About 80% of people the military are non-combat arms. Meaning people who maybe fix up cargo planes, and work for the Timmies at Kandahar AFB.
Sure you can use the argument that these people are just as bad as those who gun down civilians in the streets, because their job directly enables said gunning down.
But POGS are far from the only people whose labour plays an auxiliary role in empire: what about people who work at manufacturing plants that produce optics for drones, or who work at steel plants whose whose labour is essential for the production of tanks, or who work for Universities with close participation in the MIC. Are all these people evil for what they do, should Communists disavow each and every one of them entirely? Doing so would be a pretty serious decision considering nearly every job available in the Global North could be said to contribute to Imperialism.
I don't really think it's wrong to say that when people enlist due to a desire to escape from depressed and deprived conditions, the lions share of the fault is on those who create said conditions. It's not due to personal failure/illness of character.
Looking at joining the military as purely being an act of an evil person is not productive. Racial minorities make up a greater share of the Armed Forces in comparison to their presence among the general population, and I don't think its because they're more inclined to do evil than white people, which is the conclusion you'd naturally arrive at if you totally ignore the material contexts which make people enlist, in favour of a narrative that bad people choose to do it because they're bad.
Oh I missed this part- "Racial minorities make up a greater share of the Armed Forces in comparison to their presence among the general population"
Actually, when looking at the armed forces as a whole, it's more or less in line with the demographics of the general population. Amongst the officer ranks it's more disproportionately white. Just fyi
I'd actually agree with you that officers as a whole are mostly irredeemable, they almost all already have University degrees and options. Though, they do directly engage in violence less than enlisted.
But Black Americans make up 19% of active duty enlisted personnel, a 40% overrepresentation in comparison to their share of the general population.
Similarly "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander's" see a 120% overrepresentation. Multi-racial americans a 14% overrepresentation, with Hispanic and Asian Americans being the only racial minority groups who are underrepresented among enlisted in comparison to their share of the general population.
But again, I don't think the aforementioned overrepresentation of certain racial groups in the US military, which does exist, can be blamed on individual, rather than systemic faults.
The link doesn't seem to work, but I'm interested, as the one I provided lacks the crosstabs that I'd like to see.
But again, I don’t think the aforementioned overrepresentation of certain racial groups in the US military, which does exist, can be blamed on individual, rather than systemic faults.
I'll agree that we are discussing huge systemic issues, and I'm not trying to position this as an individualistic issue, rather I'm trying to point out that the mindset that leads these people to join up is something that is likely incompatible with the socialist ideal of benefitting everyone, not just yourself or people you like or people who look like you. Does this make sense? Like why is everyone willing to ignore the personal motivations that go into it, and refuses to imagine what a person like that would do in a hypothetical left movement/revolution?
Thanks for fixing that, dang what a resource! I was not expecting a 200+ page document on this. And that's all I'm trying to push here, that people need to stop hand waving and seriously consider the people they are trying to fold into the left
You make it sound like 80% of the military is bureeaucrats. They are still given a gun, trained how to use it, and in a situation we're it is them vs "the enemy" they'd be expected to kill. Full stop. There's a reason why every MOS goes through the same basic training that the "combat roles" get, and that basic training includes enforcing the idea of killing anyone your chain of command asks you to. The military also classifies some roles, like radio operator, as non combat roles but are we gonna pretend the guy calling in an airstrike is non combat?
As for your other point, idk where to draw the line for condemning people for participating with imperialism, but I'm gonna start with all troops and go from there
Sure you can use the argument that these people are just as bad as those who gun down civilians in the streets, because their job directly enables said gunning down
yes
what about people who work at manufacturing plants that produce optics for drones, or who work at steel plants whose whose labour is essential for the production of tanks, or who work for Universities with close participation in the MIC. Are all these people evil for what they do
not evil per se, but it's not ok either and they should stop
should Communists disavow each and every one of them entirely?
no they should educate them and support direct action against imperialism.
Noone says they should all be gulag'd, but they definitely shouldn't be accepted and praised. They should be bullied.
Would it be correct to conclude that certain racial minorities are particularly predisposed to evil (in comparison to white people) because they make up a greater share of the Armed Forces than they do the civilian labour force?
I reworded my last point because it was ill thought out the way I wrote it.
not evil per se, but it’s not ok either and they should stop
This seems like the sort of individualistic narrative that is so common to Liberal rhetoric around issues like Climate change. "Climate Change occurs because people are selfish and unwilling to lower their personal carbon footprint". "Empire is perpetuated because people are selfish and unwilling to quit their job when it contributes to Imperialism".
In both cases using moralistic rhetoric to try and bully people into making personal sacrifices is rarely successful, both in its goal and in creating a political movement. And more importantly, it sidesteps the fact that these are systemic issues, with systemic solutions alone.
So because there's systematic forces at play, individuals are completely absolved from any wrongdoing? Because climate change is a global issue I should just roll coal and anyone disagreeing with me is a moralising asshole?
No but I won't call you evil if you drive a car, which is the equivalent of blaming a Steel worker for Imperialism and telling them they should just stop working.
Rolling coal is an act of deliberate harm done for no material benefit, it is not be the same as the unavoidable pollution which one contributes to in the course of their day.
Actually yes because companies try to distance themselves from the issue by propagating the idea that efforts against climate change should focus on individual actions that gives you a free pass for throwing your trash in the ocean and burning down a couple trees.
Additionally all pollution caused by companies is 100% unnecessary and none of it is due to individuals actively and repeatedly demanding stupid shit that causes pollution. Once we switch the communism button, we can keep producing the exact same things except with no pollution. Individuals will never have to change anything and they certainly shouldn't start now.
About 80% of people the military are non-combat arms. Meaning people who maybe fix up cargo planes, and work for the Timmies at Kandahar AFB.
Sure you can use the argument that these people are just as bad as those who gun down civilians in the streets, because their job directly enables said gunning down.
But POGS are far from the only people whose labour plays an auxiliary role in empire: what about people who work at manufacturing plants that produce optics for drones, or who work at steel plants whose whose labour is essential for the production of tanks, or who work for Universities with close participation in the MIC. Are all these people evil for what they do, should Communists disavow each and every one of them entirely? Doing so would be a pretty serious decision considering nearly every job available in the Global North could be said to contribute to Imperialism.
I don't really think it's wrong to say that when people enlist due to a desire to escape from depressed and deprived conditions, the lions share of the fault is on those who create said conditions. It's not due to personal failure/illness of character.
Looking at joining the military as purely being an act of an evil person is not productive. Racial minorities make up a greater share of the Armed Forces in comparison to their presence among the general population, and I don't think its because they're more inclined to do evil than white people, which is the conclusion you'd naturally arrive at if you totally ignore the material contexts which make people enlist, in favour of a narrative that bad people choose to do it because they're bad.
deleted by creator
You can take the leftist out of America, but...
Oh I missed this part- "Racial minorities make up a greater share of the Armed Forces in comparison to their presence among the general population"
Actually, when looking at the armed forces as a whole, it's more or less in line with the demographics of the general population. Amongst the officer ranks it's more disproportionately white. Just fyi
I'd actually agree with you that officers as a whole are mostly irredeemable, they almost all already have University degrees and options. Though, they do directly engage in violence less than enlisted.
But Black Americans make up 19% of active duty enlisted personnel, a 40% overrepresentation in comparison to their share of the general population.
Similarly "Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander's" see a 120% overrepresentation. Multi-racial americans a 14% overrepresentation, with Hispanic and Asian Americans being the only racial minority groups who are underrepresented among enlisted in comparison to their share of the general population.
But again, I don't think the aforementioned overrepresentation of certain racial groups in the US military, which does exist, can be blamed on individual, rather than systemic faults.
The link doesn't seem to work, but I'm interested, as the one I provided lacks the crosstabs that I'd like to see.
I'll agree that we are discussing huge systemic issues, and I'm not trying to position this as an individualistic issue, rather I'm trying to point out that the mindset that leads these people to join up is something that is likely incompatible with the socialist ideal of benefitting everyone, not just yourself or people you like or people who look like you. Does this make sense? Like why is everyone willing to ignore the personal motivations that go into it, and refuses to imagine what a person like that would do in a hypothetical left movement/revolution?
Link should be fixed now.
I mostly agree with your last point and will need to spend some time thinking it through.
Thanks for fixing that, dang what a resource! I was not expecting a 200+ page document on this. And that's all I'm trying to push here, that people need to stop hand waving and seriously consider the people they are trying to fold into the left
Oh fuck my bad, race/ethnicity data is all on page 23-30. A pie chart for active duty enlisted is on p.24
dont officers engage in more violence than a troop cause they command lots of troops.
You make it sound like 80% of the military is bureeaucrats. They are still given a gun, trained how to use it, and in a situation we're it is them vs "the enemy" they'd be expected to kill. Full stop. There's a reason why every MOS goes through the same basic training that the "combat roles" get, and that basic training includes enforcing the idea of killing anyone your chain of command asks you to. The military also classifies some roles, like radio operator, as non combat roles but are we gonna pretend the guy calling in an airstrike is non combat?
As for your other point, idk where to draw the line for condemning people for participating with imperialism, but I'm gonna start with all troops and go from there
deleted by creator
This is "no ethical consumption under capitalism" with pro-troop characteristics.
yes
not evil per se, but it's not ok either and they should stop
no they should educate them and support direct action against imperialism.
Noone says they should all be gulag'd, but they definitely shouldn't be accepted and praised. They should be bullied.
wtf no
I reworded my last point because it was ill thought out the way I wrote it.
This seems like the sort of individualistic narrative that is so common to Liberal rhetoric around issues like Climate change. "Climate Change occurs because people are selfish and unwilling to lower their personal carbon footprint". "Empire is perpetuated because people are selfish and unwilling to quit their job when it contributes to Imperialism".
In both cases using moralistic rhetoric to try and bully people into making personal sacrifices is rarely successful, both in its goal and in creating a political movement. And more importantly, it sidesteps the fact that these are systemic issues, with systemic solutions alone.
So because there's systematic forces at play, individuals are completely absolved from any wrongdoing? Because climate change is a global issue I should just roll coal and anyone disagreeing with me is a moralising asshole?
No but I won't call you evil if you drive a car, which is the equivalent of blaming a Steel worker for Imperialism and telling them they should just stop working.
Rolling coal is an act of deliberate harm done for no material benefit, it is not be the same as the unavoidable pollution which one contributes to in the course of their day.
Working=owning a car
Knowingly working for the military=rolling coal
Actually yes because companies try to distance themselves from the issue by propagating the idea that efforts against climate change should focus on individual actions that gives you a free pass for throwing your trash in the ocean and burning down a couple trees.
Additionally all pollution caused by companies is 100% unnecessary and none of it is due to individuals actively and repeatedly demanding stupid shit that causes pollution. Once we switch the communism button, we can keep producing the exact same things except with no pollution. Individuals will never have to change anything and they certainly shouldn't start now.
fix up cargo planes to do what?