“Things have changed in the decades after the inflation of the armed forces through conscription during the Vietnam “war” (read: Genocide) and the subsequent defeat and deflation. In the transition to a primarily volunteer force, something counterintuitive to the first-worldist left occurred. The first-worldist left expected the military to be utilized as some kind of refuge for the poor periphery of the united $tates population. However that is not what happened. Especially in the decade after 9/11, the military has transitioned into a gun club for amerikkka’s wide-eyed middle class sons. The imperialist volunteer vengeance force that was raised to fight international “terrorism” in the Muslim countries of Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as those who were trained to rain missiles on a dozen more) were less and less the victims of a “poverty draft” which had been imagined into existence by those who remembered the inequities of conscription and service in the 1960s.”
“This has been documented by the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation in their study on the recruitment demographics of the united $tates military, which found that only about 10-11% of the united $tates military recruits come from the poorest quintile (defined as making less than $33,000 annually), with a fourth of the military coming from areas whose median income is more than $65,000 annually.”
Secondly, whatever cruel behaviour exhibited by US soldiers is not simply a byproduct of inherent individual traits of the soldier, but are systemic.
Systemic to settler-colonies and their settler ilk who spawn these demons ready to do whatever in honor and service of their Reich. I think a lot of leftists don’t reckon with the fact that there is a inherent, evil culture that is built off of “Settlerism”:, spiritual Calvinism and Christianity that has systematically genocided anything in it’s path to maintain it’s existence.
Most soldiers aren’t “victims”; they were patriotic and rearing to kill people overseas to maintain the existence of their Empire. It’s like saying Israeli soldiers are “victims” when in reality both American and Israeli culture are entirely built upon the act of “excising” compassion and empathy. The military just simply teaches you how to weaponize it. As the archive says, only 11 percent of them at most come from “poorer backgrounds”; it isn’t Vietnam where they are drafting along ethnic lines, amongst class lines, etc and you could argue genuinely that they didn’t want to have to do anything and could genuinely appreciate their attempts to resist/dodge drafts or frag or what-not.
I don’t disagree with you that suicide and unemployment is a crippling problem amongst veterans when they get home. But the ones you see that really struggle are a chunk of that 11% or the few thousand more who lost support of their families. Most do very well for themselves and still come from “better-off” families. At least “not in poverty”.
I think this is why it’s such a tough question to really think about because if you meet a lot of soldiers, to them, they have little reason or care to justify or tell you why what they did was justified. For me it was a lot of “You wouldn’t understand.” “They’re the enemy, it’s that simple” etc.
Sometimes, I wonder if surviving Nazi soldiers had the same kind of thought-process after the war.
It is true that the Heritage Foundation, being quasi-fascist troop-worshippers, have their own motives for promoting a class-collaborationist and prosperous image of the military, however we judge their study on its merits rather than the inconvenience of its results.
For reporting on shit like the wealth of troops, troop-related shit and other hog-feed like that? Sure. On China or other enemies of the state department? Probably not, it’s best to apply that sort of thinking for any news agency. It’s like dismissing everything off the Grayzone because of one or two bad editors/writers.
I’m using it as a personal example, to be honest. I’ve met leftcoms who do the same shit with grayzone. It’s easy to disingenuous by just dismissing news organizations we don’t like instead of looking at what they’re saying and writing critically.
The main problem for me is that, for any war, victory isn’t wiping out the enemy entirely, but rather getting them to surrender. This means that the enemy’s troops lose the will to fight. The question for me is almost always “how can I demoralize US troops?”. How can I get them to feel that surrender is the better option?
Reading through, they mostly support the article I posted. I read up until page 24, will read more later when I am free!
The U.S military however still can be a “solution” for those who aren’t poor but still have “stagnation” as it is seen as a way to “specialize” and gain skills in a field while getting a government pension. Most people who joined the military I know were exactly like this; they stagnated after college and decided to take their skills to the military. That does track.
Most people in poverty do not go to college (below 30k a year). That’s anecdotal; but I’ll bet you 10 bucks that the statistics back that up too.
I would say it’s risky speaking that their C.O could ask about their “Personal activities” and pretty much get an unlimited investigation (national defense or court martial/etc) going on whatever organization you are a part of.
That’s one of the biggest reasons I recommend against organizing with military.
Generally, it draws attraction. It also depends on the organization. If you’re in a demsoc or a caucus of a demsoc; I suppose it could be alright. If you’re in a ML org; there might be some questions to raise there regarding what I said.
https://archive.ph/2x19K#selection-105.0-109.329
Systemic to settler-colonies and their settler ilk who spawn these demons ready to do whatever in honor and service of their Reich. I think a lot of leftists don’t reckon with the fact that there is a inherent, evil culture that is built off of “Settlerism”:, spiritual Calvinism and Christianity that has systematically genocided anything in it’s path to maintain it’s existence.
Most soldiers aren’t “victims”; they were patriotic and rearing to kill people overseas to maintain the existence of their Empire. It’s like saying Israeli soldiers are “victims” when in reality both American and Israeli culture are entirely built upon the act of “excising” compassion and empathy. The military just simply teaches you how to weaponize it. As the archive says, only 11 percent of them at most come from “poorer backgrounds”; it isn’t Vietnam where they are drafting along ethnic lines, amongst class lines, etc and you could argue genuinely that they didn’t want to have to do anything and could genuinely appreciate their attempts to resist/dodge drafts or frag or what-not.
I don’t disagree with you that suicide and unemployment is a crippling problem amongst veterans when they get home. But the ones you see that really struggle are a chunk of that 11% or the few thousand more who lost support of their families. Most do very well for themselves and still come from “better-off” families. At least “not in poverty”.
I think this is why it’s such a tough question to really think about because if you meet a lot of soldiers, to them, they have little reason or care to justify or tell you why what they did was justified. For me it was a lot of “You wouldn’t understand.” “They’re the enemy, it’s that simple” etc.
Sometimes, I wonder if surviving Nazi soldiers had the same kind of thought-process after the war.
I’ll take a look at it myself, but is the heritage foundation really that great of a source?
the heritage foundation has given us bourgeois class conscious bangers like “Why The Marcos Opposition Challenges The United States”
It is true that the Heritage Foundation, being quasi-fascist troop-worshippers, have their own motives for promoting a class-collaborationist and prosperous image of the military, however we judge their study on its merits rather than the inconvenience of its results.
Its addressed in the article.
yup
For reporting on shit like the wealth of troops, troop-related shit and other hog-feed like that? Sure. On China or other enemies of the state department? Probably not, it’s best to apply that sort of thinking for any news agency. It’s like dismissing everything off the Grayzone because of one or two bad editors/writers.
I feel like comparing the heritage foundation to the grayzone is a bit disingenuous but I guess I get your point
I’m using it as a personal example, to be honest. I’ve met leftcoms who do the same shit with grayzone. It’s easy to disingenuous by just dismissing news organizations we don’t like instead of looking at what they’re saying and writing critically.
About whether the military recruits mostly poor or rich people, I did some digging and found this: https://www.ifn.se/media/4fdbrrus/wp965.pdf
And this: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-the-u-s-military-became-the-exception-to-americas-wage-stagnation-problem/
The main problem for me is that, for any war, victory isn’t wiping out the enemy entirely, but rather getting them to surrender. This means that the enemy’s troops lose the will to fight. The question for me is almost always “how can I demoralize US troops?”. How can I get them to feel that surrender is the better option?
Reading through, they mostly support the article I posted. I read up until page 24, will read more later when I am free!
The U.S military however still can be a “solution” for those who aren’t poor but still have “stagnation” as it is seen as a way to “specialize” and gain skills in a field while getting a government pension. Most people who joined the military I know were exactly like this; they stagnated after college and decided to take their skills to the military. That does track.
Most people in poverty do not go to college (below 30k a year). That’s anecdotal; but I’ll bet you 10 bucks that the statistics back that up too.
what do you think about working with active duty military members in terms of organizing.
I would say it’s risky speaking that their C.O could ask about their “Personal activities” and pretty much get an unlimited investigation (national defense or court martial/etc) going on whatever organization you are a part of.
That’s one of the biggest reasons I recommend against organizing with military.
This is actually highly relevant to me and my organization. I think it’s reasonable but quite a lot of people do not agree
Generally, it draws attraction. It also depends on the organization. If you’re in a demsoc or a caucus of a demsoc; I suppose it could be alright. If you’re in a ML org; there might be some questions to raise there regarding what I said.
Well therein lies the question.
I would say no for ML orgs.
So would they it would seem as well lol
I think this text might be relevant: The Armed Forces and the Revolution by V. I. Lenin
Here is also something by S4A that would help (altho a frontend is needed): https://youtu.be/hgMQU47sA1U
I don’t agree that this analysis is entirely relevant to the military in the US as our currently functions. But i appreciate the links.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: