Coming from a place of legitimately trying to be educated, how is the military not the closest thing in the US to socialism?
Workers are all provided the same wage based on their rank, location, marriage status, and number of children. Housing, food, healthcare, and education are all provided. There isn’t really private property unless we consider state-owned property to be private. If every job did that, wouldn’t we be a lot closer to socialism (or communism? I haven’t read enough theory to really know the difference, gulag for me)
In terms of what the military does, no that’s not remotely socialist, but as a work structure how far off is it?
unless we consider state-owned property to be private
That's a big if. I'm fairly certain that the US uses its assets as collateral on investments, and most depts have investment arms. Then consider all the contracting that goes into maintaining that state property and the line really blurs.
They're not workers and they don't own the means of production. It is hierarchical and reactionary and not democratic in the slightest. They have no position of collective bargaining and they are ideologically opposed to it. Being "state owned" does not mean "socialist" in any way.
The military is a perfect example of social fascism, for the reasons you listed.
The points you bring up about collective bargaining and owning means of production help me see a lot of the difference. I hadn’t thought about something like social fascism existing.
I don’t think there’s anything good about what the military does, but it’s hard for me to not consider military people to be workers. If anything, I’d consider them more like class traitors akin to police. I’m talking about people lower down the chain, obviously Generals, people in leadership positions, etc are PMC or worse.
Coming from a place of legitimately trying to be educated, how is the military not the closest thing in the US to socialism?
Workers are all provided the same wage based on their rank, location, marriage status, and number of children. Housing, food, healthcare, and education are all provided. There isn’t really private property unless we consider state-owned property to be private. If every job did that, wouldn’t we be a lot closer to socialism (or communism? I haven’t read enough theory to really know the difference, gulag for me)
In terms of what the military does, no that’s not remotely socialist, but as a work structure how far off is it?
That's a big if. I'm fairly certain that the US uses its assets as collateral on investments, and most depts have investment arms. Then consider all the contracting that goes into maintaining that state property and the line really blurs.
They're not workers and they don't own the means of production. It is hierarchical and reactionary and not democratic in the slightest. They have no position of collective bargaining and they are ideologically opposed to it. Being "state owned" does not mean "socialist" in any way.
The military is a perfect example of social fascism, for the reasons you listed.
The points you bring up about collective bargaining and owning means of production help me see a lot of the difference. I hadn’t thought about something like social fascism existing.
I don’t think there’s anything good about what the military does, but it’s hard for me to not consider military people to be workers. If anything, I’d consider them more like class traitors akin to police. I’m talking about people lower down the chain, obviously Generals, people in leadership positions, etc are PMC or worse.