• AllCatsAreBeautiful [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think violent labor resistance is much less feasible now. The disparity in weapons between the left and right, the people and the state, and the state's willingness to use violence on citizens makes violent resistance harder to accomplish and far fewer people willing to imagine it happening. I think in the back (or front) of their minds libs have already accept a fascist theocratic future where they profit off the immense suffering of a broad underclass (because naturally THEY wouldn't be part of it).

    • Mardoniush [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      In the short term, yes, we're not ready, but I don't think it's as bad as people say.

      The military is significantly more liberal than the popular view, especially in the officer corps, and a bunch of those are going to be increasingly radicalised both in and after leaving the military. As things move into "bleeding Kansas" we're gonna see a rise in armed members of the left. The key difficulty here is linking that to organised labour.

      • OrionsMask [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        The military is significantly more liberal than the popular view, especially in the officer corps

        Can you elaborate on this?

        • Mardoniush [she/her]
          ·
          2 years ago

          Sure.

          So, firstly, the Officer Corps, in most nations is by default moderately conservative. They like the status quo, and they hate Fascists because they do dumb shit that makes war hard. This usually filters down to influencing the enlisted ranks, who generally split more radically left or right depending on material conditions of the soldier strata. The median US officer in 2000 is not a rabid chud, but an Eisenhower Republican and thinks the Republican party still caters to those.

          The enlisted military until 2000 was mostly Rural Conservatives and a split of Urban Conservatives and Urban Social Democrats roughly in thirds, with the latter either being people of colour or union worker's families. The fuck up of the 2000s ended up polarising this divide, with about a 50/50 radicalisation split, but a good chunk radicalising to the left left the military because of this. The remnants were those that can stomach it, ie. Liberals.

          The officer corps also polarised, with the Army surprisingly breaking mostly left under the strain of realising they're the baddies, the Navy not caring, and the Airforce going full utter fash as Air Forces everywhere love to do. But this took time to filter through the ranks, since the Nixon/Regan era senior officers were still in power.

          The increase in women in the armed forces also altered the balance hard towards the liberal side of the calculus, and continues to.

          Finally, Trump screwed up the contracting gravy train with his less hawkish policy, pissed off military members with half a conscience by doing things like fucking over the Kurds (there was, apparently, almost a mass resignation of the officer corps over letting Turkey have Rojava.), and generally annoyed people with his dumb ideas. This resulted in the Armed forces voting majority democratic in 2020 for the first time ever.

          Now, this doesn't mean the army is a bunch of communists, they still lean slightly to the right of the American political centre, but they want to keep the wheels turning, and this has caused them to adopt the default centrist liberal nature of a normal government department. This means they'll break against the chuds...probably...except for the air force, who, joy, have most of the nukes.

          Ultimately though I think things are going to come down to the personal beliefs of the field commanders and their ability to command personal loyalty from their troops. The chain of command is going to become increasingly ossified at both military and civilian levels.