5
5
0
There have been many comparisons of military life to a socialism existence.
I am strictly conservative and find this subject distasteful, however, I bring it up to see how everyone else has responded to this argument. A large majority of military members run the conservative gamut, and therefore are largely anti-socialism.
However, we have seen many changes in the last decade thst appear to be taking this great country down a very govt-dependent path.
In a Socialism model, there is no difference in class, we are all equals, and none do without. Education, Health, Housing is all paid for...this is one of the arguments about the eerily similarities of military life and socialism.
2 million men and women wake up at approximately the same time.
They all wear the same uniform.
They all March to the same drum or cadence, even singing songs.
Their housing is taken care of and communal living is commonplace. When communal living is not provided, private housing is subsidized. Food is provided. Everyone is paid according to their rank, not merit. (Merit comes in later, of course)
Free healthcare is provided, often times for life.
There is little difference in lifestyle between troops, they can pretty much live as equals, none richer than the other.
We contribute $1200 to the MGIB, and get back $90k+. That is a free education no matter how you look at it.
The Differences:
It is a volunteer force until you sign the document, then and only then you are forced...or in a contract.
There is a merit based system, so one can advance.
The poorest soldier can, over time, make it from the stock room to the boardroom (figuratively speaking), and eventually become a General Officer.
When this topic is broached with your peers or liberal family member, how do you handle it?
Do you agree about the eery similarities?
Does it kind of create a paradox with your conservative ideals?
I am strictly conservative and find this subject distasteful, however, I bring it up to see how everyone else has responded to this argument. A large majority of military members run the conservative gamut, and therefore are largely anti-socialism.
However, we have seen many changes in the last decade thst appear to be taking this great country down a very govt-dependent path.
In a Socialism model, there is no difference in class, we are all equals, and none do without. Education, Health, Housing is all paid for...this is one of the arguments about the eerily similarities of military life and socialism.
2 million men and women wake up at approximately the same time.
They all wear the same uniform.
They all March to the same drum or cadence, even singing songs.
Their housing is taken care of and communal living is commonplace. When communal living is not provided, private housing is subsidized. Food is provided. Everyone is paid according to their rank, not merit. (Merit comes in later, of course)
Free healthcare is provided, often times for life.
There is little difference in lifestyle between troops, they can pretty much live as equals, none richer than the other.
We contribute $1200 to the MGIB, and get back $90k+. That is a free education no matter how you look at it.
The Differences:
It is a volunteer force until you sign the document, then and only then you are forced...or in a contract.
There is a merit based system, so one can advance.
The poorest soldier can, over time, make it from the stock room to the boardroom (figuratively speaking), and eventually become a General Officer.
When this topic is broached with your peers or liberal family member, how do you handle it?
Do you agree about the eery similarities?
Does it kind of create a paradox with your conservative ideals?
Posted in these groups: 
Socialism
Socialism
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 23
Suspended Profile
SSG(P) (Join to see). One could just as easily argue that the military is ultimately equivalent to a feudal hierarchical oligarchy where the rich, famous, and otherwise privileged class has distinct and almost hereditary advantage in being initially appointed to officer ranks and future advancement. Or an early imperial predatory capitalist economy poaching on their neighboring indigenous populations / economies for sake of advancement of capitalist lords / economies vs exploited populations / economies. One could even argue the military might be reasonably characterized as a totalitarian dictatorship . . . only the president in this case is not president for life. The military cannot be reasonably classified as socialism. Yes, I'm a conservative constitutional constructionist. Warmest Regards, Sandy
8
8
0
The similarities are superficial, and are the result, not of comparing military life to an economic system, but because military life requires a certain amount of authoritarianism to function, being the only substantive similarity.
We've all heard, and embraced to one extent or another, that we defend Democracy, we don't practice it. And that's the crux of the matter.
And the greatest difference in this aspect is that those living under Socialism have little opportunity to exit or choice about entry. In the military, we sign a contract, absent a draft, of our own volition. We receive housing, food, medical care, education.... as terms of our very Capitalist contract.
If you remove that authoritarian element, all that remains are benefits earned in return for work.
We've all heard, and embraced to one extent or another, that we defend Democracy, we don't practice it. And that's the crux of the matter.
And the greatest difference in this aspect is that those living under Socialism have little opportunity to exit or choice about entry. In the military, we sign a contract, absent a draft, of our own volition. We receive housing, food, medical care, education.... as terms of our very Capitalist contract.
If you remove that authoritarian element, all that remains are benefits earned in return for work.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
The military has the superficial appearance of socialism, but if you look at the whole instead of cherry picking points to prove a point you realize there are also fundamental military "things" that are completely opposed to socialism.
We are not equal in the military, we are equal to those of the same rank in the military; with others above us and others below. We are given rewards (recognition, coins, medals, etc.) for exceptional performance and are punished for poor performance.
To claim the military is a socialist paradise is short sighted . . . as socialism often seems to be.
We are not equal in the military, we are equal to those of the same rank in the military; with others above us and others below. We are given rewards (recognition, coins, medals, etc.) for exceptional performance and are punished for poor performance.
To claim the military is a socialist paradise is short sighted . . . as socialism often seems to be.
(8)
(0)
5
5
0
I don't agree. There is a clear difference in status. Economically, there is an upper, middle, and lower class (officers, NCOs and junior enlisted). Service members may change both class and occupation, commensurate with the amount of effort they put into it in the form of commissioning and reclassification (at least in the Army; I'm not sure how changing jobs works in other branches).
From my own experience, I have enjoyed greater liberty than most of my civilian friends, those who, in your analogy, supposedly live in a system with greater freedom. I have more reliable and predictable opportunity to advance than many civilians do. I enjoy greater economic prosperity as well. My ability to get a "free" education is the indirect result of the effort I put into my job. The tuition assistance I receive is a supplemental form of compensation for the work I choose to do.
From my own experience, I have enjoyed greater liberty than most of my civilian friends, those who, in your analogy, supposedly live in a system with greater freedom. I have more reliable and predictable opportunity to advance than many civilians do. I enjoy greater economic prosperity as well. My ability to get a "free" education is the indirect result of the effort I put into my job. The tuition assistance I receive is a supplemental form of compensation for the work I choose to do.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't think so tho. While all are treated as equal in some aspects (food, lodging, medical, and other benefits), there is no equality. Some of the benefits are based on rank and/or time in service. As in any employment situation, you have entry level pay, mid level, high level....both on the workers/factory line (enlisted for the most part), and entry, mid, high level pay on the management side (officers for the most part).
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
The military is very much a socialist system, though not communist, and the difference is important. In communism, there would be not meritocracy at all - as Marx believed "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This pretty much sums up communism, but socialism is different. Many people think these words mean the same thing but they are different. Unfortunately for many people's beliefs the military has many socialist aspects, specifically the ones that were listed in the original post.
I've always found it interesting how anti-socialist so many military members are when that is the system they lived and worked under.
I've always found it interesting how anti-socialist so many military members are when that is the system they lived and worked under.
(3)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
There are similarities and many social 'free' programs are truly tax funded for the benefit of the whole: schools, WIC, libraries, sewer, garbage, and road repair to name a few.
I'm actually surprised I'm not being labeled a Marxist by bringing it up...but I've had enough arguments and every government in existence has social programs...it's here, we like and use them, and it is likely each President wants to be remembered, so it will continue to expand and new programs will be created.
I'm actually surprised I'm not being labeled a Marxist by bringing it up...but I've had enough arguments and every government in existence has social programs...it's here, we like and use them, and it is likely each President wants to be remembered, so it will continue to expand and new programs will be created.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
You make some good points, SSG(P) (Join to see). I have thought those same thoughts about government workers. They bemoan welfare and then they sit around BS'ing half the day away (or an hour here and an hour there) all the while getting paid $45 an hour or more (and it's more in a LOT of cases).
I'm conservative minded politically, but I definitely see the similarities between military life and socialism.
I'm conservative minded politically, but I definitely see the similarities between military life and socialism.
(2)
(0)
SGT Steven Montgomery
Not where I work, I know that goes on a lot but we Government civilians in my office bust our butts everyday all day long. There is no welfare in our office. I'm offended personally at the suggestion actually. I know it happens a lot, see it in other offices where I work and it makes me sick.
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
This topic is purpose driven, I've been driven to near madness when it was first brought up...and the second time was more than a coincidence.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I was always taught that the military was an autocracy, of course, that was in the days before people could just cry about things and get them changed to their liking, as well as pick and choose which regulations and orders they wanted to follow.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
The military is a very authoritarian type of socialism, that said... there are many different types of socialism. My own interpretation of socialism is putting the welfare of the group over that of the individual... while capitalism is putting the welfare of the individual over that of the group. I think it's obvious that there need to be a balance between the two, and that the real difference for most of us is where we would draw that line.
Hating a word like Capitalism or Socialism so much that you can't reasonably discuss how we establish an optimal balance between the two doesn't help anyone.
Hating a word like Capitalism or Socialism so much that you can't reasonably discuss how we establish an optimal balance between the two doesn't help anyone.
(2)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
Two terms that few people can define with clarity are "Socialism" and "Anarchism".
Most of the conventional meanings tossed around in "news" and commentary are incorrect in ways designed to elicit an automatic negative response. Sort of like the term "Pagan".
Most of the conventional meanings tossed around in "news" and commentary are incorrect in ways designed to elicit an automatic negative response. Sort of like the term "Pagan".
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SSG(P) (Join to see) It seems to me that the very idea of being pro socialist or pro-capitalist makes coming to any consensus on issues that matter a lot more difficult. For example… let’s say we both live in an area that because of industrial refining operations the water in an area is not drinkable… fish can’t live in it and people is an area suffer from health problems. There is a direct conflict between the good of the many and the good of the few who profit from those industrial refining operations. Ideally (at least from my perspective) you would want to come to a resolution where refining operations were prohibited from causing further damage, were required to pay for cleanup and restoration without causing them to simply shut down operations and set up somewhere else. I don’t see how throwing loaded words like capitalism or socialism into such a situation is helpful for anyone, except perhaps someone who wanted to maintain the status quo.
I believe that too many people decide on an issue based on where they stand (liberal vs. conservative, socialist vs. capitalist, authoritarian vs. libertarian) instead of really studying the issue and arriving at the best possible solution for everyone including the individual. Our media has turned politics into entertainment, a Superbowl between two rival teams... conservatives and liberals. I don't believe that's a situation that actually benefits most Americans.
I believe that too many people decide on an issue based on where they stand (liberal vs. conservative, socialist vs. capitalist, authoritarian vs. libertarian) instead of really studying the issue and arriving at the best possible solution for everyone including the individual. Our media has turned politics into entertainment, a Superbowl between two rival teams... conservatives and liberals. I don't believe that's a situation that actually benefits most Americans.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SP5 Michael Rathbun You are correct, I don’t believe we would all agree on either Socialism or Anarchism. I see Anarchism as the absence of any state (or other outside) authority that is higher than that of the individual. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have Authoritarianism where the State (or some other outside) authority has control over the individual. Despite that we are taught that Anarchy is bad, lack of control is dangerous and that if we don’t entrust the government with more power… we might not be safe.
If you ask someone if they favor socialism, they are likely to say they do not. If you then ask them if they favor eliminating the social security program or Medicare… they will also likely say they do not. If you ask them they favor the socialist program known as Social Security being eliminated, they will probably respond with confusion.
If you ask someone if they favor socialism, they are likely to say they do not. If you then ask them if they favor eliminating the social security program or Medicare… they will also likely say they do not. If you ask them they favor the socialist program known as Social Security being eliminated, they will probably respond with confusion.
(0)
(0)
SP5 Michael Rathbun
My Anarcho-Syndicalist friends state that Anarchism doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers. The dream of a human society beyond the tribal itinerant phase that does not have a toxic hierarchy that reaps where they do not sow, and lives well on the labor of others.
Not sure yet how that actually works out, practically.
Not sure yet how that actually works out, practically.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Socialism is not about dressing the same, living by the same schedule, marching to the beat of the same drum, etc. It's about public ownership of property. In the military, everything is GI.
Socialism isn't supposed to create classes of people, but it has in every instance in which it has been tried. Socialism always results in a two-tier division of authority, with a strong central government deciding what is "fair" for everyone else (but effectively reserved a "more fair" share for themselves). The American military depends on a multi-tiered distribution of authority with individual components being able to direct themselves when cut off from the central command. Ultimately, every E1 must take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Under socialism, the blame theoretically devolves on the collective (although the collective usually deflects it on a scapegoat).
Socialism is driven by intent. Failure is not only accepted but also celebrated so long as the intent was good. The military is results driven. Winning is all. Failure is never celebrated.
Of course, I am comparing socialism to the American military. The military serving socialism nations has failed because they too closely resembled the society they defended. The armies of the Axis powers, for example, failed largely because they were driven by command structures that closely resembled their governments. When cut off from their leaders, individual soldiers were unable to adapt. Americans were frequently led by individuals who rose to the challenge when their leaders were killed or communications were cut off. The values of individualism and liberty that we prized as civilians served us well, even in the authoritarian atmosphere of the military.
Socialism isn't supposed to create classes of people, but it has in every instance in which it has been tried. Socialism always results in a two-tier division of authority, with a strong central government deciding what is "fair" for everyone else (but effectively reserved a "more fair" share for themselves). The American military depends on a multi-tiered distribution of authority with individual components being able to direct themselves when cut off from the central command. Ultimately, every E1 must take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Under socialism, the blame theoretically devolves on the collective (although the collective usually deflects it on a scapegoat).
Socialism is driven by intent. Failure is not only accepted but also celebrated so long as the intent was good. The military is results driven. Winning is all. Failure is never celebrated.
Of course, I am comparing socialism to the American military. The military serving socialism nations has failed because they too closely resembled the society they defended. The armies of the Axis powers, for example, failed largely because they were driven by command structures that closely resembled their governments. When cut off from their leaders, individual soldiers were unable to adapt. Americans were frequently led by individuals who rose to the challenge when their leaders were killed or communications were cut off. The values of individualism and liberty that we prized as civilians served us well, even in the authoritarian atmosphere of the military.
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
So, we have thrived because we are taught to act in the absence of authrity...take charge, can - do attitude? I can agree with that statement. I've read over and over that socialism and communism inevitable always fail...but we as a people seem to always feel the need to care for those that can't care for themselves....empathy is a weakness it seems. This desire creates free social programs.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
When you and I care for others, it is empathy. It is not a weakness. Indeed, US citizens were greatly admired for our empathy. That quality helped strengthen our regard and influence in the world.
When the government cares for others, it is not empathy, it is tyranny. Now, the government takes from us to give to others. Sadly, bureaucracy is no more efficient at being charitable than it is at being businesslike. US "giving" is the Solyndra of charity.
When the government cares for others, it is not empathy, it is tyranny. Now, the government takes from us to give to others. Sadly, bureaucracy is no more efficient at being charitable than it is at being businesslike. US "giving" is the Solyndra of charity.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google
Your point about the military also having a lot of similarities to a feudal hierarchical oligarchies is a good one.