"Our Lefty Military"

[rambone]

Liberal columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote an article that says the U.S. Military should be the model that socialists follow when transforming society.

Our Lefty Military - New York Times

“It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking.

I definitely don't support this guy's message, but his points are not completely wrong either. We should know how to debate them.

So, I'll set the stage. Prepare for butthurt. The military is a purely socialist authoritarian institution.

• The military is centralized and hierarchical.
• Soldiers are owned by the government.
• Soldiers can't speak out without repercussion.
• Soldiers can't refuse searches.
• Soldiers are restricted in the way they carry weapons.
• Soldiers have limited ability to choose their path/assignment.
• Soldiers can't refuse forced vaccinations.
• Soldiers can't dress how they want.
• Military leadership/governance is not representative.
• and more!

So the military really is the purest form of Socialism, like General Wesley Clark put it.

Debate topic: Must it be? Some of our founders did not favor having standing armies that are constantly mobilized. Can America defend itself using a more individualistic, militia-style approach? Of course that would mean that we would have to hastily cease to be the World Police.

How does all this strike you? Can you debate this topic when a Socialist confronts you about the socialist military-model?

 

[88GT]

Rebuttal: soldiering is, for the time being, voluntary.

 

[E5RANGER375]

the way it is now is a good system ... for a military. no we shouldnt be the world police, and we should get our soldiers home from every country around the world. but then the military would be cut by half at least and it would have an impact on the ecconomy, but it still should be done. its govts fault that the military has grown so large and wasteful. or if you wanna put our returning soldiers (from all those countries) to work then station them on our full southern border. solve 2 problems at once. inspect every car and truck coming in our country. we have the resources. dont let the politicians BS you.

 

[beararms1776]

the way it is now is a good system ... for a military. no we shouldnt be the world police, and we should get our soldiers home from every country around the world.

 

[tv1217]

Liberal columnist...

Thought you said "liberal communist" for a second and was about to reply "redundant much?"

 

[E5RANGER375]

this ads nothing to the debate. you must have structure in the military for it to work. what dont you like about it? were you ever in?

 

[jbombelli]

Rebuttal: soldiering is, for the time being, voluntary.

True. But once you sign up and pass a certain point in the process it's no longer voluntary.

 

[E5RANGER375]

True. But once you sign up and pass a certain point in the process it's no longer voluntary.

well you cant make it possible for people to just come and go as they please. you would have 1/3 of the people not show up to the battle.
there are many ways to get out if one wants it that bad. trust me, they DO NOT want you there if you dont wanna be there. no one wants to fight with someone who they cant trust or who doesnt honor their commitments.

 

[adam]

Rebuttal: soldiering is, for the time being, voluntary.

This is the only argument you need really. Every Soldier currently in volunteered for it.

Forcing the general public to do it wouldn't go over so well.

 

[Kutnupe14]

In function, as in after you've signed up, the Military certainly is a very socialist institution

 

[adam]

True. But once you sign up and pass a certain point in the process it's no longer voluntary.

The information is out there about what you could possibly be doing.

My DS made damn sure that we knew that we'd all die because we're the worse Soldiers he'd ever seen

But seriously, I was well informed about my decision long before I ever signed my name. The information is available all over the place, both good and bad. It's up to that individual to research and learn about the military and what that entails. If they still want to join, it's purely their decision and will be expected to do the job until your contract is up. If they don't like it, then get out. If you do, re up. The military makes it pretty simple.

 

[jbombelli]

well you cant make it possible for people to just come and go as they please. you would have 1/3 of the people not show up to the battle.
there are many ways to get out if one wants it that bad. trust me, they DO NOT want you there if you dont wanna be there. no one wants to fight with someone who they cant trust or who doesnt honor their commitments.

Also true. No argument about that here. I think the 1/3 not showing up is a conservative estimate.


There are certainly ways out. But I doubt someone can just say "I quit" and walk off the job.

The information is out there about what you could possibly be doing.

My DS made damn sure that we knew that we'd all die because we're the worse Soldiers he'd ever seen

But seriously, I was well informed about my decision long before I ever signed my name. The information is available all over the place, both good and bad. It's up to that individual to research and learn about the military and what that entails. If they still want to join, it's purely their decision and will be expected to do the job until your contract is up. If they don't like it, then get out. If you do, re up. The military makes it pretty simple.

I completely agree, and am not disputing that. I'm just saying that once you pass a certain point in the process it's somewhat less than "voluntary." At least until your contract is up.

 

[jayhawk]

This isn't the first time it's been said and it won't be the last.

What is somewhat interesting is that he's trying to paint the military as a sort of entitlement program for lower income people.

 

[E5RANGER375]

This isn't the first time it's been said and it won't be the last.

What is somewhat interesting is that he's trying to paint the military as a sort of entitlement program for lower income people.

more lower income people have fought and died for America than rich people. I think anyone who serves in the military is entitled to definitely better pay and DEFINITELY better treatment after they get out with a service related condition.

 

[adam]

Also true. No argument about that here. I think the 1/3 not showing up is a conservative estimate.

That's why I volunteered to go on the deployment I did. I knew everyone there volunteered to do the deployment and wanted to be there. It helped us build a tight camaraderie and made it much easier. I actually enjoyed my deployment for the most part simply because of the people I went with.



On another note, because of my job I get some people that complain that their recruiter lied to them. It makes me laugh at their stupidity and angers me at the same time because:
a. They weren't smart enough to learn on their own instead of drinking the cool-aid that the recruiter was handing out.
b. It's probably the same sheeple who vote for govt. officials because they expect to get money from them through handouts and believe everything that's told to them.

 

[sbcman]

So, I'll set the stage. Prepare for butthurt. The military is a purely socialist authoritarian institution.

• The military is centralized and hierarchical.
• Soldiers are owned by the government.
• Soldiers can't speak out without repercussion.
• Soldiers can't refuse searches.
• Soldiers are restricted in the way they carry weapons.
• Soldiers have limited ability to choose their path/assignment.
• Soldiers can't refuse forced vaccinations.
• Soldiers can't dress how they want.
• Military leadership/governance is not representative.
• and more!

How does all this strike you? Can you debate this topic when a Socialist confronts you about the socialist military-model?

No butthurt here. I am fully convinced the institution is socialistic based on the fact that you can't have a beard. Any institution that demands my beard from my face is socialistic in the extreme.

"You can force your vaccination on me, but you'll never take my beard!" (said in my best scottish accent)

 

[adam]

No butthurt here. I am fully convinced the institution is socialistic based on the fact that you can't have a beard. Any institution that demands my beard from my face is socialistic in the extreme.

"You can force your vaccination on me, but you'll never take my beard!" (said in my best scottish accent)

Go SF
Grow beard
...
Profit!

 

[jbombelli]

One thing... I would call the military an authoritarian heirarchy. Not socialistic, because there's not much in terms of production going on in terms of goods and generation of profit. My view only.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Sua Sponte

 

[jayhawk]

more lower income people have fought and died for America than rich people. I think anyone who serves in the military is entitled to definitely better pay and DEFINITELY better treatment after they get out with a service related condition.

I don't disagree with you at all. In terms of it's social/economic impact on society, the military could be considered essentially a massive social program with some pretty hefty trade-offs for participants.

Is the military a model for society as a whole? No, but I think it's a valid point that aspects of the military (childcare/education/training were mentioned in the article) might be a model for social programs in society.