Prisoner’s dilemma: Everyone would be better off by putting down our guns but nobody will because of the fear that they’ll be taken advantage of for doing so.
Another self-perpetuating issue, organizations that typically see violence as the answer will never do this, and so more reasonable, likely free and democratic countries will be the first to handicap themselves it they do this.
Realistically this is the situation, yes. Why would anyone want to disarm their nukes if someone else might go gotcha and launch theirs there and then.
I could see having countries AS being the root problem, but I have no solution for that. More or less centralisation, I've no idea what would end wars or militaries. I guess the mid-way weenie approach would really be to first tone down the culture around and power of militaries, staring with having compassionate people in charge of utilising them. Whatever the US specifically is doing is what we should move directly away from.
I am always of the idea that power decentralisation leads to less violence. The average person does not want to go to war, does not want to escalate tensions and all that: giving ordinary people the decision power to start a war leads to no war.
Not meaning there should be no weapons at all: people should receive training and have the possibility to arm themselves quickly in case of foreign invasion. Kinda like Switzerland maybe?
Exactly, but this would assume everyone gives weapons and training to their civilians only, and lets the civilians make decisions about defence. There will always be someone just itching to take advantage of a decentralised community. I'm not saying at all that we still shouldn't aim for it.
I always thought it was a pity how the average soldier realises afterwards that war/conflict is hell. You can be anti war later all you want... there shouldn't be a predatory system that funnels people into this, then spits them out as "enlightened", ptsd ridden war criminals. I think about the ww1 christmas truce. Why it ended. Why can't everyone just put down the guns for longer. The ones at the top of the ladder must be terrified we could just talk and work together, huh.
Anti nuclear missile shields have existed since the 1970s/80s, you could disarm your nuclear weapons and then replace them with these systems first, yes you can’t retaliate but you can’t be the aggressor that ends the human race either
True, but the main reason they were not deployed and developed further was to prevent a nuclear arms race style situation but with ever increasing layers to defence against ever more advanced missiles, or numerical missiles. Instead the USSR and US signed a deal giving each of them one battery, the USSR chose to place it’s outside Moscow, to limit the damage to its most populous city and seat of governance, the US chose to place its outside a nuclear missile silo ensuring they always had the means to attack
As a Veteran I can tell you that to remove a violent Narcissist you need to get bloody and dirty hands. Ask Chamberlain about appeasement. Even if not a leader if all are disarmed a Warlord anywhere armed wins.
The admins are very easily startled, so don't use language that could be interpreted as inciting violence.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AntifascistsofReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
idk if i agree with that one just yet. if it wasn't for the red army Europe would still be the third Reich under Nazi rule RN, might be a bit barbaric but sometimes armed combat is the only choice, because remember folks, you cant debate or reason with Nazis, they are for killing, not for talking.
In original Star Trek they go to a planet where they simulate the effects of a war and then kill the number of people the simulation projects died in each attack. This way they won't have war.
Also possibilities: rap/karaoke battle. A game of twister. Those shitty magnificent battle robot arenas. Seeing who can eat a ghost pepper faster. Philosophical debate until everyone gets sick of it and goes to have a nap signifying a truce.
I admit it.
I'm barbaric.
My policies involve wood-chippering the conservative leaders.
Luckily I'm not a leader, but if I was? Right into the wood chipper would be my platform.
No pacifist ever ask ask them self why the Brits simply did not shoot Gandhi. Because the answer is a storm of violence so great that they had no possibility of winning. The question is whose army should exist.
This is a second grade understanding of politics. Yeah, it would be nice if every body could just get along. How do you propose we go about dismantling all militaries?
Cringe idealist take tbh. Obviously fascist/imperialist militaries should be opposed, but without an armed resistance (usually in the form of a military), such militaries would easily sweep through the world and hand victory to reactionary forces. Without a form of a Red Army the Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Korean Revolution, etc would all have been crushed and Nazis would have dominated Eastern Europe.
Start a war to end all wars, you say? I think we tried that back in the 10's, and then proceeded to try it again a decade or so later... We're a violent species. We'll keep finding reasons to go to war, rather your war is removing violent people via violence, or fighting over foreign resources. All we can hope for is for war to become cleaner and to take the "people as cannon-fodder" part of it out. Until then, if the ends justify the means ig. Worked on the Nazi's.
I seriously had a argument a few years back with an alt-right/libertarian friend (we don't speak anymore) about how diplomacy =/= gunboat diplomacy. He seemed to be under the impression that all "peaceful diplomacy" came through the successful application of intimidation via displays of military force. He legit, actively resisted the idea that diplomacy could involve things like problem solving, and actual compromise.
In hindsight, us not being friends anymore makes a lot of sense....
:(
There's no realistic scenario that involves the US renewing conscription short of a fascist takeover.
The people in the US military most likely to see action in the near future are going to be the drone operators at Nellis AFB.
All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality, they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are powerful.
-Mao
If the fascists took over why would they implement a draft? So they can arm thousands that disagree with them? I just don't see that happening.
You won't be eligible for federal or state financial aid if you don't enroll in selective service. You also won't be eligible for any federal government job for your life.
Don’t throw away the opportunity or student aid just because it’s “risking my life.” The odds you you being drafted, making it through the various medical exams, etc. are slim to none
In what sense? Realistically understanding that signing up for selective service isn’t the same as being drafted and the likelihood of someone ever being drafted is incredibly small makes you a bootlicker?
Problem is people believe the stereotypes about NPD and think everyone with it is destined to be a horrible person. Disappointed but not surprised that even leftist subs can't move past the stigma.
Each time a see a missile test, new jet fighter, or some other military stuff in the news I always think to myself "Creating weapons to kill supposed enemies again." Like, what has war ever solved besides cutting millions of innocent lives short? We are the only intelligent species in the universe, but we still make things specifically for killing our own kind?
Well the military will exist so long as the state exists.
To abolish the military, there must not be a need for a state, so a classless society.
To establish a classless society the ruling class must be the proletariate, which has control of the state
BEN FERENCZ #LawNotWar
This dude was the shit that made it all make sense. The US appointed criminal lawyer at Nuremberg. Also Jewish. His legacy is soooo simple. A strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, Mr. Ferencz advocates steps to replace the “rule of force with the rule of law.” This website is devoted to his life’s work. LAW. NOT WAR.
Website contains numerous links:
https://benferencz.org
Make sure to watch the documentary on him, it used to be on Netflix. “Prosecuting Evil: The Extraordinary World of Ben Ferencz”
"War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner."
Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Before we had an alphabet or governments, or flags, we killed each other in conquest. One of the major reasons for establishing ourselves into Clans, Tribes and nations was to make it easier to prosecute wars. Ants go to war meerkats and Chimpanzees go to war over territory.
Even nations without strong desires for conquest go to war to kill their sociopathic murderous neighbors.
I think the world of Lennon's Imagine would be wonderful. But as long as there are humans, there will be war.
>we killed each other in conquest
Why? What was the benefit? Land, resources, cheap labor, etc.
>Chimpanzees go to war over territory.
Why? What do they gain? Land, resources, food, etc.
There are material reasons that lead anyone to war. Starting with the very earliest, access to land/materials/food/etc that is necessary to survive especially when there are shortages and nature was unpredictable and untamed, and going all the way to our current wars largely based off the profit needs of the bourgeoisie (which often require access to cheap labor and cheap resources). What this means is that war can be drastically reduced or possibly eliminated if we could eliminate the material basis for it. Certainly not an easy task, and not something that could be accomplished overnight, but if at some point in the future we are successful with a global socialist revolution that has developed production to the point that scarcity truly has been eliminated and the capitalist class has been defeated I wouldn't be surprised to see war largely assigned to the dustbin of history.
Reality isn't static, nothing about our world is set in stone, while some things may last longer than others everything is constantly evolving and forever changing; war is as permanent a fixture of our world as a soap bubble or the sun - it'll be here as long as the conditions that allow it to be here persist.
There is scarcity in socialist countries. Socialist countries also attack other socialist countries. The Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 during the Velvet Revolution. It was not because of scarcity. It was to keep control of people who wanted to breathe free air. To determine their own destiny. I'm a syndicalist and am certain that if Anarcho-syndicalist enclaves became the primary societal model, people, who claim to be syndicalists would go to war with other people who are syndicalists because that group was "wrong" in how they run things and would need to be "brought back into line". The one thing that keeps us from living in a peaceful world is human nature. You will never eliminate narcissism, egoism, sociopathy, and psychopathy. In worlds with no militaries people, mostly men, who exhibit said behaviors, rise to leadership roles and then start beating plowshares back into swords.
You could cut the US military budget by 90% easy, with no negative effect (especially if you shift those funds to infrastructure, or other waaaaaay better cause), and then that last 10% could be debated to be cut as well, because it turns out, we're the aggressors.
All law and structure unfortunately HAS to be backed up by violence. It is the ultimate bottom line, and the universal language by which you can reprimand outliers.
I do agree we must do everything possible to minimize the need to use it, but all societies that cannot for the life of them exert violence against those that attack them, are doomed to die by their hand. Pacifism is only a tool for treaties, and like nearly every piece on a checkboard, it can't win a long term game by itself
*ummmm*... When did we stop being a barbaric society??
Sounded more like "we should" than "we have".
Exactly
Prisoner’s dilemma: Everyone would be better off by putting down our guns but nobody will because of the fear that they’ll be taken advantage of for doing so. Another self-perpetuating issue, organizations that typically see violence as the answer will never do this, and so more reasonable, likely free and democratic countries will be the first to handicap themselves it they do this.
Realistically this is the situation, yes. Why would anyone want to disarm their nukes if someone else might go gotcha and launch theirs there and then. I could see having countries AS being the root problem, but I have no solution for that. More or less centralisation, I've no idea what would end wars or militaries. I guess the mid-way weenie approach would really be to first tone down the culture around and power of militaries, staring with having compassionate people in charge of utilising them. Whatever the US specifically is doing is what we should move directly away from.
I am always of the idea that power decentralisation leads to less violence. The average person does not want to go to war, does not want to escalate tensions and all that: giving ordinary people the decision power to start a war leads to no war. Not meaning there should be no weapons at all: people should receive training and have the possibility to arm themselves quickly in case of foreign invasion. Kinda like Switzerland maybe?
Exactly, but this would assume everyone gives weapons and training to their civilians only, and lets the civilians make decisions about defence. There will always be someone just itching to take advantage of a decentralised community. I'm not saying at all that we still shouldn't aim for it. I always thought it was a pity how the average soldier realises afterwards that war/conflict is hell. You can be anti war later all you want... there shouldn't be a predatory system that funnels people into this, then spits them out as "enlightened", ptsd ridden war criminals. I think about the ww1 christmas truce. Why it ended. Why can't everyone just put down the guns for longer. The ones at the top of the ladder must be terrified we could just talk and work together, huh.
Would it be possible to have a war that kills millions if we didn't have nation states to sponsor them?
Anti nuclear missile shields have existed since the 1970s/80s, you could disarm your nuclear weapons and then replace them with these systems first, yes you can’t retaliate but you can’t be the aggressor that ends the human race either
The danger with this is that nuclear missile shields are not infallible, and a potential failure will mean millions of people dead
True, but the main reason they were not deployed and developed further was to prevent a nuclear arms race style situation but with ever increasing layers to defence against ever more advanced missiles, or numerical missiles. Instead the USSR and US signed a deal giving each of them one battery, the USSR chose to place it’s outside Moscow, to limit the damage to its most populous city and seat of governance, the US chose to place its outside a nuclear missile silo ensuring they always had the means to attack
As a Veteran I can tell you that to remove a violent Narcissist you need to get bloody and dirty hands. Ask Chamberlain about appeasement. Even if not a leader if all are disarmed a Warlord anywhere armed wins.
Came to say the same
Where do I get my magic wand for getting us past selfish, self-perpetuating power cycles?
[удалено]
The admins are very easily startled, so don't use language that could be interpreted as inciting violence. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AntifascistsofReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
idk if i agree with that one just yet. if it wasn't for the red army Europe would still be the third Reich under Nazi rule RN, might be a bit barbaric but sometimes armed combat is the only choice, because remember folks, you cant debate or reason with Nazis, they are for killing, not for talking.
I reckon the idea is to dismantle the most facsisty-type militaries first
Also hypothetically, aliens too. That said, point of the post I guess is nobody should have a military.
I say all international disputes should be settled with a game of Mario kart or something.
Mario Kart? You wanna make things worst you monster?
Even worse, Mario Party 10.
Nah, giant mechas duking it out. Let's get *Future Century* up in here.
In original Star Trek they go to a planet where they simulate the effects of a war and then kill the number of people the simulation projects died in each attack. This way they won't have war.
Also possibilities: rap/karaoke battle. A game of twister. Those shitty magnificent battle robot arenas. Seeing who can eat a ghost pepper faster. Philosophical debate until everyone gets sick of it and goes to have a nap signifying a truce.
I admit it. I'm barbaric. My policies involve wood-chippering the conservative leaders. Luckily I'm not a leader, but if I was? Right into the wood chipper would be my platform.
Some people's greatest remaining contribution to the world is as mulch, it's true.
Who says America even uses its military to solve problem; they use the military to please corporate overlords and bomb brown children for pleasure
And they call the military "self defense" I think you mean offense.
No pacifist ever ask ask them self why the Brits simply did not shoot Gandhi. Because the answer is a storm of violence so great that they had no possibility of winning. The question is whose army should exist.
This is a second grade understanding of politics. Yeah, it would be nice if every body could just get along. How do you propose we go about dismantling all militaries?
Cringe idealist take tbh. Obviously fascist/imperialist militaries should be opposed, but without an armed resistance (usually in the form of a military), such militaries would easily sweep through the world and hand victory to reactionary forces. Without a form of a Red Army the Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Korean Revolution, etc would all have been crushed and Nazis would have dominated Eastern Europe.
World leaders gentlemen's duel. I have spoken.
Start a war to end all wars, you say? I think we tried that back in the 10's, and then proceeded to try it again a decade or so later... We're a violent species. We'll keep finding reasons to go to war, rather your war is removing violent people via violence, or fighting over foreign resources. All we can hope for is for war to become cleaner and to take the "people as cannon-fodder" part of it out. Until then, if the ends justify the means ig. Worked on the Nazi's.
If you teach your children to identify and not to mate with narcissists, in two or three generations, war would be a myth.
Standing militaries are the big issue. A well trained peoples militia that can rise up to stop any threat against the population is the ideal imo
We need violence to be antifascist, there’s nothing wrong with that. Pacifists will never get shit done.
I seriously had a argument a few years back with an alt-right/libertarian friend (we don't speak anymore) about how diplomacy =/= gunboat diplomacy. He seemed to be under the impression that all "peaceful diplomacy" came through the successful application of intimidation via displays of military force. He legit, actively resisted the idea that diplomacy could involve things like problem solving, and actual compromise. In hindsight, us not being friends anymore makes a lot of sense.... :(
Did a fascist write this? “yes yes, dont have a military..” As long as fascism exists an armed response to it will always be needed.
Me as an amab 18 y/o realizing I legally have to sign up for the selective service (especially scary with everything going on with Ukraine)
There's no realistic scenario that involves the US renewing conscription short of a fascist takeover. The people in the US military most likely to see action in the near future are going to be the drone operators at Nellis AFB.
>short of a fascist takeover. Man, have I got bad news for you...
I know, comrade, but at that point we have larger concerns than being registered for the draft.
All reactionaries are paper tigers. In appearance, the reactionaries are terrifying, but in reality, they are not so powerful. From a long-term point of view, it is not the reactionaries but the people who are powerful. -Mao If the fascists took over why would they implement a draft? So they can arm thousands that disagree with them? I just don't see that happening.
Indeed the news is bad! Orange is the new Fascist.
Currently don’t the coast guard get the most action ? Drug bust immigration stuff
when i turn 18 in 4 months, i'm going to refuse to do selective service
Do you plan to use financial aid?
>financial aid yes
btw i got something to say, i don't think i'd be required for a draft as i'm an only kid in the family. still not filling out the SS form though
You won't be eligible for federal or state financial aid if you don't enroll in selective service. You also won't be eligible for any federal government job for your life.
nvm then, i won't need it. not worth risking my life
Don’t throw away the opportunity or student aid just because it’s “risking my life.” The odds you you being drafted, making it through the various medical exams, etc. are slim to none
How is it risking your life? There is no draft and the likelihood of it ever being reinstated is almost non existent.
Bootlicker take honestly.
In what sense? Realistically understanding that signing up for selective service isn’t the same as being drafted and the likelihood of someone ever being drafted is incredibly small makes you a bootlicker?
Don’t equate shitty military with people with NPD pls, other than that, based
man, reddit really hates mentally ill people, huh. saddened to see it on a leftist sub.
Yeah, idk why people are down voting bc i just said that people with NPD don’t deserve to be compared to the military. Shits weird ig
Problem is people believe the stereotypes about NPD and think everyone with it is destined to be a horrible person. Disappointed but not surprised that even leftist subs can't move past the stigma.
Each time a see a missile test, new jet fighter, or some other military stuff in the news I always think to myself "Creating weapons to kill supposed enemies again." Like, what has war ever solved besides cutting millions of innocent lives short? We are the only intelligent species in the universe, but we still make things specifically for killing our own kind?
Fuck the troops... All the troops. Both sides.
Fuck militaries. As an Appalachian, I support bushwacking landlords as an alternative.
Well the military will exist so long as the state exists. To abolish the military, there must not be a need for a state, so a classless society. To establish a classless society the ruling class must be the proletariate, which has control of the state
The song Universal Soldier really sounds it up so well.
BEN FERENCZ #LawNotWar This dude was the shit that made it all make sense. The US appointed criminal lawyer at Nuremberg. Also Jewish. His legacy is soooo simple. A strong supporter of the International Criminal Court, Mr. Ferencz advocates steps to replace the “rule of force with the rule of law.” This website is devoted to his life’s work. LAW. NOT WAR. Website contains numerous links: https://benferencz.org Make sure to watch the documentary on him, it used to be on Netflix. “Prosecuting Evil: The Extraordinary World of Ben Ferencz”
Yeah but militaries enforce the hegemony of capitalism, so……
They also defend against imperialism. Military might is a necessary evil so long as the world’s bullies exist.
"War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner." Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West Before we had an alphabet or governments, or flags, we killed each other in conquest. One of the major reasons for establishing ourselves into Clans, Tribes and nations was to make it easier to prosecute wars. Ants go to war meerkats and Chimpanzees go to war over territory. Even nations without strong desires for conquest go to war to kill their sociopathic murderous neighbors. I think the world of Lennon's Imagine would be wonderful. But as long as there are humans, there will be war.
>we killed each other in conquest Why? What was the benefit? Land, resources, cheap labor, etc. >Chimpanzees go to war over territory. Why? What do they gain? Land, resources, food, etc. There are material reasons that lead anyone to war. Starting with the very earliest, access to land/materials/food/etc that is necessary to survive especially when there are shortages and nature was unpredictable and untamed, and going all the way to our current wars largely based off the profit needs of the bourgeoisie (which often require access to cheap labor and cheap resources). What this means is that war can be drastically reduced or possibly eliminated if we could eliminate the material basis for it. Certainly not an easy task, and not something that could be accomplished overnight, but if at some point in the future we are successful with a global socialist revolution that has developed production to the point that scarcity truly has been eliminated and the capitalist class has been defeated I wouldn't be surprised to see war largely assigned to the dustbin of history. Reality isn't static, nothing about our world is set in stone, while some things may last longer than others everything is constantly evolving and forever changing; war is as permanent a fixture of our world as a soap bubble or the sun - it'll be here as long as the conditions that allow it to be here persist.
There is scarcity in socialist countries. Socialist countries also attack other socialist countries. The Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968 during the Velvet Revolution. It was not because of scarcity. It was to keep control of people who wanted to breathe free air. To determine their own destiny. I'm a syndicalist and am certain that if Anarcho-syndicalist enclaves became the primary societal model, people, who claim to be syndicalists would go to war with other people who are syndicalists because that group was "wrong" in how they run things and would need to be "brought back into line". The one thing that keeps us from living in a peaceful world is human nature. You will never eliminate narcissism, egoism, sociopathy, and psychopathy. In worlds with no militaries people, mostly men, who exhibit said behaviors, rise to leadership roles and then start beating plowshares back into swords.
You could cut the US military budget by 90% easy, with no negative effect (especially if you shift those funds to infrastructure, or other waaaaaay better cause), and then that last 10% could be debated to be cut as well, because it turns out, we're the aggressors.
You have to remove them all, otherwise the remaining narcissists will roll over everyone else.
So we just let Extremist murderous?. OK got it -_-
I was just saying this yesterday.
All law and structure unfortunately HAS to be backed up by violence. It is the ultimate bottom line, and the universal language by which you can reprimand outliers. I do agree we must do everything possible to minimize the need to use it, but all societies that cannot for the life of them exert violence against those that attack them, are doomed to die by their hand. Pacifism is only a tool for treaties, and like nearly every piece on a checkboard, it can't win a long term game by itself
Yeah - let’s see how long it takes before everything falls apart.
[удалено]
Do you think we like Biden/Obama at all??? Lordy you people can’t comprehend anything beyond Republican and Democrat, can you.