Requesting a dl of

Isn't his argument is that the military is in theory a good social institution and can be used to get people into socialism?

...

...

Well, to put it simply he thinks the army is a useful institution in achieving socialism or some sort of post capitalism and that the draft is like nationalizing it and means democratizing it. I don't see how he comes to this conclusion.

Ok, so he wants the military to take over stuff like education, health care, production and even writing unions in the army. This sounds more like a military state than "socialism"

he's being fascile or sarcastic when he calls it the "army". It's state socialism in practice.

Then why does he promote the "universal army" and conscription

he's playing off of the american imagination and it's almost universal dedication to patriotism.

I dont follow?

That ass tho.

americans have a fetish for military. they'd rather the military take over the state in some form, than it be called properly "socialization of the state".

This is true but he's not just using funny language to describe something else, he is advocating a massive military draft and a citizen military take over, which isn't as crazy as it sounds IMO.

Conscription does bring the population closer to the military, for better or worse, but the US military at least is already staffed with working class stiffs, however very few Americans go into the military (like 1 percent?).

I don't think they have a fetish for military dictatorships though

And you are wrong. The US, as it stands, is a military dictatorship, the fucking Empire.

The US has a military government?

...

Not but Jameson isn't proposing a military dictatorship, he's proposing using the military to create a mass citizen force to take over the failing state.

I asked if the US has a military government, not that it spends a lot on the military.

You don't have to agree, but Jameson sees the military as a way to achieve "socialization" because of A its acceptance and popularity in American culture B its a massive socialized project ironically used primarily for protecting private profit C its about discipline and seriousness which is actually a good aspect of militaries and makes it easier and more effective to organize people toward such goals.

It is worth observing that this amphiboly of “freedom,” a pseudoconcept that slips regularly from labor to the metaphysical, is one of the fundamental roots of anti-utopianism (as well as of the anti-communism into which it is regularly translated). The transcendental content of such metaphysical notions of freedom is itself of course historical; but it varies less swiftly than the empirical political or social referent which is its other dimension (social hierarchy, business freedoms, gun ownership, etc.) and which is as it were respectabilized and lent the appearance of some eternal philosophical value by the loftier concept with which it is confused. (Foucault, indeed, theorized just such amphibolies as “empirico-transcendental doublet,” although he perhaps associated their emergence too narrowly with nineteenth-century historicism.)
But it is time to quote Trotsky’s version of “militarism” in more detail:
One of the Menshevik orators attempted incidentally to represent me as a defender of militarism in general. According to his information, it appears, do you see, that I am defending nothing more or less than German militarism. I proved, you must understand, that the German NCO was a marvel of nature, and all that he does is above criticism. What did I say in reality? Only that militarism, in which all the features of social evolution find their most finished, sharp and clear expression, could be examined from two points of view. First from the political or socialist—and here it depends entirely on the question of what class is in power; and second, from the point of view of organization, as a system of the strict distribution of duties, exact mutual relations, unquestioning responsibility and harsh insistence on execution. The bourgeois army is the apparatus of savage oppression and repression of the workers; the socialist army is a weapon for the liberation and defense of the workers. But the unquestioning subordination of the parts to the whole is a characteristic of every army. A severe internal regime is inseparable from the military organization. In war every piece of slackness, every lack of thoroughness, and even a simple mistake, not infrequently bring in their train the most heavy sacrifices. Hence the striving of the military organization to bring clearness, definiteness, exactness of relations and responsibilities, to the highest degree of development. “Military” qualities in this connection are valued in every sphere. It was in this sense that I said that every class prefers to have in its service those of its members who, other things being equal, have passed through the military school. The German peasant, for example, who has passed out of the barracks in the capacity of an NCO was for the German monarchy, and remains for the Ebert Republic, much dearer and more valuable than the same peasant who has not passed through military training. The apparatus of the German railways was splendidly organized, thanks to a considerable degree to the employment of NCOs and officers in administrative posts in the transport department. In this sense we also have something to learn from militarism. Comrade Tsyperovich, one of our foremost trade union leaders, admitted here that the trade union worker who has passed through military training—who has, for example, occupied the responsible post of regimental commissary for a year—does not become worse from the point of view of trade union work as a result. He is returned to the union the same proletarian from head to foot, for he was fighting for the proletariat; but he has returned a veteran—hardened, more independent, more decisive—for he has been in very responsible positions. He had occasions to control several thousands of Red soldiers of different degrees of class-consciousness—most of them peasants. Together with them he has lived through victories and reverses, he has advanced and retreated. There were cases of treachery on the part of the command personnel, of peasant risings, of panic—but he remained at his post, he held together the less class-conscious mass, directed it, inspired it with his example, punished traitors and cowards. This experience is a great and valuable experience. And when a former regimental commissary returns to his trade union, he becomes not a bad organizer.7

But the military is an authoritarian structure and forcing people into that seems like the wrong way to go, at least if you want socialism

define 'authoritarian'

you seem to hate discipline, not authority

Jameson is a Marxist, he's against class, not against hierarchies.

I don't know why you posted that image, I agree that identity is obscured by market forces, but anyway.

By authoritarian in this case I mean a way of life thats regimented, full of orders and being treated like a robot or child.

Explain?

I find the idea of a military filled with what are essentially mercenaries with flags to be much more scary than a society where the military is a citizen militia. The idea that there is no greater community that we all would defend and die for is a dangerous idea
I'm with the greeks here

it's not an image, it's a video, dummy. click on it, gosh fucking drung blip

Nothing plays, hence why I commented on the image. Regardless, the video is irrelevant.

Can you elaborate?

No, it's not. Theory webms are made so that the same fucking point doesn't have to be argued for newfags and idiots again and again.

Get firefox.

Firefox is a buggy, slow piece of shit, so no.

And yes it is, it's about identity, which is not what I'm discussing, so it's irrelevant, sorry.

Which Greeks? Ancient, Hellenistic, Modern?

...

I'm not arguing about any loss of identity though, so try again.

SYRIZA, judging by his opinion.

Just what are you talking about?

this
The only thing I can see organizing the mass of people into an efficient, effective, disciplined, force of production and social organization, is the military.
Now don't think me authoritarian. My goal is democracy and freedom, the military body being subject to the democratic government and laws. But I don't see socialism working without this kind of discipline and organization, not to mention how the military truly opens up the space for equality and fraternity among people, while taking advantage of leadership and peoples talents.

I'm talking about freedom vs authoritarianism, or in this case, being free to live your life vs being a drone in an army, which is what's being proposed here

define 'freedom'

Oh for fuck's sake,just install a program or browser that supports webm videos. You need that if you want to post on any imageboard and actually understand shit.

So what do you propose

I already did, and was able to download the video.

Being able to do what I want as long as I dont hurt anyone else, I imagine?

no, don't you see, he achieved levels of freedom that you can't fathom, levels of freedom that doesn't follow regular rules of discussion, levels of freedom that transcends your slave mentality

So just out of curiosity, do you favor a military life over a non one then?

But militaries have to be authoritarian to function, so I don't see how you can have "democracy and freedom" in a massive military

That conception of freedom is paradoxical. You will never be able to do whatever you want, because you are a human being, and human beings live in societies that are governed by implicit and explicit rules.

SYRIZA has a citizens army?

The fuck is a 'non one'?

That doesn't necessitate getting rid of all freedom in favor of a regimented, authoritarian lifestyle though. I'm sure there's a middle ground here

I think they're called "civilians"

What does that even mean?

MY GOT

What the author is proposing

the ancient greek city-state athens had a democracy (as close to a direct democracy as was possible) that highly valued the input of average people.
They also had an army based on universal conscription of able-bodied men. By having a universal conscription, you could keep the power of the state disciplined (the army/police after all are the state's power.).
For example, the roman army became a professional mercenary force by the reforms of Marius. This made it more effective at conquest, but it also meant that Roman generals could have legions loyal to them and not the people, which led to many civil wars, and even an attempted mass slaughter of the roman people by the general Sullus. If the roman army had stayed a citizen army, the republic may have not fallen to become a monarchy.
And a citizen army is a way of creating citizens with discipline, patriotism, respect for (legitimate in our scenario) authority, work ethic, and a value for sacrificing themselves for a greater cause. I do not think we can have socialism unless we promote this in the citizenry.

How about this. Let's get to a pragmatic level here. What is it concretely that being member of a proletariat army would deprive you of?

a.k.a. slavery

Well given it's an army, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to wear what I want to a reasonable degree, the little things in life. I like being able to get up when I want and plan what I want to do and not be a total tool, thats just me

that's the idea of dual power. You have an "authoritarian" body that isn't paralyzed by democratic deliberations and negotiations, but that body is ultimately subordinate to the laws put in place by the democracy (preferably as close to a direct democracy as possible)

Yeah but every nation says that, and in some countries it may even be true. I don't see how this necessitates conscription though?

yeah there were citizens and they had slaves, I'm not advocating that.
Do you disagree with universal human rights like freedom of expression because the men who wrote it into the US constitution owned slaves?

Do you have any sources on the greek and roman armies, as it pertains to the topic? I'm honestly curious to read about this.

I'm all for work ethic, but I thought socialism was about overcoming respect for authority and patriotism and discipline, stuff like that. A higher level of human existence and whatever.

No but it does show flaws in the implementation of the idea

Nope.

Why? Don't you understand the model of Jameson? Everyone up from 14 to 60 is a member of the army. You 'redeploy' (go) wherever you please.

So you hate the uniforms? :D Some snowflake individualist you are. It would be impossible to ban unique dresses of people, but most likely after a revolutionary situation people will prefer uniforms and practical work dresses, so that the impulses you have now to 'fit in' (dressing your unique POSH faggy way) would change direction too (you'd want to fit in with the new trend).

But that's exactly the freedom the wast majority of the people don't have in this system.

It's as if he's afraid of losing his special privileges to the masses of people, my gawd.

Nope as in its actually a bad thing or nope in that I wouldnt lose it or?

I don't get how that'd work, I mean if a military just let every soldier go wherever, it wouldn't function very well.

No no, you misunderstand. I don't care about "fitting in" (after all, military uniforms are ultimate conformity). I actually hate clothing and wish I could be naked all the time, but in absence of that, I prefer to wear what I want.

I don't defend that though.

I don't have any special muh privileges though, I'm a poor smuck

I'm one of those fags who tries not to fit in, actually

No, it is a good thing that you can speak your mind freely.

You don't get how communism works. You get to freely associate with any commune, you collectively create the rules of said commune, which the members obey. If you don't like commune A, you go to commune B. Jameson explicitly talks about "outlaw zones" of pure anarchy if that is your thing. Just don't expect a high standard of living there.

and better bring a gun

But hes not proposing communism here, he's proposing universal conscription into the american armed forces. That's what I'm talking about

Jesus, read the fucking book, mate. The whole Jameson piece is like 30 pages. It's about a transitionary model.

"Outlaw zones", that'd make an interesting story. Most of society is a functional socialist democracy while some choose to live in pure chaos and shitty conditions. Who would ever choose that

I just read some of it in fact and I don't see how this would lead to commujism. I mean how would we even do this first of all and how would it lead to this glorious communist future. It sounds more like an odd way to just give everyone free health care and college.

Yeah I agree that this is a good idea, America should do the same, it'd make things easier for revolution IMO

well we are assuming the goal is socialism and then communism. If you would argue for individualized production and organization through trade and private property, that's a different debate.
If you agree with the idea of creating a society without capitalist production, then we have to look at feasible ways of doing it, without establishing a dictatorship like stalin or the other failed attempts did.
I think we are headed for extremely dangerous times.
Global warming (The scale of problems this could lead to are potentially civilization destroying), war, famine, direct manipulation of human genetics, automation replacing jobs faster than we retrain people for new ones(at least within capitalism), racial tension, religious extremism, antibiotic resistant disease etc etc etc.
The world we are going into is so potentially dangerous that jamesons model is a much preferable alternative to continued capitalism.
So what is socialism? It is production by the entire social body working in concert. So nationalization of all production is just as much a forced "conscription"
But I want something that will actually function well. And militaries have functioned as socialist bodies for much of history. Many militaries were supplied by taxes and goods produced by the capitalist economy, but ask any old soldier and you will know most of their time was spent doing productive labor.
I'll attach a pic to this post that describes the incan centralized production system as well. The incans used a system of conscripted work teams to produce goods and infrastructure, and then provided those work teams with rations of goods produced by other work teams. It was extremely functional and produced larger surpluses and abundance than the feudalism/market stystem of medieval and renaissance Europe although they had less advanced technology.
On the question of freedom I agree with idea of anarchist free territories aided by the state. I don't think they'd have shitty quality of life though.
Another point about freedom, in capitalism or socialism, while working you are subject to rules of conduct and regulation of your behavior. Not just in uniforms, but working in capitalism means your labor is disciplined by competition with everyone else. Jamesons model doesn't mean you are a prisoner, you'de still have off time to do whatever you like. In fact, you'd have much more off-time than under capitalism.
Jamesons model is a model of socialism that I'd be willing to live with, but I'd also support a more libertarian form of socialism if it was coming to power.

Rome lost its citizen army due to the economic development of the republic, IIRC. They lost that small land holder class capable of buying their own arms and armor in the old Greek style. You ended up with plebs on one end, who owned very little, and the patricians on the other with their huge, centralized estates. Marius was overdue, if anything.

It's deliberate. Jameson believes that such a gargantuan "army" wouldn't be an army capable of waging any wars.

Idiots and assholes, probably. I don't agree with Jameson here though because when I hear "everything goes" that usually means a hive of villainy. Zones like that ought to be wiped clean.

Now you're getting it.

the eternal snowflakes

couldn't find the pic so here's an article on the incas
io9.gizmodo.com/5872764/the-greatest-mystery-of-the-inca-empire-was-its-strange-economy

I recognize it was caused by material conditions.
If rome had been a socialist republic, the state could have provided the citizen soldiers with gear, as they provided the professional army with gear.

Well I'm not arguing in favor of capitalism though.

So it's more about that the future could very likely be much more dangerous so we need to make everyone prepared to handle it? Is that what you're getting at?

Right but nationalizing a power plant doesn't mean forcing people to go work in it at gunpoint.

What do you mean that they're "socialist" though? I thought that was a misconception, that anything "government" is "socialist"?

As in the Incan empire? Interesting but I don't see how this is "socialist" esp as they were pre-industrial.

Yeah but wouldn't an army always crush it, I mean it always has in the past. I think there's a middle ground between anarchy and totalitarian dictatorship.

While I'm not defending "capitalist work", I'm free to leave whenever I want, I haven't been drafted into what I do, and while there's negative consequences if I leave as of now, it's not exactly the same thing, so I don't think they're comparable.

Jameson offers a comprehensive way of transitioning from the current US constitution by undermining it from the inside, ie. using the (constitutionally legit) form of the army to dismantle capitalism.

the book's structure: Jameson's proposal + a dozen critiques of it

Would it be like Demolition Man, with all the anarchist and stand-up comedians living underground?

What's the point then, wouldn't it just fall apart if it can't do its job?

Why not just give everyone single payer care and abolish tuition, which is already slowly being done.

I don't see how this would happen. I think we'd just get a state where the military controls all civilian government and we're a bunch of soldiers either fighting or twiddling our thumbs in boredom

dude, you are either a troll on an idiot

Neither, I just think the plan is stupid.

I think the main advantage of a citizen army was they, as you said, were loyal to the polis over any General who commanded them and ensured they got paid. Citizen soldiers aren't soldiers all the time, either. War is a temporary phenomenon not a way of life.

I read the whole thing late last year.

Perhaps it's just me but I imagine something darker. A hole where everyone goes to live out their forbidden and frankly disturbing desires. Places like that like a vortex; once you're in it's very difficult to get out. A place that devours whoever's foolish or unfortunate enough to be drawn in.

Yes. And that is the point.

This is a more permanent solution. One that can't be undone without substantially reorganizing society (again).

Well, this system would better at transitioning to communism in that it would actively support the commons whereas as capitalism undermines it.
Any knowledge produced (tech, software etc) would be made part of the commons.
The natural commons (air, water, biosphere, etc) would be protected unlike social democratic capitalism where capitalists undermine these protections.
The infrastructure produced would be a commons.
For those unable to work due to disability, or retirement, all goods and services would be a commons.
Through long-term experimentation, all pleasant and enjoyable but productive jobs would be made open to volunteer work (people wouldn't have to be compelled by duty to do these jobs). That is the essence of communism.
Unpleasant jobs would still be compelled by social duty, but that is a problem for any society trying to transition to communism. For this, we can only decrease the volume of this type of work over time through the application of technology.
Setting up free communes outside society and slowly increasing them over time is another way to go about it.

Are you talking about the Hoplites?

Lol, how would you advertise such a thing?

Ah just destroy it from within. I get it now. Don't think that will work and sounds kinda dumb.

I still don't understand how this is supposed to do that but fair enough.

Why would it be in the armies best interest to transition to communism?

The infrastructure produced would be a commons. For those unable to work due to disability, or retirement, all goods and services would be a commons. Through long-term experimentation, all pleasant and enjoyable but productive jobs would be made open to volunteer work (people wouldn't have to be compelled by duty to do these jobs). That is the essence of communism.

Well I like that. No disagreement there.

But this seems antithetical to running an intact army, citizen or otherwise.

...

Read it, watched it, still stupid.

But there needs to be a time when people actually serve in the army, if it's actually to be effective in defending the nation or community. Ironically I'd take the plan one step forward

I want a totally free communist society where no one is compelled to work and work is done freely because you enjoy it, BUT I'd rather have jamesons model than what we are approaching under capitalism. so yes.
well, what if all production was controlled by society, and someone refused to work? They would be left to starve. Or how would you convince people to work? It is the same under capitalism.
Ideally, the system would be productive enough to provide a UBI (in the form of basic goods and services) so that people would have a meaningful choice. It's still a democratic society being advocated, so it's up to the people to decide this.
I'd also remind you that the state is inherently coercive. We all want to abolish the state because of this, but we can't wish it away, we have to build an alternative over a long period.
Yes, that is a misconception. I mean, a hypothetical socialist military would be a military where all soldiers worked to produce what they all needed. No military was fully socialist, relying on tax money and capitalist production to produce their gear and grain. BUT they organized labor that wasn't engaged in market trade, every soldier had duties to cook, clean, dig latrines, without getting paid an hourly wage to then buy their rations at a store. It isn't subject to the contradictions inherent to capitalism as a system. So yes, militaries weren't socialist because they were a state body, but they did engage in a primitive sort of socialist production.
yes it's very interesting, from what I can tell they had no markets, the state manufactured all goods in specialized regions and kept them in state warehouses. Apparently their biggest problem was producing more than was needed and leaving work teams unemployed (but still fed) for months at a time
I meant these territories would be allied with the hypothetical society.
Hey, you're not wrong. I don't 100% agree with this model, but I think it's viable and I feel less hope for another system.

no I agree.
And isn't compulsory public education almost the same thing?

Yes. The Roman army was a Greek style army to begin with, in fact, but they soon developed their own style of warfare. Citizen-soldiers remained until Marius, however.

Who knows. Jameson isn't completely serious. In the same essay he talks about swapping the populations of Shanghai and New York or something as a way of experiencing a different type of life. Obviously impracticable in the extreme.

It's utopian but I can understand Jameson's point. The only way to declaw the most dangerous army on earth is to make it universal – effectively not an army anymore.

Fair enough, I'm probably inclined to agree with a military society over Mad Max.

Is it really conceivable that no one would work power plants without capitalism? And also if you dont show up to work, you dont get paid, isn't that inducement enough?

UBI sounds interesting but let's be weary as it can also be a trojan horse against hard-won concessions and reforms.

I remain skeptical about getting rid of the state, whether its possible or not but fair enough.

Does this include even now with the US military?

I gotta read about this, sounds fascinating.

Well again, fair enough, I guess I can't disagree with this, as I'm pretty pessimistic myself.

Purely hypothetical but what if it becomes more dangerous than ever?

I read that but ironically, while impractical, I actually agree. This isn't possible but I always thought Americans should have to spend a year abroad, most likely in a poor country.

What happened?

It is, which is why I don't understand when people freak out at the idea of conscription. I mean context matters and I can understand it in America at the present moment, but being against it in the abstract to me is ridiculous.

Personally I think if done right, everyone should have to do two or three years of concrete military duty and a few years of something else, probably after secondary school.

It's okay, Jameson put the conscientious objectors in charge of weapons procurement and pacifists in charge of the nuclear arsenal. See why it's hard to take it all seriously?

Framed like that I don't see the problem. Got caught taking Jameson too literally again.

With Marius? He was the architect of a series of military reforms that transformed the citizen army into a professional army, and thus laid the foundations for people like Sulla and Ceasar and the civil wars of the late Republic, which eventually transformed it into the Empire. I already explained the economic factor here

Fair enough. I should have read the whole thing before reacting, though he is serious to an extent, and this still seems like an unusual and unworkable idea though tbf not really "stupid" like I said earlier.

Well I mean I guess it would be as there's over 300 million americans. I don't know the logistics of this, but it'd go a long way to breaking Americans out of their cultural bubbles, at least I hope.

Thanks, so the end of the citizen army literally ended their republic

clearly you didn't watch it because the whole thread is about spoonfeeding you the contents of the books

*watch it or read it

It was only 30 or so pages , I did read it.

Jameson's point is to provoke people into thinking about this stuff, rather than simply writing it off as impossible. In that sense he's succeeded imo.

If you made it part of the curriculum then eventually you would end up with a population that had experienced the world outside.

It was a significant factor, yes. Ceasar broke a near-sacred Roman law by crossing the Rubicon with his army. If it were a citizen army, it's possible they would have refused to follow him.

Caesar.

Mission accomplished then.

Yeah but I wouldn't know how to do this, give everyone plane tickets and make them leave the country for a year or so?

Well in that case then yes I can see the dangers of a volunteer force though I dont think America is anywhere close to this stage, at least I hope

What military creates equality and fraternity?

Nah. Do it like an exchange program, only on a mass scale. If you organize so teenagers can go almost anywhere in the world you'd end up with a culturally well-informed citizenry. Still, pretty utopian until global gommunism.

A coup isn't really necessary. The military-industrial complex in concert with US intelligence agencies are what's known as the deep state. Doesn't matter who's President or who they assign to various departments and so on. They're still just a handful of people plugged into a permanent, institutional apparatus that dictates and vets every piece of information that they read and hear.

Linking this back to Jameson, if you want to destroy the deep state you do it by eliminating the bottleneck of representatives, which allows the deep state to dominate the US government agenda. You introduce a participatory element that makes "state" secrets very difficult to keep, and conspiracies hard to carry out. That's just me speculating, however.

Preferably Americans would have to spend some time in a third world country and then in a first world country that has a higher standard of living than the US, just to give a balanced perspective. But yeah I agree, pretty utopian but it's a good idea, especially to break down cultural barriers.

Fair enough, but I still think an all out military dictatorship, even if its highly unlikely. Unless the military were a bunch of radical leftists, which is even more unlikely unfortunately.

How would you do that?

Either by executive order or revolution. There's no in between.

I imagine the executive order is the easy route

Not necessarily. It might start a civil war, which might lead to a revolution or a reaction and your military dictatorship. These things are unpredictable.

Well yeah but I'm willing to take the risk if it means possibly a better future

Then why are you against military conscription on principle? You made it clear you abhor even the idea of being in it, but you're willing to possibly trigger a civil war that would likely kill thousands or millions of people. And not be prepared for it at all.

I don't see how it would help in a revolutionary situation. It'd just make the military more bloated and infringe on even more civil liberties.

Good thread bump

He doesn't know. He's a fucking idiot who thinks that people get jobs based on their ideology rather than what is practical. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that the enlisted men are almost all poor kids who wanted to get away from their civilian lives. They are afraid of becoming lumpen and want to be able to think of themselves as something better than a thug. The military promises them that.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

Wow her life must be rough.