The Military and Socialism
It hit me this morning what a socialist enterprise the military is. The government decides — usually without the consent of the taxpayer — what munitions will be manufactured, where troops will be sent, and what operations will be carried out on his/her dollar. Not only that, but our troops receive all kinds of benefits we would deem “socialist” if they were provided to the population at large: medical care, housing, childcare, education assistance, pensions etc. Now, you may be quick to point out that maintaining a military is vital to securing the freedom and prosperity of our nation, and that we should be obliged to take care of our troops — I am inclined to agree — but that doesn’t negate the fact that the military is by definition a socialistic institution.
America actually tolerates a great deal of such institutions: the post office, public schools, unemployment benefits, social security, medicare, emergency services and so on. However, no one but the most hard-line libertarian would suggest we do away with these programs. In this regard, we are all what I’d like to call “convenience socialists.” We are to socialism what Ted Haggard is to gay.
That said, I’d like to point out that we socialists differ from the mainstream only in where we draw the line. Most people see no ideological conundrum in publically funded defense against threats to our freedom. We socialists count the downhill slide to plutocracy among those threats.
Tags: Libertarianism, Public Funding, Socialism, The Military
March 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Solid.
March 26th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Truth.
March 27th, 2009 at 11:54 am
There’s a capitalist interpretation of institutions like the military and public schooling too, and I’m not sure it’s a case of capitalists acting like socialists or what. But here it is to the best of my knowledge. Capitalists call things like the military ‘public goods’, i.e. commodities that once created can be consumed freely by everyone (non-rival and non-excludable are the technical terms). The standard example is a lighthouse: once it’s built, it helps anyone sailing around it, and there is no problem with sharing the lighthouse. Once the military is around everyone benefits from the security, and once public schools are built (the way the are now anyways) anyone can enroll. The market based way of providing public goods would be for everyone to decide how much the public good is worth to him, and then to pay that much for providing it. But that obviously creates free rider problems: since the institution, once created, is something you don’t have to pay for, you may as well lie about how much you want it because your individual contribution won’t make much of a difference to its quality. Then, you can pay less but get more or less the same thing. So a capitalist would say that in this kind of case the government has to intervene, decide how important the public good is, and tax accordingly.
In the end, I don’t think this understanding of public goods involves giving up on the main principles of capitalism, but just involves realizing some of their shortcomings. It uses a completely market based understanding of things, but just concedes that the government has to fix the market sometimes.
I don’t know enough about different kinds of socialism to know whether or not this is being a socialist out of convenience, but it doesn’t really sound like it to me. I take the main tenant of socialism to be that people can work together since they aren’t just motivated by narrow self interest. Since this tenant isn’t adopted in the understanding of public goods outlined above, I don’t think it starts looking like socialism. But if there is a version of socialism that accepts people as narrowly self-interested, then this does start sounding like socialism, given the role it attributes to the government making commands about how much of some good is produced.
I probably explained public goods poorly so here’s a link if you’re interested: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicGoods.html
March 28th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Really interesting point.
Like you said, there comes a point where the government has to step in and say, “we are going to tax people in order to provide this service.” This ’stepping in’ is what most people (erroneously) define as socialism, and is what economic conservatives spend so much time railing against. However, in the case of the military and the like, we have collectively decided we need services that are poorly internalized by the capitalistic system, so we have made the requisite calibrations to the economic machine to guarantee they exist. This is partly what I was trying to educe. The familiar Randian critique of universal health care and free post-secondary education could just as easily be leveled at the military, but it doesn’t mean it should be. If we are making concessions in some cases, we should at least be open to discussion of making concessions in others.
March 28th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Yeah you’re right a lot of people do define any government interference into the economy as socialism, which is such a bad theory of what socialism is. But still not the worst: one person once told me “the Nazis were socialists because they were called the national socialist party, so that’s what socialism is, what the Nazis did.” In my experience, you really can’t expect any charity from people once you start talking about socialism.
To me it just seems so absurd to think that a capitalist system would require no government interference to best serve people. It almost seems like a belief in magic or something; the phrase “faith in the free market” is pretty appropriate I guess…
March 30th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Yes Virginia, the military is socialist! I served for many a year and I saw first hand how wonderful socialism can be when done correctly! I loved every moment of it.
March 30th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Then there’s the old canard of “I don’t have children, so why should I have to pay property [or whatever] taxes to support public education.” Or, “I don’t drive, so why should my taxes be used to pay for public roads”?
All governments are by definition socialistic. They supposedly provide things that benefit the public at large, whether or not a specific individual utilizes those services. And no, I don’t think bailing out for-profit corporations, like banks or insurance companies, is a “public good.”
However, an educated populace benefits all of its citizens as each individual’s positive contribution improves the quality of life for everyone else in the system. And excellent transportation systems bring beneficial goods to the marketplace for all who wish to participate.
Do we benefit from a strong military? Only so long as that military has a mandate to protect and defend from outside agressors. If that military is co-opted to engage in adventures of agression which only benefit a military-industrial conglomerate of corporate shareholders, then we the citizens are paying to enrich the pockets of those shareholders.
I think your list of benefits to soldier citizens overstates the value given to those who “serve” in the military. It’s my understanding that those who by their lack of economic alternatives are compelled to serve in the U.S. military are not rewarded in any way comensurate with the value we would give someone defending our lives and liberty but are compensated at what would be a servant’s wage.
In truth, our natural, normal, “socialist” way of living has been perverted into corporate fascism with a smiley face of “democracy” plastered on its crumbling facade. President Barack Obama is our newly chosen “smiley face.” Sigh.
If your generation (20 something) will grab your balls and say, “What the fuck, I’m not going to let these bastards steal my life,” I’m pretty sure my generation (50 something) will stand behind you and bandage your bloody wounds. Remember, we tried (Summer of Love, Civil Rights protests, Vietnam War protests) and failed; the corporations have stolen our lives. And we know it. Now it’s your turn. And your parents and grandparents will probably support you because they now know what it’s like to be fucked over by The System.
Good Luck. Man the barricades. Stop blogging and start protesting.
Allons, enfants de la patrie!
March 31st, 2009 at 8:47 am
Incidentally, I heard that in Pennsylvania, childless citizens successfully convinced the government to exempt them from taxes allocated to fund school buses.
The ‘common good’ rationalization is a little dubious for me. I mean, hey, I dig the military in principle, as well as social security, and the like, but the line of reasoning can be too easily extended to things like bailouts, and space-based missile defense systems.
March 31st, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I hear you but I think you’ve got your tongue in your cheek. It’s pretty undisputed that there are areas of genuine “common good” in a community. Fire departments and even fire hydrants come quickly to mind. It would be silly for every homeowner to have to install their own fire hydrant in front of their house or pay for a private fire department. Or build their own road to get to town. Public health also comes to mind; it’d be a bitch to have to haul your own potable water from Hetch Hetchy. The point of having a community is the sharing and support among members. Otherwise we’re just a bunch of little Ted Kaczynskis.
Works pretty well in small communities because the “common goods” are fairly obvious. Problems start popping up when the community grows too large and/or diverse and the common good is co-opted by strong members with big egos and selfish desires. Or just a different point of view. With larger communities you are forced to participate in nasty things like taxes and insurance to maintain the “common good.”
Sure there are people who think things like bailouts and space-based missile defense systems are “common goods.” And they seem to be in charge. It’s just like in families — did you ever notice that in families the craziest one rules? Everyone else is trying to keep the craziest one from flipping out again. Why the hell we keep electing them to run the country, though, is beyond me.
Okay, I’m going back to my island now.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Yes this all seems to make sense on the surface. Like electing a man president because we don’t know anything about him. Then when you think about it a little, the truth becomes clear. The part you are all missing is this, the military is great but at some point you get out because you are either unable or unwilling to uphold your part of the bargain. We have a military because of capitalism not despite it. Anyone can join the military even a citizen of another country, so why don’t they? Yes, the military is government run, but socialist? If you can’t keep up your end of the contract, you are out. How does any of this equate to a socialist government?
November 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Socialism: n. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
The military is an industry, and the government owns it. I don’t see how it could be any simpler.
The word ’socialism’ means something very specific; it isn’t just a stand in for ‘any-ole kind of government that I don’t like,’ or ‘any government that makes me do things I don’t want to.’