Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree. Further, I understand that people and information outlets on the left love to sell the notion that our military is a fine example of socialism and for sure there are some socialistic elements, any huge government controlled and funded institution will have some and for the record all modern Western militaries are organized similarly.
However, there are tremendous and in my mind overwhelming contrary points.
1. A key socialism selling point is care, support and funding for everyone. The military won't accept the fat, the old, the sick - cancer, anemia, stroke victims, skin problems etc., those with many significant "abnormalities"....females without uteruses, anyone missing an arm, eye, leg, hand, foot, kidney, poor vision, diabetics, most heart problems, those with all manner of mental issues and those failing to meet minimum intelligence metrics..........let alone support or fund them.
In other words a key tenet of socialism is funding and supporting people the military simply will not accept.
2. Socialism (and many among the modern US left who are not socialists) attempt through various means to limit or deny the importance and ideal of individual merit - teachers are mostly rewarded by seniority over individual merit as are most government workers to a significant degree. Further, it's very tough to fire teachers and other government employees even in the face of poor performance.
As an aside, ever see the 60 Minutes showing the large group of NYC teachers who cannot be fired but also are not allowed to teach? These clowns sit in rooms all day reading newspapers, working puzzles and doodling while being paid full salary. That's socialism and that would not happen in the military.
The military is all about individual merit within sub-organizations of various sizes and roles. Per individuals military branches function in near opposite fashion relative to say teaching and .gov. jobs. It's up or out. Officers and enlisted members are expected to make the next rank within certain amounts of time or be cashiered out of the service. In other words improve/get better, prove it and make the next rank - if not get out if so do it again.
Once a teacher s/he must monumentally screw-up or quit not to make retirement. Once an enlistee s/he must constantly prove performance and value via rigorous work function metrics, constant judgement from peers and superiors and formal testing to make each of several rank levels in order to make retirement. It's even worse for officers.
I have to agree.
The military is NOT a great example of socialism.
Mostly because they only accept those that pass certain physical capabilities or conditions. Soldiers also have to pass annual physical examinations and if they develop certain ailments or conditions or cannot pass the physical tests - they can be let go from the military entirely.
The military also encourages and advances individuals based mostly on merit. A socialist system does not recognize, encourage or reward individual merit or advancement at all.
Nice try by a few....but a swing and a miss, sorry.
Mostly because they only accept those that pass certain physical capabilities or conditions. Soldiers also have to pass annual physical examinations and if they develop certain ailments or conditions or cannot pass the physical tests - they can be let go from the military entirely.
The military also encourages and advances individuals based mostly on merit. A socialist system does not recognize, encourage or reward individual merit or advancement at all.
Nice try by a few....but a swing and a miss, sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
I disagree. Further, I understand that people and information outlets on the left love to sell the notion that our military is a fine example of socialism and for sure there are some socialistic elements, any huge government controlled and funded institution will have some and for the record all modern Western militaries are organized similarly.
However, there are tremendous and in my mind overwhelming contrary points.
1. A key socialism selling point is care, support and funding for everyone. The military won't accept the fat, the old, the sick - cancer, anemia, stroke victims, skin problems etc., those with many significant "abnormalities"....females without uteruses, anyone missing an arm, eye, leg, hand, foot, kidney, poor vision, diabetics, most heart problems, those with all manner of mental issues and those failing to meet minimum intelligence metrics..........let alone support or fund them.
In other words a key tenet of socialism is funding and supporting people the military simply will not accept.
2. Socialism (and many among the modern US left who are not socialists) attempt through various means to limit or deny the importance and ideal of individual merit - teachers are mostly rewarded by seniority over individual merit as are most government workers to a significant degree. Further, it's very tough to fire teachers and other government employees even in the face of poor performance.
As an aside, ever see the 60 Minutes showing the large group of NYC teachers who cannot be fired but also are not allowed to teach? These clowns sit in rooms all day reading newspapers, working puzzles and doodling while being paid full salary. That's socialism and that would not happen in the military.
The military is all about individual merit within sub-organizations of various sizes and roles. Per individuals military branches function in near opposite fashion relative to say teaching and .gov. jobs. It's up or out. Officers and enlisted members are expected to make the next rank within certain amounts of time or be cashiered out of the service. In other words improve/get better, prove it and make the next rank - if not get out if so do it again.
Once a teacher s/he must monumentally screw-up or quit not to make retirement. Once an enlistee s/he must constantly prove performance and value via rigorous work function metrics, constant judgement from peers and superiors and formal testing to make each of several rank levels in order to make retirement. It's even worse for officers.
The two of you are viewing socialism like the right feels the left views it. Youre conflating socialism with something where everyone is treated the same, everyone gets the same pay, and unions reign supreme. Its a very narrow definition. Socialism and meritocracy are not diametrically opposed especially in the corporate world.
The military is an excellent example of socialism.
1) The target of socialism isnt just the people in the military, its the defense contractors. The military pumps money into so many corporations around the US. 40% of the military budget is to purchase goods and services. That amounts to about $550 billion a year. $360 billion of that is spend on defense contractors. We end up with a bunch of stuff we dont need to keep defense contractors profitable. Thats corporate welfare which is corporate socialism.
2) The military takes a millions of young men and women and, in exchange for their work for the collective, they get job training, medical benefits, and pensions if they retire. Many of these men and women dont have a future without the military. Thats a jobs program which is very much a part of socialism.
3) While in the military, people live in housing blocks that are identical to one another, have their benefits provided by the state, and the state tells them what they will do and when they will do it. Now I have to admit I added this point to be a bit tongue in cheek, because it sounds like communism.
I must admit I had a good chuckle with the comparison to the NY teachers union. My brother in law and sister in law retired from the military after 20 years. There is a lot more goofing off than you think especially in the later years of service (Marines excluded). Kind of like a unionized teacher who has taught for that amount of time. Either way, most people in the military are busy and most teachers are as well. We shouldnt use the idea that they occasionally get to goof off (and they very much do) as a determent to their occupation.
The two of you are viewing socialism like the right feels the left views it. Youre conflating socialism with something where everyone is treated the same, everyone gets the same pay, and unions reign supreme. Its a very narrow definition. Socialism and meritocracy are not diametrically opposed especially in the corporate world.
The military is an excellent example of socialism.
1) The target of socialism isnt just the people in the military, its the defense contractors. The military pumps money into so many corporations around the US. 40% of the military budget is to purchase goods and services. That amounts to about $550 billion a year. $360 billion of that is spend on defense contractors. We end up with a bunch of stuff we dont need to keep defense contractors profitable. Thats corporate welfare which is corporate socialism.
2) The military takes a millions of young men and women and, in exchange for their work for the collective, they get job training, medical benefits, and pensions if they retire. Many of these men and women dont have a future without the military. Thats a jobs program which is very much a part of socialism.
3) While in the military, people live in housing blocks that are identical to one another, have their benefits provided by the state, and the state tells them what they will do and when they will do it. Now I have to admit I added this point to be a bit tongue in cheek, because it sounds like communism.
I must admit I had a good chuckle with the comparison to the NY teachers union. My brother in law and sister in law retired from the military after 20 years. There is a lot more goofing off than you think especially in the later years of service (Marines excluded). Kind of like a unionized teacher who has taught for that amount of time. Either way, most people in the military are busy and most teachers are as well. We shouldnt use the idea that they occasionally get to goof off (and they very much do) as a determent to their occupation.
Location: East Texas, with the Clan of the Cave Bear
3,266 posts, read 5,634,301 times
Reputation: 4763
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
The two of you are viewing socialism like the right feels the left views it. Youre conflating socialism with something where everyone is treated the same, everyone gets the same pay, and unions reign supreme. Its a very narrow definition. Socialism and meritocracy are not diametrically opposed especially in the corporate world.
The military is an excellent example of socialism.
1
Can you limit your examples to Socialist governments .
Please start with Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia . . . real records on human rights also. Might add the semi-recent giant the USSR (please include such leaders as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao these leaders who went to the extremes (mass genocide) to protect the central government). As you'll notice this has a distinct Communist flavor which is favored by most of the Democrats/Libs/"Progressives" that are pushing toward socialism. It gives them sole power. This is the socialism Conservatives fear, not the rigidity in our military system. Let's be crystal clear.
And yes, there are plenty of socialistic traits (our military, our neighbor's and allies governments) in the western world but the fear is a tilting toward socialistic communistic government where freedoms and human rights are trampled. Where there is a more totalitarianism flavor in the central government. And while you mention the military the only true responsibility of our federal government is the preservation of the republic and that is only possible with a mighty military . . . there is no wiggle room so if this sect of the government has little freedoms it will give freedoms to the people as a whole through preservation of the free republic. That is the theory of our forefathers at least.
Not denying the dangers of of the military/industrial complex and it's influences. Eisenhower had that right.
With central power comes loss of freedoms and rights. America's founders had the vision to see this. Our republic has shifted mightily toward a way too strong central government while quashing the ideas and visions of this country's founders. Been drifting that way for over 150 years but has accelerated in the last 50-60.
For the record I'm proud of Texas putting up some resistance to some of these governmental movements mentioned above. Sometime I feel they(Texas) is a rock anchored in the middle of a rushing torrent of centralized takeover resisting the flow. There has to be some balance or things tip too far.
Can you limit your examples to Socialist governments .
Please start with Cuba, Venezuela, China, Russia . . . real records on human rights also. Might add the semi-recent giant the USSR (please include such leaders as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao these leaders who went to the extremes (mass genocide) to protect the central government). As you'll notice this has a distinct Communist flavor which is favored by most of the Democrats/Libs/"Progressives" that are pushing toward socialism. It gives them sole power. This is the socialism Conservatives fear, not the rigidity in our military system. Let's be crystal clear.
And yes, there are plenty of socialistic traits (our military, our neighbor's and allies governments) in the western world but the fear is a tilting toward socialistic communistic government where freedoms and human rights are trampled. Where there is a more totalitarianism flavor in the central government. And while you mention the military the only true responsibility of our federal government is the preservation of the republic and that is only possible with a mighty military . . . there is no wiggle room so if this sect of the government has little freedoms it will give freedoms to the people as a whole through preservation of the free republic. That is the theory of our forefathers at least.
Not denying the dangers of of the military/industrial complex and it's influences. Eisenhower had that right.
With central power comes loss of freedoms and rights. America's founders had the vision to see this. Our republic has shifted mightily toward a way too strong central government while quashing the ideas and visions of this country's founders. Been drifting that way for over 150 years but has accelerated in the last 50-60.
For the record I'm proud of Texas putting up some resistance to some of these governmental movements mentioned above. Sometime I feel they(Texas) is a rock anchored in the middle of a rushing torrent of centralized takeover resisting the flow. There has to be some balance or things tip too far.
I think you think Im defending socialism. Im not. Im a capitalist through and through.
I would love to see Military spending cut in half. That was my argument before comparing it to socialism.
Location: East Texas, with the Clan of the Cave Bear
3,266 posts, read 5,634,301 times
Reputation: 4763
HA, now I read posts above mine essentially stating my same ideas. Maybe I should read up. Nice counter that Venezuela is Marxist but the premise is the same. You could essentially say that about all the major Socialist countries thru our time but nice use of Marxist (which is based on socialist principles) terminology.
The populace exists to benefit the government - Marxism.
Socialism - governmental/state ownership of all product of the nation. Total control in it's most pure form.
Makes a wonderful marriage. Like a bee colony or ant mound.
Location: East Texas, with the Clan of the Cave Bear
3,266 posts, read 5,634,301 times
Reputation: 4763
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
I think you think Im defending socialism. Im not. Im a capitalist through and through.
I would love to see Military spending cut in half. That was my argument before comparing it to socialism.
Yeah, that's what it looked like.
What are your thoughts on strong centralized power?
IMO this is the great danger to this country.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
