all 19 comments

[–]cisheteroscumWhite Nationalist 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Who cares? Global kumbaya lolbert world will never be a thing, so your opinions on the morality of military force are irrelevant. Your enemies have armies, so you're gonna need an army too

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

" Global kumbaya lolbert world will never be a thing "

I don't know what this means.

I said nothing about morality, so your judgement is irrelevant.

I said nothing about tribalist Us vs Them or "enemies", much less needing or not needing defences.

The question rephrased is:

Would you agree that ALL military forces are inherently totalitarian communist structures?

If not, why? And how would you "fix" or redefine my OP statement?

[–]president_camacho 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

The Nordic nations(IE Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and the Netherlands) had militaries for the entire 20th century that did not behave in the manner you describe. A military can be as evil or just as the people it serves, or a lot worse. Those nordic countries had militaries that did not operate in the manner you claim all militaries do. They protected the people of those nations, no more, and no less.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Would you say that those military structures were not a vertical hierarchy, a republic, a democracy, a monarchy - or consensus driven, open, transparent, or paid their own way by capitalistically earning the means somehow?

I'm not talking about their nature (good/evil) or their actions (peaceful/protecting/defensive/offensive) or anything other than their socialist totalitarian hierarchical structure.

[–]president_camacho 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

wut

[–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Would you agree that ALL military forces are inherently totalitarian communist structures?

I'm glad you rephrased it because I was having trouble wrapping my head around your original statement. This one is a slightly easier to respond too.

I disagree with contention with some concessions. Miltaries are extensions of very ancient defense forces. I say defensive because most offensive raiding parties were thrown together on a temporary basis. Defensive forces on the other hand needed to be year round operations. Especially if you live near hostile tribes. So how could you possible say a military is inherently totalitarian? Is it totalitarian to not allow another tribe to rape and murder you for your resources and women?

The second part of your supposition, that all militaries are 'communist' is just non nonsensical to me. Communism is a mostly an international ideology founded on class struggle and the theories of capitalism as viewed by Marx. How is this related to armies? Militaries vary all over the world depending on which group they emerge from and their politically shifting purposes.

Maybe you could help clarify even further by defining how you view a 'communist structure'.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I know. Trying to be clear is a balancing act. Too much and it's confusing, too little and it's daft. In this case, you have both to compare.

You found a loophole because I was not clear regarding history. I didn't say I meant contemporary times and all current military forces are communist totalitarian structures (regardless of the politics of the nation).

By totalitarian I mean that there is no room for democracy, choice, consensus, or any other formation or liberty for that tribe/soldiers. It's 100% pure vertical hierarchy. I'm talking about the political structure of the military - not their actions (defense, offense, rape, murder, surrender, etc.).

It's safe to call communism an extreme version of socialism. Socialism is where everyone pitches in and the central authority distributes resources. Police, firemen, military, government, etc - all depend on socialism. Every nation on Earth has some socialist and some capitalist aspects, without exception. Balance is needed but we're in one of the most extreme times in history.

Marx had some good ideas but many have glaring weaknesses that were exploited, corrupted, and perverted into what we know as communism.

The class struggle of communism is about as legit as the bootstrap bullshit of capitalism. Propaganda, just as offensive wars are not for defense. The system is against all little people most of all.

I think it might be safe to say that the military hierarchy is a totalitarian structure. It's no republic, democracy, capitalist, etc. Add the fact that it's socialism that funds the enterprise, but not just any socialism, extremely strict (totalitarian) socialism, aka communism.

Maybe I'm making a bigger deal out of it than I should but I have heard "mafia police" and "mafia government" used to clearly express the concept of their monopoly on violence and theft (taxes) - and I had an epiphany about this one, and I would hope that in the spirit of anti-war and waging peace, perhaps it might be more widely utilized:

All modern militaries are totalitarian communist structures.

[–]president_camacho 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Militaries are fine for their original purpose, to protect a nation's borders, and to protect it against hostile nations. The problem is when militaries are used to protect a hostile elite from a nation's own people, and serve the interests of a foreign country at the expense of a nation's own people, as is the case in the modern day US.

There is also the danger of diverting too many resources to a military, to the point you are just wasting these resources, militarizing your society, and encouraging foreign military adventures in order to justify this expenditure.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

True.

" The problem is when militaries are used to protect a hostile elite from a nation's own people "

Rare when this isn't the case, if any.

[–]casparvoneverecBig tiddy respecter 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Ghey pheygot

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist[S] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Is that a come on? Do you want to suck my dick or me to drill your ass? Look me up next time you cum to Cheynada. It's not ghey if you're on top.

[–]nordmannenLegionnaire 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Retard alert

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Low tier effort, Nerdman.

[–]nordmannenLegionnaire 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks bro, I tried. You libertarians are worth the effort.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The problem with talking to Libertarians -- at least in my personal experience -- is that much like post-structuralists or Marxists they have this strong tendency to abuse political words and rob them of their common meaning and apply a more obscure and niche interpretation to the word and also that they have so many pre-suppositions that they bring to a discussion which are completely unexamined but unknown to the people they speak to.

I was a libertarian too -- briefly thank God! -- and reading this type of post reminds me of just how frustrating it is to be a libertarian and how frustrating they are to speak to. It's frustrating for the libertarian because they have these laws that no one seems to follow but they know are perfectly sound and reasonable -- or at least they THINK they are -- and it's frustrating for the audience because, like me, I'm sure many of them simply ask themselves 'Why would I obey these insane rules you randomly came up with in your head that mean nothing, cannot and will not be practically applied and fly in the face of history, human nature and just about every other obeservable fact in the world?'

Sorry I'm rambling and I'm not even having a pop at you but I would try to deprogram a Scientologist before I tried talking to a hardcore, doctrinaire libertarian -- which I'm assuming you are from your post forgive me if that's a mistake. It's a fools errand.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I was a libertarian too

cringe!

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I was very cringe and sometimes I look back and wince.

[–]MarkimusNational Socialist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Forgive yourself for being tricked by the jews who spread libertarianism, it's not your fault brother HH.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)