untrained?

Didn&#39;t Marx say that we cannot overtake the old bureaucratic state apparatus, that it should be smashed?

That includes the army and police.

But what&#39;s this, a RAANist supporting the manipulation of the US war machine?&#33;

You should join a Leninist party&#33;


Yeah I am, at no time do I try to deny this. Maybe one day you could understand the traumatic psychological effect this has on anti-war soldiers, but I doubt you could.

There is no such thing as an anti-war soldier.

If they were anti-war they would stop being a soldier.

You cannot occupy a country and claim to be a pacifist.

And it is anti-imperialism not anti-war.


What makes you qualified to say that the armed working class has a chance? Having seen both, the working class, and the US military, I would side with the team that has heavy artillery, tanks, and smart bombs. But hey, what do I know.

Yet the most sophisticated armaments have been rendered quite useless against a civilian population with guns that were invented 60 odd years ago.

And, as far as I am aware, my boss does not hide an artillery gun in his office.

:lol:


Yeah it is rough on morale, I think about it every day over here. I wouldn&#39;t say that I fight for anything other than to save my own ass/the guy next to me. I&#39;m not proud of what I do, in fact I&#39;m ashamed of it.

Exactly, pure self interest.

You should enter the stock market. :lol:

toater


I reckon calling any squaddie a "silly puppet" will result in you getting a serious filling in. Ironically, the people you are so quick to call puppets are the very people who risk their lives for your rights to have your ill informed ideals.

Yeah those three million dead Vietnamese were just outside my door, about to censor me, if only for the brave efforts of the American soldiers who protected me&#33;

Fuck off you silly ****.

No Yankee soldier has ever protected one of my rights.

In fact, they have done quite a decent job in eliminating quite a fundamental right.

It&#39;s called the right to live.


thats because martov was an idiot. i havent met any soldier that supports the war.

That&#39;s probably because they are too busy having good old torture fun in Abu Ghraib, ,&#39;enjoying&#39; Fallujah or counting those barrels of oil that they have liberated.

All in a day&#39;s work for a soldier.


you fight because you are told to fight, simple as.

You do know that your Nazi German friends &#39;tried&#39; that excuse.

Its called the Nuremberg defense.

Even with your poor grasp of history, you should know that it failed.

Saying &#39;I just followed orders, I was just following my boss&#39; is a dipshit excuse.

At last the courts got it right.


and cmoney if you&#39;re ashamed of your service then leave. no soldier wants to fight, but we do and we&#39;re proud of serving. and asfor the blinded fool who said "lets honour the dead iraqis" that shows up your lack of knowledge as to whats happening on the ground. i wonder if youre all so quick to condemn soldiers who fought in stan, where a us/uk presence has brought real and lasting change for the better. there will always be legacy issues with war, thats unavoidable. are you all so quick to attack allied troops in ww2? if you are then youre youre as self contradictory as you appear.

Yeah Afghanistan is sooo much better.

Last time I checked the opium trade consisted half (that&#39;s 50% for idiots like you) of the country&#39;s GDP.

Hoorah Afghanistan&#33; &#39;Real and lasting change&#39; forever&#33;

And America has always acted in its self interests. You do know why they entered WW2 right? You do know why they entered WW1 right? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq (Episodes 1 and 2)?

drosera99

Your attitude here, while I agree with most of what your saying, reeks of petty-bourgois ideology.

:lol:

You stupid Leninist-Maoists need to stop using that word, especially when you do not understand it.

How does it reek of petty-bourgeoisie ideology? Have I advocated that small business should give discounts to soldiers?

Your words are empty, like your head.


Workers who need to feed their children are not thinking about the moral or geopolitical consequences of their actions.

I treat people as if they have a brain in there head, unless they prove the contrary (see above).

And yes, they do think of the moral consequences.

That is, mainly, their fundamental reason of joining the army. To serve their country, to fight the &#39;bad man&#39;, &#39;kill some arabs.&#39; Blah blah blah blah. They do give moral justifications for their actions.

But those moral justifications are full of shite.


You obviously are well-off enough to not need to join the army to eat. But some people think that is their only option. You are not in a possition to catagorically denounce them.

Well yes, I am in a category to denounce soldiers.

Just as I am in a category to denounce the bourgeoisie as useless, and unnecessary.

You do not need to be on the streets, begging for dimes just to call soldiers what they are:

Lackeys of the ruling class.

Edit: An argument relevant to this is found here (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1101249127&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 01:38 am
drosera99

Your attitude here, while I agree with most of what your saying, reeks of petty-bourgois ideology.

:lol:

You stupid Leninist-Maoists need to stop using that word, especially when you do not understand it.

How does it reek of petty-bourgeoisie ideology? Have I advocated that small business should give discounts to soldiers?

Your words are empty, like your head.


Workers who need to feed their children are not thinking about the moral or geopolitical consequences of their actions.

I treat people as if they have a brain in there head, unless they prove the contrary (see above).

And yes, they do think of the moral consequences.

That is, mainly, their fundamental reason of joining the army. To serve their country, to fight the &#39;bad man&#39;, &#39;kill some arabs.&#39; Blah blah blah blah. They do give moral justifications for their actions.

But those moral justifications are full of shite.


You obviously are well-off enough to not need to join the army to eat. But some people think that is their only option. You are not in a possition to catagorically denounce them.

Well yes, I am in a category to denounce soldiers.

Just as I am in a category to denounce the bourgeoisie as useless, and unnecessary.

You do not need to be on the streets, begging for dimes just to call soldiers what they are:

Lackeys of the ruling class.

Edit: An argument relevant to this is found here (http://rs2k.revleft.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1101249127&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)
:D I&#39;m going to forgive you for being a douche flaming **** for the moment. I think that is pretty generous of me. :rolleyes:

Your attitude (like when you told cmoney to "get another job") reaks of a priviledged world view where you have enough resources to get another job or to get buy. You have regressed into blaming the workers and have no understanding of necessity as it sometimes relates to members of the working class.

Sure, most soldiers are hair-brained cowboys but some are driven by necessity and that explains there actions even though it doesn&#39;t justify them.

Soldiers are indeed lackies of the ruling class but the fact that you are clearly wealthy means you can not possibly understand the necessity that might drive certain people to that sad line of work.

You really need to stop being such a flaming douche to everybody. We are trying to have a real converstation here. No need to get your panties in a bunch or insult someone who fundementally agrees with you on this position.

[Marsella]

You have regressed into blaming the workers and have no understanding of necessity as it sometimes relates to members of the working class.

A soldier is not a worker, anymore than a police officer is a worker.

Soldiers are involved in the subjugation of the working class of countries, which makes the police force look childish in comparison.

It baffles me how anyone could give an excuse for the work that they do. I fear it stems from pseudo-patriotism; &#39;support the soldiers but not the war&#39; type &#39;arguments.&#39;

There is no economic duress forcing anyone to join the armed forces.

They do so entirely voluntarily.


Soldiers are indeed lackies of the ruling class but the fact that you are clearly wealthy means you can not possibly understand the necessity that might drive certain people to that sad line of work.

What?&#33;

I used to work a job changing rubbish bins and mopping up people&#39;s vomit.

Wealthy my ass&#33;

Has it crossed your mind that I fundamentally disagree with this &#39;sad line of work&#39; because it has personally effected me, not that I am a &#39;wealthy ****?&#39;


You really need to stop being such a flaming douche to everybody. We are trying to have a real converstation here. No need to get your panties in a bunch or insult someone who fundementally agrees with you on this position.

Fair enough. But I rarely simply flame. When people give bullshit arguments, like toater, then I will happily lampoon them and their arguments.

[toater]

Martov, it is very difficult to square your pacifistic stance with the whole revolutionary thing, the two do not go hand in hand, unless you want another &#39;beautiful revolution&#39;. Also, your rejection of patriotism. If your glorious revolution comes, wont you support the fight to defend your new society? Wont you be proud of your party and its respective country? In short, wont that turn you into me?

perhaps it would be more effective to square your ideals within the world you inhabit and not in one that is essentially based on the postulations of academics?

[Marsella]

Wow, now you&#39;re positively vomiting shit&#33;

Congratulations. :)


Martov, it is very difficult to square your pacifistic stance with the whole revolutionary thing, the two do not go hand in hand, unless you want another &#39;beautiful revolution&#39;.

Where have I made any pacifist statement?

I reject needless violence.


Also, your rejection of patriotism.

I think that all forms of superstition should be dropped, especially when you have had no choice of being born in whatever country you were born in.

That isn&#39;t even to mention that America has little to be patriotic of.

Unless you count exterminating an entire population, imposing slavery and a bunch of other stuff which you may discover if you read a history book.


If your glorious revolution comes, wont you support the fight to defend your new society?

Yes.

I don&#39;t support a country invading another country to simply further their own ends.

No communist would.

No thinking person would.


Wont you be proud of your party and its respective country?

What party?

A revolution has nothing to do with the whims of a party.

But yes, I would be quite proud of a population which has overthrown their capitalist masters.

What&#39;s your point?


In short, wont that turn you into me?

No. You&#39;re an obnoxious ****.

I would have to lose several billion brain cells to stoop to your level.


perhaps it would be more effective to square your ideals within the world you inhabit and not in one that is essentially based on the postulations of academics?

Sorry, but what is so academic about rejecting the imperialist adventures of America and co? Is it academic to demand a withdrawal from Iraq?

Needless to say, that is far more effective than blabbering nonsense which you have stated about &#39;soldiers protecting my rights&#39; and &#39;no soldier ever supporting the war.&#39;

What have you been smoking?

[toater]

"I don&#39;t support a country invading another country to simply further their own ends.

No communist would."

sorry Martov, I really cant discuss this with you. I think you need to spend a lot more time learning the history of your own movement. I appreciate your passion, but you&#39;re not talking to someone who has a scant knowledge of the subject matter. You&#39;re taking to a Politics and Economics Masters grad and commissioned officer.

Your above statement demonstrates either a shockingly poor knowledge of history or an unwillingness to accept the past because it contradicts your beliefs.

[Marsella]

sorry Martov, I really cant discuss this with you.

Oh horrors&#33; Your mummy is calling you to bed is she?

Or is it that something is gnawing at the back of your mind?

Well, that&#39;s good&#33; It&#39;s called critical thinking&#33; :)


I think you need to spend a lot more time learning the history of your own movement.


Your above statement demonstrates either a shockingly poor knowledge of history or an unwillingness to accept the past because it contradicts your beliefs.

If you&#39;re talking about the Stalinists or Maoists, then I have about as much regard to them as trodden on shit.


You&#39;re taking to a Politics and Economics Masters grad and commissioned officer.

Apologies your highness&#33;

Who would have known you were endowed with such knowledge when saying such fantastic comments including:


I reckon calling any squaddie a "silly puppet" will result in you getting a serious filling in. Ironically, the people you are so quick to call puppets are the very people who risk their lives for your rights to have your ill informed ideals.


i havent met any soldier that supports the war. you fight because you are told to fight, simple as.[/b]


i wonder if youre all so quick to condemn soldiers who fought in stan, where a us/uk presence has brought real and lasting change for the better.

Now, unless you are willing to show why soldiers deserve my support, I suggest you partake in a good hole-digging session.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 11:33 am
You&#39;re taking to a Politics and Economics Masters grad and commissioned officer.
Holy shit&#33;&#33;&#33;

I am so impressed by you&#33; Tell me more about your infinite fountain of knowledge&#33;&#33; You have to share that with us commoners&#33; We are thirsty for your knowledge&#33;

Stop acting like an elitist prick. Your degrees don&#39;t impress me, however it is your views that impress me; in the same manner that a piece of dogshit I see on the street impresses me.

[toater]

Martov, having read your posts, Im not sure that too many of the american troops would want your support. You strike me as a young person who has some, admittedly very strong beliefs, but you also have a very narrow world view. But then as someone recently said "If you aren&#39;t a socialist at 16 then you have no heart. If you&#39;re still a socialist at 25 then you probably have no prospects". I think we should move on now, I think its perfectly clear that we&#39;ve reached an impasse.

[Marsella]

Martov, having read your posts, Im not sure that too many of the american troops would want your support.

Trust me, the feeling is mutual.


You strike me as a young person who has some, admittedly very strong beliefs, but you also have a very narrow world view. But then as someone recently said "If you aren&#39;t a socialist at 16 then you have no heart. If you&#39;re still a socialist at 25 then you probably have no prospects".

There are some members on here that are in their 40s and are in movements involved with tens of thousands. What exactly is your point?


I think we should move on now, I think its perfectly clear that we&#39;ve reached an impasse.

You have failed to raise a single argument, apart from remarking on your educational status.

Did you get your degree at Hamburger University?

[toater]

now now Martov, dont be elitist.

[The Douche]

Toater:


You&#39;re taking to a Politics and Economics Masters grad and commissioned officer.

So let me get this straight. You&#39;re pro war, anti-communist, and a boss (commision officer). Why the fuck are you here? You should be banned.

martov


Your ideas decide whether you are a communist or not.

Putting bombs through defenseless civilians homes is kind of a major set back.

Get it?

Early you said actions, not ideas define your politics. Which is it? Either way, my politics are clearly defined. And I have never killed anyone here.

Get it?


t would probably be more beneficial if you pulled a [name of soldier who killed fellow soldiers]. TC knows, but unfortunately the name has slipped me.


Not very beneficial to me, spending the rest of my life in prison, nor to the people who rely on me. In fact, it seems pretty selfish. Especialy considering that the death of one soldier would not effect anything.


So in other words, you value your own life than that of poor foreigners.

I don&#39;t see you jumping in line for operation human shield. If you valued thier lives more than yours then surely youd be over here behind a rifle? Or just standing infront of somebody shooting at americans.


I don&#39;t give a flying fuck what ism you subscribe to.

I am more interested in what actions you take.


That was a typo I meant to say "I don&#39;t just claim to be a communist".

There are plenty of people who can vouch for me and my devotion. All I see from you is empty words about hating working class young people (that is, what soldiers are afterall).


If you are struggling, quite simply get another job.

How delightfully bourgeoise of you. How many times have we heard such an arguement. Clearly you have little experience in the real working class world.


Their class interests are directly opposed to that of the working class.

Soldiers are working class. Enlisted ones that is. I&#39;m not the only one to come to such a conclusion, maybe you&#39;ve heard of the Class War Federation...they agree. Maybe the IWW...they had no problem with my job. Or if you prefer the other side of the movement, the Bolsheviks seemed to lack your analysis when they recruited soldiers.


Really, they don&#39;t give a shit. The difference is a change in opinion is possible.

But working class soldiers don&#39;t deserve the chance to change thier opinion according to you.


Who said anything about unorganised and untrained?

Who will do that? You? How about class conscious ex soldiers? But I&#39;m sure you could do much better.


Didn&#39;t Marx say that we cannot overtake the old bureaucratic state apparatus, that it should be smashed?

That includes the army and police.

Where did I advocate taking over the current army? Oh wait I advocated the opposite.


But what&#39;s this, a RAANist supporting the manipulation of the US war machine?&#33;

Where did I suggest manipulation? Nowhere, I advocated SUBVERSION. If you don&#39;t see the difference you&#39;re a fool. Imagine if mass numbers of Franco&#39;s army had deserted and joined the workers AS THEY DID IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.


There is no such thing as an anti-war soldier.

If they were anti-war they would stop being a soldier.

Are you in highschool? This sounds like something I might&#39;ve said when I was 13. Then I grew up and faced real hardship.


You cannot occupy a country and claim to be a pacifist

Nowhere did I make such a claim. Stop trying to misrepresent me.


Yet the most sophisticated armaments have been rendered quite useless against a civilian population with guns that were invented 60 odd years ago.

And, as far as I am aware, my boss does not hide an artillery gun in his office.

The US military obviously does not unleash everything it is capable of in the Iraq war. Obviously they would hold nothing back in a war to stop a communist revolution. When they are capable of leveling entire citys with aircraft we can&#39;t even detect on radar (not that we would have radar) don&#39;t you think it might be helpful to have some people in the air force sympathetic to us to let us blow said planes up while they&#39;re on the ground?

So what, do you think the armed forces will disappear when the revolution starts? So you will take over your workplace? Thats the (relatively) easy place, what will you do when the army shows up to retake the city...newsflash, the organisation which protects your boss does have an artillery piece in the office. It&#39;d be nice if they snuck it out huh?


So please, earlier you said

So you have several options, to step aside, to join or to follow your bosses.

To which I replied:

To join? Join what? The communist movement which you claim no soldier can contribute to?

Please adress this.

Lets not forget that some of the most revolutionary workers in history have come from the ranks of the military. Kronstadt ring any bells? But hey, according to you I guess Trotsky was right to crush that, stupid soldiers got what they deserved right?

[toater]

"Obviously they would hold nothing back in a war to stop a communist revolution." thats an interesting point cmoney, I always thought that any civil commotion would be addressed at an urban level, in which case we&#39;d be looking at a FIBUA (I still refuse to call it OIBUA) or in your case I suppose MOUT leading to a similar state of play in Iraq. Who are you serving with cmoney?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:31 pm
Lets not forget that some of the most revolutionary workers in history have come from the ranks of the military.
Also some of the most reactionary; Spartacist uprising and the Paris Commune ring any bells?

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+December 03, 2007 03:17 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ December 03, 2007 03:17 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 02:31 pm
Lets not forget that some of the most revolutionary workers in history have come from the ranks of the military.
Also some of the most reactionary; Spartacist uprising and the Paris Commune ring any bells? [/b]
Don&#39;t act like you don&#39;t understand the point I&#39;m making. You are a smart guy, and obviously know that I&#39;m suggesting that soldiers are revolutionary.

If you read the thread you will see martov writing off hundred of thousands of military trained workers for no clear reason. Even though history proves that mass desertion is virtually a necessity in order to win revolution.


I suppose MOUT leading to a similar state of play in Iraq. Who are you serving with cmoney?

Yeah, but in Iraq we can&#39;t level an entire city to take out the insurgency in it. In the event of mass insurrection and real revolution which was actually threatening state and capital they would stop at nothing to halt it.

I&#39;m in the army.

[Hit The North]

If you read the thread you will see martov writing off hundred of thousands of military trained workers for no clear reason. Even though history proves that mass desertion is virtually a necessity in order to win revolution.

Yes, but an important distinction has to be made between conscripted soldiers and the professional, enlisted army you belong to, cmoney. It is the former who tend to break away from crisis-torn regimes and join the forces of revolution, or at least refuse to fire on them.

You and your army, on the other hand, are a band of mercenaries, enforcing Imperialist violence for cold cash.

Btw, how many Iraqi workers have you killed while you&#39;ve been over there?

[toater]

"Yeah, but in Iraq we can&#39;t level an entire city to take out the insurgency in it. In the event of mass insurrection and real revolution which was actually threatening state and capital they would stop at nothing to halt it.

I&#39;m in the army."

I remember during a rather dull trg, a staff told us a story about being on a joint ex during the GOBDs and being told by a rather senior usm that a very similar strategy would be in place if there was a soviet assualt during the ex. so insane that it probably was true

[bugsy]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 03, 2007 04:41 pm

If you read the thread you will see martov writing off hundred of thousands of military trained workers for no clear reason. Even though history proves that mass desertion is virtually a necessity in order to win revolution.

Yes, but an important distinction has to be made between conscripted soldiers and the professional, enlisted army you belong to, cmoney. It is the former who tend to break away from crisis-torn regimes and join the forces of revolution, or at least refuse to fire on them.

You and your army, on the other hand, are a band of mercenaries, enforcing Imperialist violence for cold cash.

Btw, how many Iraqi workers have you killed while you&#39;ve been over there?
I&#39;d dearly like to know what this "important distinction" is? Having been a part of the (British) military for a fair few years, I can&#39;t help but surmise that you, along with that Martov geezer, are pursuing a personal agenda here. All according to your response, I&#39;ll go into more detail.

MsG

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by bugsy+December 03, 2007 05:41 pm--> (bugsy &#064; December 03, 2007 05:41 pm)
Citizen [email protected] 03, 2007 04:41 pm

If you read the thread you will see martov writing off hundred of thousands of military trained workers for no clear reason. Even though history proves that mass desertion is virtually a necessity in order to win revolution.

Yes, but an important distinction has to be made between conscripted soldiers and the professional, enlisted army you belong to, cmoney. It is the former who tend to break away from crisis-torn regimes and join the forces of revolution, or at least refuse to fire on them.

You and your army, on the other hand, are a band of mercenaries, enforcing Imperialist violence for cold cash.

Btw, how many Iraqi workers have you killed while you&#39;ve been over there?
I&#39;d dearly like to know what this "important distinction" is? Having been a part of the (British) military for a fair few years, I can&#39;t help but surmise that you, along with that Martov geezer, are pursuing a personal agenda here. All according to your response, I&#39;ll go into more detail.

MsG[/b]
I would have thought the distinction was obvious. Enlisted men join the Army from free choice and some kind of ideological adjustment must be made on their part to make that choice viable. On the other hand, conscripted men are compelled to join the army and may do so grudgingly. This - and the circumstances of peril which compel the ruling class to rely on conscription - makes enlisted men more likely to stand against the status quo and turn to the revolutionaries.

Martov is completely correct to state that no one needs to join the U.S or U.K. military and that they are choosing to make themselves agents of Western Imperialism.

My contention would be that a man cannot make himself a willing tool of imperialist militarism and claim, with any shred of credibility, to be a leftist.

So I don&#39;t have the personal agenda which you falsely surmise. It&#39;s purely a political one.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:10 am

You have regressed into blaming the workers and have no understanding of necessity as it sometimes relates to members of the working class.

A soldier is not a worker, anymore than a police officer is a worker.

Soldiers are involved in the subjugation of the working class of countries, which makes the police force look childish in comparison.

It baffles me how anyone could give an excuse for the work that they do. I fear it stems from pseudo-patriotism; &#39;support the soldiers but not the war&#39; type &#39;arguments.&#39;

There is no economic duress forcing anyone to join the armed forces.

They do so entirely voluntarily.


Soldiers are indeed lackies of the ruling class but the fact that you are clearly wealthy means you can not possibly understand the necessity that might drive certain people to that sad line of work.

What?&#33;

I used to work a job changing rubbish bins and mopping up people&#39;s vomit.

Wealthy my ass&#33;

Has it crossed your mind that I fundamentally disagree with this &#39;sad line of work&#39; because it has personally effected me, not that I am a &#39;wealthy ****?&#39;
1.) Soldiers are workers in the sense that they sell their labor power to the capitalists. Just because you don&#39;t like &#39;em doesn&#39;t mean they aren&#39;t proletarians. I do not support the troops or the war. I have a dialectical and scientific understanding of why people join the army. It is not because they are "bad" and have personally harmed you. How much more unscientific can you get?

2.) Just because you used to do some kind of labor mean you aren&#39;t privelidged. You are a student at a university which means you do at least have some means.

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:02 pm
I reckon calling any squaddie a "silly puppet" will result in you getting a serious filling in. Ironically, the people you are so quick to call puppets are the very people who risk their lives for your rights to have your ill informed ideals.
Wait, they&#39;re the ones that fight for and defend our rights? Sorry, I must have missed something. Last time I checked, soldiers didn&#39;t fight in the Black Civil Rights movement of the &#39;60s for the rights of blacks, instead they fought against them, nor were they at Stonewall in New York City to fight for the rights of gays. I could cite hundreds of examples, including nearly every workers&#39; strike that has taken place in the past. In actuality, the soldiers of the U.S. Armed Forces are not the ones that fight for and defend our rights, it is the people that would quite literally "fuck shit up" for the bourgeois if those rights were taken away that do.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 03, 2007 04:26 pm--> (cmoney &#064; December 03, 2007 04:26 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 03, 2007 03:17 pm

[email protected] 03, 2007 02:31 pm
Lets not forget that some of the most revolutionary workers in history have come from the ranks of the military.
Also some of the most reactionary; Spartacist uprising and the Paris Commune ring any bells?
Don&#39;t act like you don&#39;t understand the point I&#39;m making. You are a smart guy, and obviously know that I&#39;m suggesting that soldiers are revolutionary.

If you read the thread you will see martov writing off hundred of thousands of military trained workers for no clear reason. Even though history proves that mass desertion is virtually a necessity in order to win revolution. [/b]
Comrade Citizen Zero basically made my point; those were conscripted armies, not professional ones.

Can you point to an example of a professional army ever backing the revolution?

[jaffe]

Russia

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:40 am
Russia
That was a conscripted army. I asked for an example of a professional army, i.e., not conscripted.

[jaffe]

Kronstad were conscripted I thought

[Marsella]

I&#39;ll reply later, gotta go to work.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 10:46 am
Kronstad were conscripted I thought
Once again; I asked for an example of a professional army.

Ironically the sections of the Russian army that were professional were the most reactionary, and it took quite a long time to have them support the revolution, they basically only did when they knew they couldn&#39;t resist the pressure from below anymore.

[Jazzratt]

Considering what the nature of the debate is now, I think it is much more suited to OI.

Moved.

[The Douche]

All armies of the western world ARE conscripted. The draft is still very much in effect, its just not the same as it was. Its an economic draft, and many young working class people who can&#39;t get a good job because of the poor area they live in, and can&#39;t afford to get an education have essentially three choices, work a minimum wage job which is not capable of supporting a family, and barely capable of supporting themselves, be homeless, or join the military.

Very few people are taking a marxist analysis of this. You are acting on pure emotion. As much as you want to say you can&#39;t be a communist and a soldier I AM, as are a number of other people I know. You can&#39;t just wish us away, in fact, you should be wishing us into the movement to ensure that our movement is capable of the militance we advocate.

I&#39;d like to see some valid suggestions on how a revolutionary war could be won against the modern US army.

Obviously there is no time in history where an entire professional army has sided with the forces of revolution. But the reason why workers leave the army in conscripted forces is the same reason why they would desert today. Failed imperialist ventures, subversion from within, agitation from the outside, and disillusion because thier CLASS INTERSTS differ from the descisions made by thier bosses.

(the quote function isn&#39;t working) Again with the questions about how I kill other workers...trying to divert attention from the logical and marxist analysis of the situation and inspire emotional response. I havent taken a single life, nor have I fired my weapon in combat.

***Its important to note, that unlike the other supposed soldiers in the thread I do not have anything positive to say about the military or soldiers, only that it is a shame that is an option which is sometimes necessary for workers to choose in order to support themselves/families. I do not advocate honoring this dead soldier or any other, I do not claim to "fight for anyones rights" or do any good over here. I am doing nothing more than pointing out that soldiers are working class and need to be organized as much as factory workers.

If anyone here, other than those I referenced above is supporting an opposing ideology it is those who argue against supporting workers. I don&#39;t think we should support the troops, I think we should agitate, just like we do with all other workers.

PS Martov I find it funny that you link RAAN in your sig, considering there are 3 RAANistas in the military. I guess RAAN is a pretty reactionary, imperialist group huh?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I would honor the soldiers that fell in WW2 fighting fascism. Many of those soldiers were leftists. They stood against evil. As for the war in Iraq I stand against in favor of the Iraqi Insurgents.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:37 pm
PS Martov I find it funny that you link RAAN in your sig, considering there are 3 RAANistas in the military. I guess RAAN is a pretty reactionary, imperialist group huh?
Off topic, but yes it is.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:38 am
Their [soldiers&#39;] class interests are directly opposed to that of the working class.
Err, some soldiers participated in the Russian Revolution, you know.

Of course soldiers are supposed to serve the interests of the bourgeoisie and imperialism, and most of them do so most of the time, but significant numbers of soldiers have been known to defect and join the working class in some revolutionary situations. So I wouldn&#39;t be quite as dismissive if I were you.

[pusher robot]

Last time I checked, soldiers didn&#39;t fight in the Black Civil Rights movement of the &#39;60s for the rights of blacks, instead they fought against them

Oh?

Do you know who the military man in this photo is?
[img]http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change%20Pics/wallaceblock.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

It&#39;s General Henry Graham of the Alabama National Guard. Do you know what he&#39;s doing?

He&#39;s telling the other man, Governor George Wallace, to step aside and let two black students take their seats at the formerly all-white school, or else his 100 soldiers will move the governor by force.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:37 am
sorry just to clarify, is the general concensus on this forum that all soldiers, regardless of nationality and conflict are doing an immoral job, and is this the case for all soldiers in any part of history? Or is it only recently that soldiers have become morally repugnant?
Uh...No but those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are. Or are they "just following orders"?

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 10:49 am
I remember during a rather dull trg, a staff told us a story about being on a joint ex during the GOBDs and being told by a rather senior usm that a very similar strategy would be in place if there was a soviet assualt during the ex. so insane that it probably was true
mmmMRRRrooooww here come the acronym police to take you away&#33;

Luckily I understand a lot of it though. You think that they&#39;d level an entire city?

So do I.

It&#39;s stunning to see that the &#39;goood ol USA&#39; isn&#39;t much better than the dictatorships of Mussolini and Franco.

It never was.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 03:41 pm
Regardless of the "but its not the *soldiers* fault that they had to go to Iraq to kill/rape/maim/torture, they just followed orders given to them by the politicians and generals who are really to blame", which is the line frequently given for "supporting our troops&#33;" both now and at the Nuremberg trial, to give a grand ceremony for a dead soldier and not a dead car mechanic, a dead teacher, a dead accountant, or a dead nurse, demonstrates not mere tolerance towards soldiers fighting wars but reverence.

Whatever argument used to excuse their behavior ("Just following the Fuhrer&#39;s orders&#33;" "I needed to murder people to go to college without debt&#33;" ) such arguments can in no way begin to rationalize venerating it, unless you also support the actions they&#39;ve taken.

Clearly this type of "respect" as with the ridiculous poppy&#39;s in england is in fact glorifying and supporting wars of aggression.


We shouldn&#39;t honour serial killers regardless if they are black or hispanic or white.

They all deserve to be equally condemned as scum.

Very well put.
For once... a post of yours I agree with not in part, but completely :P

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 04, 2007 01:41 pm

Last time I checked, soldiers didn&#39;t fight in the Black Civil Rights movement of the &#39;60s for the rights of blacks, instead they fought against them

Oh?

Do you know who the military man in this photo is?
[img]http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change%20Pics/wallaceblock.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' class='attach' />

It&#39;s General Henry Graham of the Alabama National Guard. Do you know what he&#39;s doing?

He&#39;s telling the other man, Governor George Wallace, to step aside and let two black students take their seats at the formerly all-white school, or else his 100 soldiers will move the governor by force.
Watts riots, Hough riots, Rochester riot, Baltimore riot, Detriot riots, and the Washington D.C. riots all saw U.S. Military personnel deployed to fight those that were expressing their outrage at being spat upon by the "Land of the Free".

[Marsella]

Early you said actions, not ideas define your politics. Which is it? Either way, my politics are clearly defined. And I have never killed anyone here.

I will make it as clear as I can:

Good &#39;communist intentions&#39; count for shit when your actions say otherwise.

And you do not need to kill anyone to be serving the interests of imperialism.

Who takes more blame, the man whom hires the assassin or the assassin himself?

The one whom loads the gun or the one whom pulls the trigger?


Not very beneficial to me, spending the rest of my life in prison, nor to the people who rely on me. In fact, it seems pretty selfish. Especialy considering that the death of one soldier would not effect anything.

Of course your non-existence won&#39;t be beneficial to you&#33; :lol:

But it would make a slight material difference to the ground.

It may result in the survival of several Iraqis. That is what I am concerned about.


I don&#39;t see you jumping in line for operation human shield. If you valued thier lives more than yours then surely youd be over here behind a rifle? Or just standing infront of somebody shooting at americans.

:lol:

Way to totally avoid the point; I remarked that you valued your own life over that of poor foreigners. You replied that I had not volunteered myself as a &#39;human operation shield.&#39;

Well, probably my biggest act of support is, surprise, not aiming bullets at them in first place.


There are plenty of people who can vouch for me and my devotion. All I see from you is empty words about hating working class young people (that is, what soldiers are afterall).

I&#39;m glad to see your &#39;devotion&#39; levels are substantially high&#33; Maybe a priest would be a better career option?

Deep down do you feel the same &#39;devotion&#39; to your country and your job?


How delightfully bourgeoise of you. How many times have we heard such an arguement. Clearly you have little experience in the real working class world.

I would contend that it would be more &#39;delightfully bourgeoisie&#39; to value one&#39;s own life over that of working class people in another country, which really have something to complain about.


But working class soldiers don&#39;t deserve the chance to change thier opinion according to you.

Well, as I remarked above, generally the only time soldiers do become class conscious is when they are losing wars. America is going to have to have several key military blows before we even begin to enter that picture.

Comparing with police, soldiers interests rest with the perpetuation of the current system. Their jobs rely on the invasion and exploitation of other countries.

That occupation is incompatible with that of a communist society.


Where did I advocate taking over the current army? Oh wait I advocated the opposite.

No you didn&#39;t.

The opposite would be to call for the abolishment of the standing army, and a substitution of a citizen&#39;s militia.

You called for the &#39;subversion&#39; of the armed forces, whatever the fuck that means.


Where did I suggest manipulation? Nowhere, I advocated SUBVERSION. If you don&#39;t see the difference you&#39;re a fool. Imagine if mass numbers of Franco&#39;s army had deserted and joined the workers AS THEY DID IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION.

I&#39;m not overly fond of imagination. I got over it when I turned 10.

AND YOU DO KNOW THAT WRITING IN CAPITAL LETTERS DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

The Bolsheviks introduced the death penalty to avoid losing mass numbers. The Tsarist army was simply taken over, with old officers, and renamed.

That same army participated in the suppression of the Tambov rebellion and numerous others.

I&#39;m sure the Red Army soldiers too maintained they were &#39;only following orders.&#39;


Are you in highschool? This sounds like something I might&#39;ve said when I was 13. Then I grew up and faced real hardship.

Good way to avoid the statement.

Again:

There is no such thing as an anti-war or anti-imperialist soldier.

If they were anti-war they would stop being a soldier.


The US military obviously does not unleash everything it is capable of in the Iraq war. Obviously they would hold nothing back in a war to stop a communist revolution. When they are capable of leveling entire citys with aircraft we can&#39;t even detect on radar (not that we would have radar) don&#39;t you think it might be helpful to have some people in the air force sympathetic to us to let us blow said planes up while they&#39;re on the ground?

I suppose next you will be arguing that we must have a centralized power to &#39;fight the counter-revolution&#33;&#39;


So what, do you think the armed forces will disappear when the revolution starts? So you will take over your workplace? Thats the (relatively) easy place, what will you do when the army shows up to retake the city...newsflash, the organisation which protects your boss does have an artillery piece in the office. It&#39;d be nice if they snuck it out huh?

Hopefully the proletariat authority will have the sense to call for the immediate abolishment of the army, the police and other repressive state authorities.

And I&#39;m not particularly concerned about arguing revolutionary warfare tactics. If you want to argue how workers will defend that revolution, my views are here. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72156)


To join? Join what? The communist movement which you claim no soldier can contribute to?

I thought it was pretty clear.

The present military force, when faced with a prospect of a revolution will have three choices:

To step aside, to join or to follow your bosses.

I just very much doubt that it will be the first or middle option.


Lets not forget that some of the most revolutionary workers in history have come from the ranks of the military. Kronstadt ring any bells? But hey, according to you I guess Trotsky was right to crush that, stupid soldiers got what they deserved right?

Glad to see your history is up to scratch.

May I ask whom crushed Kronstadt?

Oh that&#39;s right; it was just Red Army soldiers just following orders.

Contrary to what you think, I do respect soldiers that abandon their positions of authority and call for a new society.

I have no respect for those who hide behind the facade that they were &#39;conscripted&#39; and continue acting in the interests of their masters.

drosera99

1.) Soldiers are workers in the sense that they sell their labor power to the capitalists. Just because you don&#39;t like &#39;em doesn&#39;t mean they aren&#39;t proletarians. I do not support the troops or the war. I have a dialectical and scientific understanding of why people join the army. It is not because they are "bad" and have personally harmed you. How much more unscientific can you get?

What nonsense.

By that very logic, police officers would be workers because they &#39;sell their labor power to the capitalists.&#39;

But you are no supporter of the police, correct?

It seems to me that leftists show more opposition to police officers because they have experienced the repressiveness of that occupation first hand.

Soldiers, on the other hand, do their job overseas. Out of sight, and out of mind.

Yet, have police officers resulted in 600,000 dead Iraqis?

Why are we so prideful on attacking the institution of police but not that of the soldier, especially when those war pigs make the police force childish in comparison?

Support the soldiers but not the war, maybe?

cmoney

All armies of the western world ARE conscripted. The draft is still very much in effect, its just not the same as it was. Its an economic draft, and many young working class people who can&#39;t get a good job because of the poor area they live in, and can&#39;t afford to get an education have essentially three choices, work a minimum wage job which is not capable of supporting a family, and barely capable of supporting themselves, be homeless, or join the military.

What arrogant bullshit.

Those who enter the US army do so entirely voluntarily. You do not do so voluntarily when you are conscripted.

As I have stated, there are numerous dead end jobs which are far more worthy than that of a military occupation. Your education, your families interests, your future is not superior to that of anyone&#39;s, especially those whom your occupation kills.

You are simply trying to justify your position based on the argument that you were conscripted. Well you were not.


Very few people are taking a marxist analysis of this. You are acting on pure emotion. As much as you want to say you can&#39;t be a communist and a soldier I AM, as are a number of other people I know. You can&#39;t just wish us away, in fact, you should be wishing us into the movement to ensure that our movement is capable of the militance we advocate.

Here is a Marxist analysis: your occupation means the advancement of capital and of US dominance.


PS Martov I find it funny that you link RAAN in your sig, considering there are 3 RAANistas in the military. I guess RAAN is a pretty reactionary, imperialist group huh?

I find it funny that RAAN attacked a strip club, and perhaps more relevant to you, an army recruiting center. And yes, I agree with RAAN on their anti-Leninist stance, but I otherwise don&#39;t give a flying fuck about their other policies.

Especially their stance on morality.

[synthesis]

I can&#39;t lie, some of you people remind me why we&#39;re not getting anywhere today. Soldiers are the victims of imperialism more so than any other group of people who live in the imperialist nation - though certainly nowhere near the extent of suffering experienced by the invaded nation.

You say people can just "choose" to work elsewhere, but that is bourgeois ideology, pure and simple. It reminds me of the Irish mobs in the 19th century who would lynch the blacks who were called in to replace people on strike. You&#39;re just flat-out missing the fucking point.

I have to give cmoney a lot of credit for his honesty and patience, if he is who he says he is. To admit that you sympathize with someone who wishes death upon you - to me, that shows a degree of consistency that I see in very few people here.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 05:28 am
I can&#39;t lie, some of you people remind me why we&#39;re not getting anywhere today. Soldiers are the victims of imperialism more so than any other group of people who live in the imperialist nation - though certainly nowhere near the extent of suffering experienced by the invaded nation.

You say people can just "choose" to work elsewhere, but that is bourgeois ideology, pure and simple. It reminds me of the Irish mobs in the 19th century who would lynch the blacks who were called in to replace people on strike. You&#39;re just flat-out missing the fucking point.

I have to give cmoney a lot of credit for his honesty and patience, if he is who he says he is. To admit that you sympathize with someone who wishes death upon you - to me, that shows a degree of consistency that I see in very few people here.
Its not even worth talking to this cat. (s)He&#39;s ignoring all the real issues and restating his played out point again and again trying to throw in insults here and there about my killing people.

He advoctes that when revolution comes soldiers will have the option to join. But he won&#39;t allow them such an option in the present day, that is, unless they&#39;re willing to spend life in prison.

Martov you have some seriously bourgeois ideas, especially about "just getting a different job". You&#39;re not interested in having a debate you&#39;re just here to talk shit. I&#39;m not going to provide you that opportunity anymore.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 05:28 am
I can&#39;t lie, some of you people remind me why we&#39;re not getting anywhere today. Soldiers are the victims of imperialism more so than any other group of people who live in the imperialist nation - though certainly nowhere near the extent of suffering experienced by the invaded nation.

You say people can just "choose" to work elsewhere, but that is bourgeois ideology, pure and simple. It reminds me of the Irish mobs in the 19th century who would lynch the blacks who were called in to replace people on strike. You&#39;re just flat-out missing the fucking point.

I have to give cmoney a lot of credit for his honesty and patience, if he is who he says he is. To admit that you sympathize with someone who wishes death upon you - to me, that shows a degree of consistency that I see in very few people here.
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair to leave out the soldier&#39;s fault in such problems. And it&#39;s true that they choose to join the army; in the same vein, it is true that the poor choose to eat out of garbage cans. People are compelled by various entities to join the army, which usually takes advantage of ignorace and poverty.

Still, I don&#39;t see people here having much sympathy for the sick rich people who control our economy. They are usually oppressed much more by the god of money, when psychological conditions are taken into consideration. It&#39;s true that we need to have sympathy for those we would label as "on the other side" but I think it&#39;s very inconsistant to claim that certain classes of people are worthy of disdain while others are not, regardless of aims, intentions, and especially their own psychological profiles.

[synthesis]

Because no matter how often the abolitionists argued that slavery was as harmful to the humanity of the slaveowner as it was to the slave, it never succeeded in convincing the slaveowners to abandon their positions of power. There is rarely any point in trying to sway those in power to your point of view when you are trying to remove them from power.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 02:45 pm
Because no matter how often the abolitionists argued that slavery was as harmful to the humanity of the slaveowner as it was to the slave, it never succeeded in convincing the slaveowners to abandon their positions of power. There is rarely any point in trying to sway those in power to your point of view when you are trying to remove them from power.
And tell me the last time an occupying U.S. force was convinced to abandon its stance or actually fight for the opposite end.

[synthesis]

It&#39;s not like they haven&#39;t tried.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,841170,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841170,00.html)

On a side note, almost 40 years later this article has still completely discredited TIME Magazine in my eyes.

[Comrade Rage]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:29 pm
i havent met any soldier that supports the war. you fight because you are told to fight, simple as.
"I was just following orders."

So what? Those orders are still crimes&#33;

[manic expression]

Originally posted by cmoney+December 05, 2007 01:47 pm--> (cmoney @ December 05, 2007 01:47 pm)
Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 05:28 am
I can&#39;t lie, some of you people remind me why we&#39;re not getting anywhere today. Soldiers are the victims of imperialism more so than any other group of people who live in the imperialist nation - though certainly nowhere near the extent of suffering experienced by the invaded nation.

You say people can just "choose" to work elsewhere, but that is bourgeois ideology, pure and simple. It reminds me of the Irish mobs in the 19th century who would lynch the blacks who were called in to replace people on strike. You&#39;re just flat-out missing the fucking point.

I have to give cmoney a lot of credit for his honesty and patience, if he is who he says he is. To admit that you sympathize with someone who wishes death upon you - to me, that shows a degree of consistency that I see in very few people here.
Its not even worth talking to this cat. (s)He&#39;s ignoring all the real issues and restating his played out point again and again trying to throw in insults here and there about my killing people.

He advoctes that when revolution comes soldiers will have the option to join. But he won&#39;t allow them such an option in the present day, that is, unless they&#39;re willing to spend life in prison.

Martov you have some seriously bourgeois ideas, especially about "just getting a different job". You&#39;re not interested in having a debate you&#39;re just here to talk shit. I&#39;m not going to provide you that opportunity anymore. [/b]
Seriously, Martov is the LAST person you should listen to when it comes to just about anything. S/he&#39;s infantile in every sense of the word (to say the very least).

Oh, and Martov, how many people in the military have you ever had a conversation with? Ever been to their houses? Met their families? Seen how they live? I used to think like you when I was in High School, probably because I didn&#39;t know better. If you live a little bit and see how things are (and grasp Marxism instead of radical liberalism), maybe you&#39;ll snap out of your BS. Then again, you&#39;re probably too busy masturbating to your own sense of "radicalism" to open your eyes.

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 03:23 am
drosera99

1.) Soldiers are workers in the sense that they sell their labor power to the capitalists. Just because you don&#39;t like &#39;em doesn&#39;t mean they aren&#39;t proletarians. I do not support the troops or the war. I have a dialectical and scientific understanding of why people join the army. It is not because they are "bad" and have personally harmed you. How much more unscientific can you get?

What nonsense.

By that very logic, police officers would be workers because they &#39;sell their labor power to the capitalists.&#39;

But you are no supporter of the police, correct?

It seems to me that leftists show more opposition to police officers because they have experienced the repressiveness of that occupation first hand.

Soldiers, on the other hand, do their job overseas. Out of sight, and out of mind.

Yet, have police officers resulted in 600,000 dead Iraqis?

Why are we so prideful on attacking the institution of police but not that of the soldier, especially when those war pigs make the police force childish in comparison?

Support the soldiers but not the war, maybe?
Here is where we see the ultimate flaw in your reasoning Martov. Workers are not defined as people you happen to like. Workers as a class are defined by their relationship to the means of production. Yes police are workers&#33; Soldiers are workers&#33; They are reactionary, counter-revolutionary sections of the proletariat.

NO&#33; I do not support soldiers OR the war. NO&#33; I DESPISE the police. BUT THEY ARE STILL WORKERS&#33; You have to stop thinking with your personal opinions. Class is based on production relations not your silly opinion on who is good or revolutionary. Workers are workers REGARDLESS OF THE WORK THEY DO&#33;

As for me not attacking the army, don&#39;t be absurd. I hate the army, the war, the entirety of the U.S. and all other imperialist militaries and everything they stand for. No I don&#39;t support the soldiers. Judging from your posts, you haven&#39;t read a single thing I&#39;ve said because the whole time I&#39;ve been arguing that the war AND THE MILITARY is totally wrong.

[Marsella]

Kun Fanâ

You say people can just "choose" to work elsewhere, but that is bourgeois ideology, pure and simple. It reminds me of the Irish mobs in the 19th century who would lynch the blacks who were called in to replace people on strike. You&#39;re just flat-out missing the fucking point.

The army offers more possibilities to some, a chance to &#39;explore&#39; the world and educational opportunities. It is small wonder why that they take that chance. Being uneducated and poor is not at all desirable in capitalism.

You have a choice to get a normal job or join the army. No one is forced to join the army. They do so of their free and volitional will.

I am arguing that regardless, a job which requires you to kill poor foreigners for your own advancement is entirely a selfish act.

To try to avoid it by saying you were forced to join simply does not cut it.

cmoney

Its not even worth talking to this cat. (s)He&#39;s ignoring all the real issues and restating his played out point again and again trying to throw in insults here and there about my killing people.

He advoctes that when revolution comes soldiers will have the option to join. But he won&#39;t allow them such an option in the present day, that is, unless they&#39;re willing to spend life in prison.

Martov you have some seriously bourgeois ideas, especially about "just getting a different job". You&#39;re not interested in having a debate you&#39;re just here to talk shit. I&#39;m not going to provide you that opportunity anymore.

Here&#39;s what it boils down to.

When your superiors ask you to fire on an Iraqi resistance, what are you going to do? When if the same is asked of you to fire on civilian protesters what will you do?

Follow his/her orders or not?

Risk imprisonment or kill innocent people?

And I am sure that there are numerous ways on how you can be kicked out of the army without facing imprisonment. Explore your options instead of denying them.

manic expression

Seriously, Martov is the LAST person you should listen to when it comes to just about anything. S/he&#39;s infantile in every sense of the word (to say the very least).

Oh, and Martov, how many people in the military have you ever had a conversation with? Ever been to their houses? Met their families? Seen how they live? I used to think like you when I was in High School, probably because I didn&#39;t know better. If you live a little bit and see how things are (and grasp Marxism instead of radical liberalism), maybe you&#39;ll snap out of your BS. Then again, you&#39;re probably too busy masturbating to your own sense of "radicalism" to open your eyes.

Wow, ad hominems galore&#33;

But to answer your questions (if you seem so interested in my personal life)

My brother was in the military, but was fortunately kicked out. His purpose was the same as any others; to &#39;serve his country.&#39;

I have family members which have been killed by American soldiers before my family emigrated to where I now live.

So it looks like I am in a better position to judge than simply a &#39;high school student&#39; who has never been on the receiving end of the full brunt of imperialism.

Now tell me, have you ever lost any family members owing to the acts of foreign soldiers?

Here is what you said in a thread commenting on police:


Well, comrade, I also found this a bit confusing at first. However, if you involve yourself in revolutionary organizations for long enough, you&#39;ll definitely experience firsthand the precise reasons why we loathe the cops. Aside from oftentimes being habitual bullies (pushing people around and bossing them just because they have a gun and can use it without consequences), they make life much harder for anyone who&#39;s not in the "good old boys club" (ie minorities, leftists, people who dress differently from businessmen, youths, etc).

We don&#39;t JUST hate them because we all decided it on an internet forum, our dislike comes directly from real experiences we&#39;ve had (experiences that you&#39;ll probably become acquainted with in time, as well).

Oh, and read the quote by rev0lt, it&#39;s spot on. The police force exists to protect private property and the capitalist system. If you look at the history of the modern police force, it started at around the 1850-60&#39;s: when capitalism really got going.

So, you positively loathe the police force for pushing you around ( :lol: ) and making life &#39;much harder.&#39; :(

Boo fucking hoo.

Seriously, you think you have much to complain about when being pushed around by police officers or being harassed for dressing differently?&#33;

You clearly have not experienced what it is like to have a family member slaughtered, or be forced to emigrate owing to the fact that not only is there any work, but there is no one with enough money to even buy the goods or services anyway.

That is hardship, not a silly teenage leftist being pushed around by a pig cop.

Get real ****.

drosera99

Here is where we see the ultimate flaw in your reasoning Martov. Workers are not defined as people you happen to like. Workers as a class are defined by their relationship to the means of production. Yes police are workers&#33; Soldiers are workers&#33; They are reactionary, counter-revolutionary sections of the proletariat.

It is true that I dislike soldiers, but I dislike them for a reason.

Yes they are defined by their relationship to the means of production.

But what production are we talking about here?

Piling up dead bodies? Shooting people? Loading weapons? Liberating oil refineries?

They provide a very agreeable service to their nations.

Let me ask you a question.

How do soldiers differ at all from those mercenary thugs, particularly Blackwater?

I am sure you disagree with those mercenary war criminals, right?

Is it that Blackwater mercenaries are paid more that makes them non-workers?

Clearly not, your class is defined by the relationship to the means of production.

So what exactly makes them special? They perform the same service, they freely joined the security sector, and they reap the benefits of that exploitation.

Being a &#39;worker&#39; is not a &#39;get out of jail free card.&#39;

The best soldier (or police officer for that matter) is one that acts like a robot; completely follow the orders of his/her commanding officer. Indeed, that is how training is regimented; to become a jarhead.

In that sense, they are neither good nor bad; a robot cannot be good or bad.

But to what purpose they are put to demands questioning.

Police officers often argue that &#39;we don&#39;t make laws, we just enforce them.&#39;

Police officers argue that &#39;we didn&#39;t begin this war, we just fight in it.&#39;

That avoids all personal responsibility. I might expect SS soldiers to maintain that &#39;defense&#39; but I certainly don&#39;t expect that line of reasoning to carry any weight today.

And definitely not amongst intelligent leftists.

[The Douche]

When your superiors ask you to fire on an Iraqi resistance, what are you going to do? When if the same is asked of you to fire on civilian protesters what will you do?

1)You obviously have no concept of how war works. Its not like we stand around waiting for somebody to walk by and then some captain walks up and says "hey soldier shoot that guy". Would I shoot at somebody to save my life, you&#39;re goddamn right I would. Would I be proud to kill somebody who is just trying to get an occupying force out of thier country, hell no. You&#39;re obviously young (if not physically then mentally) you&#39;ve never been faced with a contradiction like that, so I don&#39;t expect you to understand.

I know of very few people in the army who would fire on civilian protesters. But no I would not hesitate if it were for the right reason. Though I never expect to have that kind of reason come down from my officers.

See what I mean, those are not legitimate arguements. Its shit talking, implying that I mindlessly follow orders. I don&#39;t fight because I&#39;m told to, I fight because I want to continue living, unfortunately that desire may one day force me to take the life of somebody who&#39;s cause is much more honorable than mine. Again, I realise the contradiction, and also realise that you will never be able to grasp it unless you face it yourself.


And I am sure that there are numerous ways on how you can be kicked out of the army without facing imprisonment. Explore your options instead of denying them.

Did you just tell me that you know more about how the army works than I do? You&#39;re sure? Ok dude. Lying to the army to get out will get you consequences every bit as severe as refusing to go to Iraq. It is not easy to get out of the army, if it was, why would people go AWOL?


I am arguing that regardless, a job which requires you to kill poor foreigners for your own advancement is entirely a selfish act.

Flawed logic. The act of killing isn&#39;t for the soldiers own advancement and no soldier sees it as such. We don&#39;t get promotions for killing people.


You have a choice to get a normal job or join the army. No one is forced to join the army.

Ever had to support yourself and other people? I doubt it. You don&#39;t understand the complexities of working in the real world. Are you a child or a democrat?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 06:11 am
Wow, ad hominems galore&#33;

But to answer your questions (if you seem so interested in my personal life)

My brother was in the military, but was fortunately kicked out. His purpose was the same as any others; to &#39;serve his country.&#39;

I have family members which have been killed by American soldiers before my family emigrated to where I now live.

So it looks like I am in a better position to judge than simply a &#39;high school student&#39; who has never been on the receiving end of the full brunt of imperialism.

Now tell me, have you ever lost any family members owing to the acts of foreign soldiers?

Here is what you said in a thread commenting on police:

So, you positively loathe the police force for pushing you around ( :lol: ) and making life &#39;much harder.&#39; :(

Boo fucking hoo.

Seriously, you think you have much to complain about when being pushed around by police officers or being harassed for dressing differently?&#33;

You clearly have not experienced what it is like to have a family member slaughtered, or be forced to emigrate owing to the fact that not only is there any work, but there is no one with enough money to even buy the goods or services anyway.

That is hardship, not a silly teenage leftist being pushed around by a pig cop.

Get real ****.
Yes, I insulted you, because you deserved it for being immature and ignorant.

As I thought, you don&#39;t grasp WHY people join the military. The majority do not join because they want to "serve their country"; the patriotic ones are going to college, not Iraq. The military in our country is BASED in the recruitment of poor people. If you deny this, like you have been doing, you really have no idea about how things are.

So, really, my claims stand. You are ignorant.

The police force and military share some characteristics, but there are also many differences that you&#39;ve failed to understand. Do people join the police because they are poor? Of course not. They join to "fight crime", or because their fathers were policemen. The soldier&#39;s relationship is vastly different from the policeman&#39;s relationship, and I actually expected someone like yourself to get your head around it. Guess not.

Your family members were killed by US soldiers? You have my condolences. Seriously.

Tell me, if a US soldier dies after s/he joined because s/he needed a job, how is that fundamentally different? The soldier was ultimately killed by imperialism because s/he was trying to get some support for his/her family. And yet you have no sympathy for this, which tells me a lot about your mindset: infantile.

And to answer your question: yes, I have lost family members "owing to acts of foreign soldiers". Of course, you probably think he was just another imperialist jerk, which again shows your immaturity and stupidity. Please, respond like you always do and dig yourself into a deeper hole.

[Dros]

It is true that I dislike soldiers, but I dislike them for a reason.

Yes they are defined by their relationship to the means of production.

But what production are we talking about here?

Piling up dead bodies? Shooting people? Loading weapons? Liberating oil refineries?

Yes.


How do soldiers differ at all from those mercenary thugs, particularly Blackwater?

I am sure you disagree with those mercenary war criminals, right?

They largely don&#39;t. Blackwater grunts are workers too.



Is it that Blackwater mercenaries are paid more that makes them non-workers?

Clearly not, your class is defined by the relationship to the means of production.

So what exactly makes them special? They perform the same service, they freely joined the security sector, and they reap the benefits of that exploitation.

Exactly.


Being a &#39;worker&#39; is not a &#39;get out of jail free card.&#39;

My point exactly. They are still workers. Many of them are mindless fucks. I agree with YOU&#33;

My point is that it is really stupid to take the "just get another job" approach. Some people join the army out of necessity. I understand (though I don&#39;t condone) that decission

[Dean]

Originally posted by Kun Fanâ@December 05, 2007 10:56 pm
It&#39;s not like they haven&#39;t tried.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,841170,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,841170,00.html)

On a side note, almost 40 years later this article has still completely discredited TIME Magazine in my eyes.
Of course they&#39;ve tried. And so have the rich tried to appeal to their own internal sense of morality, sometimes succeeding and sometimes not.


Oh, and Martov, how many people in the military have you ever had a conversation with? Ever been to their houses? Met their families? Seen how they live? I used to think like you when I was in High School, probably because I didn&#39;t know better. If you live a little bit and see how things are (and grasp Marxism instead of radical liberalism), maybe you&#39;ll snap out of your BS. Then again, you&#39;re probably too busy masturbating to your own sense of "radicalism" to open your eyes.
It is a genuine form of bullshit to say they can just "get another job," but that doesn&#39;t change that they are still doing very immoral things. Consider bureaucrats, stock brokers, etc. - all parts of a system which is terribly immoral, but still ultimately redeemable. They are human, just like anyone else; they need to be judged both by their actions and their humanness.

[Hit The North]

Manic Depression:
As I thought, you don&#39;t grasp WHY people join the military. The majority do not join because they want to "serve their country"; the patriotic ones are going to college, not Iraq. The military in our country is BASED in the recruitment of poor people. If you deny this, like you have been doing, you really have no idea about how things are.

The class origins of military personnel really is irrelevant in the here and now. Sure, their class origin gives them the potential for acting in their class interest. But so what? By placing themselves on the front line of imperialist aggression, they are merely armed bodies working in the interests of our class enemy.

In the defensive struggle against aggressive US and UK imperialism, the death of American and British soldiers is a victory for our side. Simple as. It doesn&#39;t matter how poor their families back home are. To factor that in is to play a sentimental game with hard politics.


The police force and military share some characteristics, but there are also many differences that you&#39;ve failed to understand. Do people join the police because they are poor? Of course not. They join to "fight crime", or because their fathers were policemen. The soldier&#39;s relationship is vastly different from the policeman&#39;s relationship, and I actually expected someone like yourself to get your head around it. Guess not.


In what sense is what cmoney is doing in Iraq different from &#39;policing&#39;? Face it, the US military is just the LAPD abroad.


The soldier was ultimately killed by imperialism because s/he was trying to get some support for his/her family.[emphasis added]

I&#39;m sorry, comrade but your position lacks political clarity because you seem to want to invert the reality of the situation. The soldiers are not the victims of imperialism, they are the hired gun men of imperialism. American soldiers are being killed by those who resist imperialism. I understand what you&#39;re trying to say but your appeal to the "ultimate" is just abstract lunacy.

Now, cmoney is correct that if revolutionaries find themselves somehow subject to the iron discipline of military orders, they should use the opportunity to agitate, educate and organise resistance amongst other &#39;conscripted&#39; or &#39;enlisted&#39; workers. But all we hear from cmoney is one excuse after another for not doing so and thin rationales to justify what he&#39;s doing.

To whit:


Did you just tell me that you know more about how the army works than I do? You&#39;re sure? Ok dude. Lying to the army to get out will get you consequences every bit as severe as refusing to go to Iraq. It is not easy to get out of the army, if it was, why would people go AWOL?

and


See what I mean, those are not legitimate arguements. Its shit talking, implying that I mindlessly follow orders. I don&#39;t fight because I&#39;m told to, I fight because I want to continue living, unfortunately that desire may one day force me to take the life of somebody who&#39;s cause is much more honorable than mine. Again, I realise the contradiction, and also realise that you will never be able to grasp it unless you face it yourself.

Oh please :rolleyes:

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 08, 2007 08:03 pm
The class origins of military personnel really is irrelevant in the here and now. Sure, their class origin gives them the potential for acting in their class interest. But so what? By placing themselves on the front line of imperialist aggression, they are merely armed bodies working in the interests of our class enemy.

In the defensive struggle against aggressive US and UK imperialism, the death of American and British soldiers is a victory for our side. Simple as. It doesn&#39;t matter how poor their families back home are. To factor that in is to play a sentimental game with hard politics.
It&#39;s manic expression.

The class that soldiers come from is intimately important. If they come from working class families, their interests lie with the working class by definition. That is something that cannot be ignored, no matter how comfortable it may be to think otherwise.

No worker joins the military saying "oh, I can&#39;t wait to &#39;place myself on the front line of imperialist aggression&#39;, this oughta be great". It&#39;s absurd to think anyone would. So, therefore, why do you condemn these people as consciously imperialist? It&#39;s completely ridiculous. They are usually thinking of their immediate material conditions, they are thinking of bills, child care, college costs, and yet you are satisfied in trying to paint them as faceless automatons of imperialism.


In what sense is what cmoney is doing in Iraq different from &#39;policing&#39;? Face it, the US military is just the LAPD abroad.

What about the Russian soldiers who eventually supported the revolution? I guess they were just the LAPD in Eastern Europe, then. Wrong. First, look at reasons for joining: joining the military is oftentimes seen as a way out of poverty, crack-infested streets and hopelessness. Is that what cops are thinking about when they sign up? NO. Don&#39;t ignore these essential factors.


I&#39;m sorry, comrade but your position lacks political clarity because you seem to want to invert the reality of the situation. The soldiers are not the victims of imperialism, they are the hired gun men of imperialism. American soldiers are being killed by those who resist imperialism. I understand what you&#39;re trying to say but your appeal to the "ultimate" is just abstract lunacy.

Now, cmoney is correct that if revolutionaries find themselves somehow subject to the iron discipline of military orders, they should use the opportunity to agitate, educate and organise resistance amongst other &#39;conscripted&#39; or &#39;enlisted&#39; workers. But all we hear from cmoney is one excuse after another for not doing so and thin rationales to justify what he&#39;s doing.

A worker is coerced into the military through a complete lack of opportunities.

That soldier then dies for an imperialist cause.

What was the cause of that worker&#39;s situation in the first place? Him or her? No. That&#39;s right: capitalism.

Capitalism coerced him or her to die for capitalism.

Again, don&#39;t ignore these essential factors.

[Hit The North]

It&#39;s manic expression.

:blush: Sorry that was a genuine mistake.


The class that soldiers come from is intimately important. If they come from working class families, their interests lie with the working class by definition.

By definition? Who&#39;s definition? The definition applied by the individual soldier is what counts. Do the American and British soldiers feel that they share a class interest with the Iraqi working class?


No worker joins the military saying "oh, I can&#39;t wait to &#39;place myself on the front line of imperialist aggression&#39;, this oughta be great". It&#39;s absurd to think anyone would. So, therefore, why do you condemn these people as consciously imperialist? It&#39;s completely ridiculous.

Possibly not in those terms. But many join because they think they can perform a duty for their country. They are willing recruits. Otherwise the whole enterpise would be impossible. The US military does not resemble a chain gang, which is the picture you summon up. Anyway, it does not matter what reason or motivation inspires an individual to join the forces - it is the function they then perform for the bourgeois state which counts.


What about the Russian soldiers who eventually supported the revolution? I guess they were just the LAPD in Eastern Europe, then. Wrong.

Well, you&#39;re missing the point made earlier about the difference between being a conscripted man in an army which is on the edge of defeat and being a willingly enlisted man in the most powerful military in history.


First, look at reasons for joining: joining the military is oftentimes seen as a way out of poverty, crack-infested streets and hopelessness. Is that what cops are thinking about when they sign up? NO. Don&#39;t ignore these essential factors.

No, because joining the police is not a way out such conditions - you just get sent to someone else&#39;s shit hole. Not that the army is much different: do you think serving in Baghdad at the moment is "a way out of hopelessness"? Maybe you imagine that being the cause of such hopelessness rather than merely a victim of it is some kind of consolation?



A worker is coerced into the military through a complete lack of opportunities.

What proportion of poor, working class young men and women join the US forces? For your argument to be persuasive - that it is pure coercion and that choice has no part in it - it would have to be nearing 90%.

I doubt it&#39;s anywhere near.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 08, 2007 11:27 pm
:blush: Sorry that was a genuine mistake.
No problem, just FYI.


By definition? Who&#39;s definition? The definition applied by the individual soldier is what counts. Do the American and British soldiers feel that they share a class interest with the Iraqi working class?

By a materialist definition. Their interests lie with the working class. Would you not agree?

Sure, most soldiers have no grasp of these sorts of concepts, but that can change with the conditions and exposure to new ideas.


Possibly not in those terms. But many join because they think they can perform a duty for their country. They are willing recruits. Otherwise the whole enterpise would be impossible. The US military does not resemble a chain gang, which is the picture you summon up. Anyway, it does not matter what reason or motivation inspires an individual to join the forces - it is the function they then perform for the bourgeois state which counts.

Still, these recruits are only willing as much as it gives them a chance to escape poverty and unemployment. Someone who joins the military to give his/her children a shot at NOT living in squalor is not an imperialist. The US military is very much a chain gang, and if the poverty draft wasn&#39;t enough, check out the stop-loss programs they have. Poverty is the single biggest reason for recruits joining the military. This is extremely important.


Well, you&#39;re missing the point made earlier about the difference between being a conscripted man in an army which is on the edge of defeat and being a willingly enlisted man in the most powerful military in history.

This is true, but many Russian soldiers harbored the same patriotic and religious illusions that American soldiers do today. Further, they played the same exact role within the bourgeois system; should they not receive the same label? The difference is not as wide as you make it seem.


No, because joining the police is not a way out such conditions - you just get sent to someone else&#39;s shit hole. Not that the army is much different: do you think serving in Baghdad at the moment is "a way out of hopelessness"? Maybe you imagine that being the cause of such hopelessness rather than merely a victim of it is some kind of consolation?

Exactly. No one joins the police because they are poor. Many (if not most) people join the military because they can&#39;t afford x, y and z.

Going to Baghdad can give you a shot at a college degree. The fact that this is enough for people to risk getting their limbs blown off or suffering PTSD for the rest of their lives should tell us a thing or two about their present situation. Believe me: very few of these flag-waving patriots actually join the military.


What proportion of poor, working class young men and women join the US forces? For your argument to be persuasive - that it is pure coercion and that choice has no part in it - it would have to be nearing 90%.

I doubt it&#39;s anywhere near.

I have no concrete numbers, but I&#39;d surmise 3/4 AT THE VERY LEAST join for the economic opportunities involved. Perhaps cmoney can help us out here.

[Ultra-Violence]

We shouldn&#39;t honour serial killers regardless if they are black or hispanic or white.

They all deserve to be equally condemned as scum.


I dont agree with this statement it reminds me of that vidoe on youtube were a bunch of STUPID White HIPPY anarcho punk crusty fucks from portalnd oregon burned an effigie of a soldier and the ladie filming ask what about the poor black/mestizo kid who joined the army for a better futer and they looked stupid ass fuck

Lets just shit on the dead bodies of minority youth who see it as a way out and falsy belive its a way to go to college and/or get ahead in life


I know they chose to go to the army their not being drafted BUT i know lots of people who say to themselves *I dont know what im goana do with my life might as well joi the army becuase they have no hope ,one of my freinds joined the army i asked him why he said *cuase i dont have a future here maybe in the army i can be some body NOT that i agree with him but i understand he feeling on hopelesness and just to call them scum is absurd thier just kids with no hope really in its just a shame we didnt get to them sooner


I am also aware that their are also a bunch of patriotic nuts who wnat to shoot and kill muslims THOSE PEOPLE can suck my ball sack :angry:

to say all are scum is stupid

[pusher robot]

i asked him why he said *cuase i dont have a future here maybe in the army i can be some body

For those non-Americans here, you might be interested to know that recent Army advertising campaigns have focused even less on monetary benefits and more on character improvment and confidence-building. Many people who join the Army voluntarily aren&#39;t so much desperately poor as they are desperately directionless and without basic goals. They see the Army as a way to learn self-discipline, team skills, and work habits that happens to pay a living wage and provide money for school as a bonus.

The U.S. would be very well-served by a military-style civilian corps, I think. Something like the Peace Corps or the CCC, but with more focus on discipline, fitness, skills training, and goal-imposing. It should also be gender-segregated and totally voluntary to join but not to leave, and you should be able to stay in it no longer than 5 or so years.

[Dean]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 10, 2007 09:18 pm
It should also be gender-segregated...
Is there a reason for this besides tradition?

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Dean+December 10, 2007 11:57 pm--> (Dean @ December 10, 2007 11:57 pm)
pusher [email protected] 10, 2007 09:18 pm
It should also be gender-segregated...
Is there a reason for this besides tradition? [/b]
Because males, especially younger males, are better able to both focus and form fraternal bonds outside the presence of females.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by pusher robot+December 10, 2007 09:58 pm--> (pusher robot &#064; December 10, 2007 09:58 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 11:57 pm

pusher [email protected] 10, 2007 09:18 pm
It should also be gender-segregated...
Is there a reason for this besides tradition?
Because males, especially younger males, are better able to both focus and form fraternal bonds outside the presence of females. [/b]
Would a "don&#39;t ask, don&#39;t tell" policy be necessary too?

I must say, this idea of yours is likely to be popular with leftists, fascists and several other ists, with minor changes to the curriculum.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 04:41 am
Would a "don&#39;t ask, don&#39;t tell" policy be necessary too?
I doubt it. It&#39;s not like all the men are going to be competing for the attention of a couple of gay dudes.

EDIT: I would add that nonetheless, I think that rules against sexual contact within the units should be enforced.

[Juche96]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 14, 2007 06:13 am
We had a tribute at our school to a fallen soldier who died in Iraq who went to our school. It was this big ceremony, and the entire school showed up, and the family of the soldier was there, and friends, and everyone. <_<

I couldn&#39;t help but find it unfair, as to why this particular soldier got this kind of recognition. My school is the rich-upper class school of our city, and pretty much our whole state, where as all the other schools lack any real funds and are pretty much real shitty. The students are predominantly white.

It is never &#39;right&#39; to honor imperialist invaders and their henchmen. This person died oppressing another nation and serving the financial interests of an imperialist nation. This serviceman&#39;s death has no historical or moral significance.

I&#39;m not saying that every US soldier is a "bad person" or commits war crimes. This is obviously not the case, but the fact remains that US soldiers are occupying someone else&#39;s country. Furthermore, it is the duty of communists to lend moral support to the struggles of oppressed nations.

Don&#39;t honor any US war dead. Instead honor those fighting for the freedom and liberation of Iraq.

[Dean]

It is never 'right' to honor imperialist invaders and their henchmen. This person died oppressing another nation and serving the financial interests of an imperialist nation. This serviceman's death has no historical or moral significance.
Yes it does. Historically, he fought in one of the first major wars of the 21st century. Morally, he failed at achieving his own persona.


I'm not saying that every US soldier is a "bad person" or commits war crimes. This is obviously not the case, but the fact remains that US soldiers are occupying someone else's country. Furthermore, it is the duty of communists to lend moral support to the struggles of oppressed nations.

Don't honor any US war dead. Instead honor those fighting for the freedom and liberation of Iraq.
I find the concept of judging people this way to be very dehumanizing. Are we to sum up the entirety of a human beings life, the judgement on their entire character, in a sense where we focus on the most terrible traits and failings of theirs? People spend their entire lives trying to be moral humans, find themselves, and ultimately attempting to become what they potentially are. To ignore all the subtleties, all the struggles, and to sum up their life as "honorable" or "despicable" based on lines which are drawn more by conditions than by personal desire is, to me, the most defeatist and inhuman way to look at people.

Sure, soldiers constitute a threat. And I don't pretend to ignore their malevolence. But once someone is dead, they have lost all human faculties - save legacy - and at worst constitute a failed human; someone who lost the struggle against the more destructive elements of our society. At best, they may have been free and positive. But I see no need to try to strip humans of their moral relevance.

In the end, that is counterrevolutionary: the entire point of communism is to free humans to become self-actualized, socially active beings. To judge the dead so harshly is to acknowledge circumstancial forces and reinforce their moral judgement - that is, to defend a mentality which judges people not in their human activities, but in their actions as objectified parts of an economic machinery. Contrarily, communism seeks to establish a relationship which puts the human being at its core, its most internal drives and unadulterated self, in a direct interface with their social capabilities.

In short, communism recognizes and cultivates a relationship with the human core, whereas the mentality you propose looks at circumstancial conditions and forced activity as the matter of judgement for humans.

[Ultra-Violence]

Dean i Love You YOU FUCKING SAID IT MAN!