The military is paid for by the taxpayers and belongs to no one person or entity or corporation (in theory) and formed for the good of the general populace.
And if the conservatives are fine with having a large military to keep everyone safe from enemies, then why the reluctance to have the government protect us from our other enemies like disease (via socialized healthcare) and poverty (through social programs designed to help the poor)?
It is socialist because we all benefit from the services of the military regardless of how much we pay into it individually. A rich person that pays a large portion of their tax dollars to the military does not receive more protection from the military than the homeless person that pays none. They receive equal protection.
People that claim that because it's a hierarchical system, it can't be socialist, don't seem to understand socialism. It's not about everyone being equal, but being for the greater good of society. Taxpayers fund the organization, and everyone benefits equally regardless of how much they pay in. That's what makes it socialist.
Not listed on NASDAQ, supported by our taxes. Military get same pay across the lines. Don't have much say in decisions.
Ironic how many in GOP want smaller govt but larger military & want to end funding for 'socialist programs'. These people need to look up the definition of socialism Doesn't matter if Military protects country or not. 'it is what it is'
There is not argument to be made. The structure of the U.S. Military is 100% a Socialist program. Taxes are collected from every paying citizen and providing a program to benefit all. I get a kick out of hearing dummies saying we hate socialism then on the other hand we support the troops. So which is it?
Different socialists advocate to some degree for what the US military already provides: tax dollars providing housing (owned by the state), income, healthcare, education, etc. The military is public: state run and funded. It is not privately funded and owned and contractual (capitalism). The military is a socialist institution within the US capitalist society.
Socialism, communism, capitalism, fascism are all bankrupt categories from the 19th century. What we have today are mixed economies. Just as China has both communistic and capitalistic features, so does America. We call ourselves capitalist, yet the military, libraries, police and fire, utilities are all based on a socialist model. That fact is neither alarming or threatening to folks who know about economics and social movements.
This is a Socialist System that protects a Capitalist built Corporate Welfare System. Strange bedfellows indeed! There are many Socialist Systems in the U.S. Government including the Post Office, Social Security etc.. It is the economic model for most Government Agencies- not necessarily the economic model for the National Economic Identity. This distinction must be made to limit the confusion many non-economic minded people will have with these concepts.
The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world. It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.
By any definition of socialism that I understand, if it is paid for by the taxpayer, it is a socialist institution. As is the post office. So is NASA. Further I would state that I think our aversion to the word socialist is archaic. Why are we so afraid of a word that is inherently friendly?
Many of those who are arguing against this have bought into the present Fox use of the word, "socialist" as a negative connotation on anything the word is attached to! I am proud of my service and our military! (and I hate following the Fox lead) The truth is the military is funded by you and I and our taxes, it is government run just as is the VA. As a vet I believe I earned my wages and my benefits and they are provided by "socialist" organizations. By the way, "Obamacare" is not socialist because the goods and services are provided by private healthcare providers and insurance companies and actually Medicare is the same, services are provided by private companies not government organizations like the VA.
No, it is not 'socialist'. It's a government service. Paid for by the taxpayers. It's no different than a postal worker, police, or any other government job in that regards. Housing, uniforms, medical care, etc, are all "tools of the trade" and part of their benefit/compensation package (like any other job). Joining is a contract between employee and employer. Each Armed Service is a highly structured hierarchy, based on a firmly established chain of command, which begins at the President and extends down to each Soldier, Airman, Sailor, and Marine. The military rewards hard work, perseverance, and devotion to the Nation above anything else...Regardless of the individual's race, background, or ideology. There is no "social ownership" by the members of the military. Benefits are not rewarded to service members based on being part of the military "society" but as payment for services rendered.
The military is almost the exact antithesis of socialism, real socialism, where individuals form into co - operative groups and make decisions that way. The military's strict hierarchy and ideals are statist and the Military - Industrial Complex is in in part corporatist. Saying the military is socialist is like saying that the Feudal System (kings and clergy included) was libertarian capitalist.
The U.S. military is far from a socialist institution. While the average foot solider may not have an equal vote as he might when he's voting on election day, this does not make the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps a socialist place. The chain of command cannot be misconstrued as something Karl Marx would approve of.
The military is not an economic system, so it is not socialist. The main concern of the military is to protect a country. It is not concerned with economics. In face, because the military consumes and produces products, it is more capitalist than socialist. The military helps contribute to the free market.
The military is a government is military service in which it is there duty to protect and serve the american people and it is just like having any other job you sign up to get it. It is also a constitutional right to have a military. Those are my thoughts
Those that argue that the military is socialist, do not know the definition of socialism. Socialism is the government ownership of industry, and property, not the military. Socialism is the government ownership of your house and the businesses you work. Please understand what you are advocating for. Our capitalist society collects taxes to fund programs like the military, fire fighters and k-12. Programs that have failed in the private sector. Colleges haven't failed - though they are more expensive now that they are subsidized, Healthcare didn't fail - though it is now. There are certain services - such as the military - that it is inherently beneficial for the government to control. A privately controlled army is not a good idea. The founding fathers knew this when they created the federal government with its primary purpose of protecting the United States.
These socialist principles will increase your taxes to pay for those who refuse to work, health insurance for all and college education for all. These high taxes will produce several ripples. In today's global economy, the best and the brightest will eventually move away to places where taxes are less. The rest of the population that has not figured out that you can sit back and do nothing - and get paid for it - will figure this out and end up being a drain on the economy. The fact is, the pilgrims tried socialism and died. They switched to capitalism (private land ownership) and flourished. Thanksgiving was a result of switching. Read "Of Plymouth Plantation"
To call socialism friendly is outrageous. Were Stalin and Mussolini friendly? How about the Castro brothers?
To use the term "socialism" to describe all services that the government provides is dangerous. The issue is when you do not understand what socialism is, you are more inclined to vote for it. This will allow real socialists in power who will bring in real socialist principles. It is irresponsible to vote with out a proper understanding of the candidates' principles.
If you so not do your research, you vote a real socialist into the White House and we end up with real socialist policies (no private property, no private companies, human management of the economy, not the free market) Do you really think that the government managing every aspect of your lives is a good thing? Do you honestly think this will not lead to corruption? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The military is not socialist, it is a government service that pays its employees for work (unlike the ACA, free college, Cuban housing, USSR managing the economy, etc) Please identify a successful socialist country. If you say China, you have not done your research. Where is Canada compared to the U.S.? France is circling the drain as well. Greece is going down the drain. Please understand what you are advocating for. You cannot accept socialism.
Those that argue that the military is socialist, do not know the definition of socialism. Socialism is the government ownership of industry, not the military. To use the term to describe all services that the government provides is dangerous. There are certain services - such as the military - that it is inherently beneficial for the government to control. The founding fathers knew this when they created the federal government with its primary purpose of protecting the United States. Some I know argue that the military should be contracted groups if mercenaries. They say that this would support capitalism and a free market but this is not the case. An army with private groups of mercenaries would compete - as companies do - with each other. There would be little reason for them to cooperate. As such, there would be little control of the battlefield as small groups of mercenaries fought a war - and is that what you really want? Private companies with armies? Of course not. These companies would share no command and control and would act independently. The lack of coordination would lead to greater casualties which would demand higher pay to compensate for the risk. Mercenaries would also require private health and life insurance. Currently, the government insures its own troops. This prevents the need to pay insurance premiums. Private companies would be paying these premiums on every soldier which would greatly increase the cost as the government only pays when some one dies or is injured. Never mind the fact that companies would build PROFIT into every contract, just as any company does. Profit is for unexpected expenses from law suits - yes there would be a lot of those, and U.S. soldiers, sailors and airmen cannot sue the federal government - R&D, years without a war, etc. The cost to maintain the private army would otherwise be similar to a federal Army as the level of health and readiness required to fight would be similar. There would be issues with loyalty and company on company attacks on the battlefield. That's right, when billions of dollars are on the line, these companies will fight each other for the contracts. Only the strongest will survive, eventually leading to one company. Who wants to be apart of a mercenary army that is weaker than the other? No one. What do you think these companies will do when there is no war? Either make one or hire out to other countries, then when happens when we need them and they are hired out to other countries? The fact is, the federal government saves the American people money and lives, while allowing us to defend ourselves effectively.
When you do not understand what socialism is, you are more inclined to vote for it. This will allow real socialists in power who will bring in real socialist principles. It is irresponsible to vote with out a proper understanding of the candidates' principles.
Most governments in history have had tax-funded military institutions even fascist ones, even totalitarian socialist ones, even far right wing ones. Does this mean that militaries are socialist institution? Not necessarily. I think militaries are essential for governments to function. All states need a military to protect their sovereignties, people, and leaders. Do governments provide socialist benefits to soldiers and veterans? Yes. But a military cannot be socialist because militaries can also be used to oppress and tyrannise the very people they're sworn to protect. Militaries are also used to tyrannise other countries and implement imperialist agendas which kill, hurt, and maim other human beings. It is an authoritarian institution used to keep people protected and oppressed. Therefore, it cannot be 'socialist'.
Upon agreeing to form a union of Republic States, it was decided that national security would reside at the federal level paid for by the taxes collect through commerce. No Federal Income Tax was established at that time. Article 1 Sect. 8 specifically. States can back out of this union at anytime.
Socialism is An economic and political system. The military is neither. Every country and every form of political system has a military. It is the price of doing business. It is one of the few powers explicitly expressed in the Constitution.
Why don't we try reading the Preamble to the Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.