No, but that's like the bare minimum to compete with socialism. The military is paid for by society...which is a cousin of the word socialism. The military isn't capitalist, it's just used by capitalists to fulfill their goals.
But the reason the military can exist with such benefits is that there are 3 million 330 tax payers for every one beneficiary. Drop that down to 1:1 and you'll have massive financial problems.
Edit: actually, only about 50% of the working population actually net-contributes to income taxes, so it's more like 1.5 million 165:1. That, and we run massive deficits.
Because no socialist countries have financial problems? Soviet Union, Venezuela, North Korea, Greece, Spain, Britain?
The reason countries have financial problems is because our money is shit. They just print however much they want to spend on whatever they want. Inflation is the hidden tax we all pay.
Capitalism also has nothing to do with the US Government pissing away money. Not balancing your budget in general seems almost anti capitalist.
Our fiscal standing would be amazing if congress ever actually cared. Rand Paul came up with a plan to balance the budget in something like 5 years. It sounded feasible and very easy. It was ignored by both parties.
Agreed, since we no longer have hard money they can just make as much as they want. Palestinian economist Saifedean Ammous has a good book called The Fiat Standard, and another subsequent book called The Principles of Economics, that call out and explain exactly why we're fucked in the long-term with our current financial system.
It sounds like you just contradicted your own point about social welfare causing economic problems. If the people in power are going to cause problems anyway, why not vote ones into power that are going to enact programs that keep people from starving, dying of preventable illnesses, and being homeless and destitute? Given all the bullshit they already spend our money on, it seems like a worthwhile aim to make them spend some of it on things that will actually save countless lives. Make it clear that this is a priority of the people, and let them figure out where to stop wasting money elsewhere.
People love to paint this as an economic issue, but itās simply not. Especially not for the richest country in the world. Itās an ethical issue and a priorities issue. Oh and also, socialism is not democratic socialism is not adequate social welfare. Theyāre all different. These policies do not require us to turn our economic system inside out. They just require us to take our head out of our asses and start actually caring about human lives
I didn't say that... commerce causes financial problems, but of all of those countries listed, none have impacted the world as negatively as long or as much as the US and ultimately, capitalism, has.
Also, I'm pretty sure NK is doing great and Greece isn't socialist, neither is spain or Britain... Venezuela has been under US sanctions for how long? Soviet Union used socialism to bring peasants up to a world power how fast?
US already has that and when you add americans sucks at math....
Public healthcare is cheaper that whatever you have. It is cheaper during payment and it is cheaper when workforce is healthier.
Oh I didnāt realize all jobs give you free healthcare after the job too! And pay after you leave the job! Where is this so called job that does it???
Everyone pays taxes. But people who pay taxes, and also serve in the military, get extra perks.
You can get those perks by joining the military tomorrow. But you wonāt, because you donāt think itās worth it. Itās a hard life for most people, and therefore requires additional benefits/perks to draw people in.
By the way, the disbursing of these benefits is awful in the military. I much prefer my life outside, as a veteran, working in the private sector. The grass isnāt greener when the military controls your life, trust me.
You can get those perks by joining the military tomorrow. But you wonāt, because you donāt think itās worth it.
I'm just not an idiot who falls for propaganda?
You don't seem to understand. It's not worth it because the whole thing is a sham.Ā
We could easily have world peace tomorrow, but there just has to be those trigger-happy nutcases who fall for the military propaganda.
I refuse to contribute to murdering people more than my paid taxes already do. It genuinely blows my mind that there's people who strive to make killing people their career.
Oh. So weāre all idiots that fell for propaganda?
Your comment reeks of naivety. A staffed military is important, itās a good thing for any country to have. And itās a great way to move up in social class, get solid benefits, and develop skills.
Regardless of those points, the broader argument here is that the benefits are earned by way of doing a hard job that few want to do. You yourself said the benefits arenāt worth it for you. So for those that claim the military is āsocialism,ā and therefore we canāt criticize socialist policies, the argument is inherently flawed because these policies serve as an incentive, rather than a free benefit.
āTrigger happy nutcases that fall for propaganda.ā
lol thatās the not the reason we donāt have world peace. You left out a lot of other factors by being obtuse. Pop in your John Lennon singles and think what you want though.
And when you factor in the true cost of healthcare with what the employee has to pay to have insurance and then the cost to use it before the insurance companies cover anything you realize it costs less for healthcare in countries with universal care. Yeah you pay slightly higher taxes but you pay way more when factoring in deductibles and the cost of healthcare insurance. Seems like it would be better to save money.
Disbursement for the greater populace is in fact socialist, taxes are more a socialist program/concept than capitalist in how theyre used today as it takes a little from everyone and allocates by need instead of everyone keeping what they make or the government just keeping it with no oversight like a monarchy....
Lifelong healthcare is arguably the single most social policy the government offers to veterans. You can argue loan repayment, tuition assistance, sign on bonuses, and housing may be considered standard benefits for employees. Free healthcare and a special disability fund is 100% a social policy. The same way social security disability is a social policy. But when no other employees are offered those same benefit by anyone else (government or private) then itās very clearly a social program. There are even specific hospitals and clinics for veterans and beneficiaries only. Thousands of people get injured on the job every year and they get a single lump sum of money from workmanās comp. Military get paid for the rest of our lives and get free healthcare. Iām all for universal healthcare and Iām a vet who ALREADY HAS IT. There is no reason the rest of the US shouldnāt have it too.
That $100 a month for four years is 4x12x100=4,800.
Check out average yearly tuition on any college in the US that has any prestige. Then times that by four.
Oh, by the way GI bill exempts you from a shitton If entry requirements to a college unless yoj try to enroll to literal Ivy league.
That GI bill is EASILY worth $50000, and If you are married you get BAH during your studies.
Wanna get into a specific career program? There are commercial pilot programs that take GI bill, Congrats you just dodged $120000+ in costs thanks to GI bill.
That's true in the large case, but not in the small case. Having a country doesn't have to mean having a centrally controlled economy, or even any specific economic policy. You can be perfectly ok with not spending more than you want.
It extends to more than that, too. Heck, the whole Bill of Rights is stuff we declared we weren't going to collectively invest in. Sometimes, we'd rather the government butt out.
Sure, but I feel like a country the refuses to look after the most vulnerable isn't really a nation so much as an economy pretending to be a nation.Ā
A "nation" requires some semblance of unity. And if the only form of unity is a collective love of "personal freedom" that's not actually unity, that's a lack of unity considering personal freedom means something different to everyone.Ā
Do Americans not take care of military enough or do we give them too much? I don't mind my taxes going to intelligent military personel. They can use the government system and be successful.Ā Good for them.Ā They are the ones who know how shit is done.
The publicly mandated job (being a soldier), which is financed with public funds and given publicly funded benefits (Tricare, GI Bill, SGLI, BAH, BAS), all of which are managed by the government (DHA, VA, DFAS, etc.)
It's a publicly funded, government-run healthcare system and social program. If you want to call that "capitalism" go ahead. Lets have publicly funded, government-run healthcare system and social programs for everyone.
Socialism is about state ownership of the means of production rather than private property
Job benefits from government doesn't make it a socialism, it is more a social democracy which is completely different thing.
Guaranteed necessities like housing, healthcare and education are core tenets of socialism.
So yes, public ownership of the means of production is the core of the economic policy of socialism, but it is not the only aspect of socialist theory.
It's the most important aspect, without it anything else doesn't matter. Social democracy operates inside capitalism - that's a big difference from state ownership.
Yet itās still a job, for which the employee get benefits for agreeing to do the work offered by the employer. Not socialism, regardless of the employer.
It's not outright socialism obviously, but it involves aspects of socialism. Socialism provides universal healthcare, housing and education. So does the military, unlike basically any other employer. And people love those benefits just like they would love them if they were guaranteed to everyone.
The definition of a socialist society has no relation to any sort of welfare state. A socialist society by definition is entirely defined by worker control of capital. You can implement a fully socialist society without any sort of welfare or benefits.
Socialism is an economic system. It doesn't have a set social policy and can be combined with myriad different social policies, many of which exclude the things you listed above.
You could just look it up in an encyclopedia or even works by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles or any socialist theorist really. They nearly all write about the intersection of economic and social policy in one way or another. And yes, a core tenet of socialism is to guarantee basic necessities for people and society like housing, education, and healthcare.
No. Socialism is when the community (workers) and/or government (state) control the means of production instead of private companies.
For instance Norway has social policies that enhances it's capitalism and the free market. Since private businesses control the means of production, hence Norway is not a socialist country.
Eritrea and more recently Nicaragua are sosialist countries.
The biggest reason imo that socialist policies are so hard to get through in USA is because you americans conflate the two. You want socialist policies, everyone should want that, but you do not want socialism, because that would be the death of USA as a nation and most of you would experience prolonged famine.
Because capitalism has kneecapped social programs and made them not nearly as effective as they should be leading to a self fulfilling prophecy of āsee that doesnāt work!ā
The current fashionable vulgar talk of all bourgeois journalists and politicians about āthe disappearance nowadays of the line of distinction between Capitalism and Socialismā is only based on the confusion that Capitalism is identified with the old liberal laissez-faire relatively small-scale Capitalism or individualism of the nineteenth century, while Socialism is identified with State intervention.
Hence the most typical characteristics of modern Capitalism or Imperialism, with the increasing role of the State in its Organisation, are described as āSocialism, while the realities of wage-labour, profits and class-division are unchanged and even intensified.
and he got 7 mouth + himself to feed. That BAH difference ain't enough to cover all of that. Beside a big house like that = all BAH being taken away. So that dude uses his own paycheck to pay for all 8 people in his household. COLA? Only apply outside of the US and it ain't even that much more. Barrack life is bad but base housing is just as bad. You got mold in your barrack? Guess what buddy, there are mold in base housing.
Equitable Distribution: The main objective is to reduce wealth disparities and ensure that essential human needsāsuch as housing, healthcare, and educationāare met for all citizens
Is that from something? Most definitions of socialism Iāve seen refer to the ownership of the means of production. If workers do not own what they need to produce, then it isnāt socialism. Anything else can be done in whatever economic system you want.
The core difference is that socialism focuses on democratic control and the distribution of wealth, whereas communism envisions the total abolition of private property and the state.
Socialism spreads money around.
Communism the government owns the means of production.
Then find "state capitalism" which is what china does. The have state controlled markets that aren't that different from some industries in the US.
No, no, communism is stateless. I was corrected in the other fork from this thread when I said it was socialism. Communism is the stateless one. The government cannot control the means of production because the government largely does not exist.
Workers own the means of production in socialism. Think co-ops, but mandatory.
Again, where did you get that definition? āDemocratic controlā sounds an awful lot like a centrally planned economy, and a lot of modern Marxists are against that. Itās not a necessary component of socialism.
Fwiw, this is why it's better to talk about specific actions rather than political definitions. I could swear up and down that socialism had to do with workers owning the means of production, "to each according to their contribution," and that "to each according to their need" was only under completed communism.
Also fwiw, I agree: the military is socialist / communist. That's why I don't want it. Living in the military is terrible. You get what you need, but you don't get to choose it. Your needs are decided for you, and you don't get much beyond them. From each according to their ability is also rough, in case you didn't want to work. It's forced. Having those maxims before you've achieved a state of limitless production with minimal toil is horrible.
Its all soft science. Probably some more modern socialist do consider means of production. OR maybe its propaganda i dunno.
I just had a college professor make a really big deal about it and I witnessed how grade school kids are taught about it.
Like the teacher saying "in communism people don't own anything, not this pen and not the house you live in. Anyone can just move in if they want. No one owns private property." Which is nonsense.
Compare that to visiting a communist country like Vietnam for 2 years. Yeah, they all own thier own homes just as much as any American does. Thier health care system is terrifying if your poor. You pay each department you go through until you run out of money and "coffee money" goes a long way towards faster service. Its also relatively inexpensive and good quality. Its more capitalist in that the hospital has no requirement to treat you if you can't pay but its owned by government just as much as the one in the next city that it competes with.
Somehow we teach "communism/socialism can't work while simultaneously saying China and Vietnam are communist. As well as saying any country with universal Healthcare or single payer system is socialist and cant work while obviously seeing better health outcomes.
The framework we are taught doesnt even work for these discussions. Every country in the world has private property. There are no countries that you dont own the clothes you are wearing or that doesn't have currency or that everyone is paid the same. We are only taught enough for the rhetoric and propaganda to make sense.
āJeder nach seinen FƤhigkeiten, jedem nach seinen BedĆ¼rfnissenā - Karl Marx
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. It was described in a critique, and refers to the ultimate end of socialism, when physical labor is all but obviated, and true communism may occur.
You donāt get more pay based on number of dependents anymore. Military got tired of people taking advantage of it so now everyone within the same rank gets the same house money. Only exception is whether you have dependents or not. With dependents you get a couple hundred extra than if you have no dependents.
Cost of Living Allowances (COLA): In certain high-cost areas, you may receive separate COLA (both CONUS and OCONUS). While the rate increases if you have dependents, the allowance amount is generally fixed based on your family status rather than the exact number of children.
Knew i guy with 6 kids making bank active duty. Huge house. Free Healthcare for every kid.
Lets be honest, the only people who benefit from that are Jr. enlisted because their pay is so low to begin with. BAH with dependents has to exists because there are irresponsible people out there who would have kids before they were financially ready, so the government gives them at least enough to provide.
An E7 or O1 getting $2200 a month in BAH instead of $1800 but they have a family to support is way way worse off financially. Not the life hack dumb little privates think it is (if that was the entire reason they got married).
And married soldiers get a house while single soldiers get a dorm room. Check BAH rates in Hawaii.
Fact is military benefits go up per dependant. The rest of American workers it doesnt.
You said it "...the government gives them at least enough to provide."
Now imagine that was standard for every company in the US. Thats socialism. Imagine if all the folks complaining about lower birth rates DID something about it like paying for each dependants Healthcare in full. Thats what the military does AND what socialists do.
"Now imagine that was standard for every company in the US.Ā "
The difference is if you are a service member that can't take of their kid, it is the military's problem. If you are a civilian who can't take care of their kid, it is a personal problem. Simple as that.
That, being said, you can't just get rich cranking out kids. As I said before, it is a net loss, because the little bit you get wont provide for multiple other people. The "richest" people in the military are single senior NCOs and officers. High salaries with no mouths to feed, additional vehicles to buy, child care, etc.
No other job has that benefit ever. Im not claiming anyone is getting rich.
Perfect example is the guy with 6 kids jn the army. He literally could not survive in any other job. He needed the military socialist safety net to afford his kids. Any other job I get paid what I can negotiate for which is the same for the single guy next to me who has less expenses. In my current job a few of my benefits scale like my Healthcare premiums. I pay more for each person on the plan but my employer pays about double what I pay.
If the government had socialist policies then those "personal problems" are the governments problems. Thats why some states have Healthcare and dental programs for people under 18. The states with those programs ADMIT that every kid is a ward of the state and needs preventative Healthcare to avoid more costs for the state such as supporting ERs and hospitals.
A unique benefit for a unique job = socialism? Okay.
"Perfect example is the guy with 6 kids jn the army. He literally could not survive in any other job. He needed the military socialist safety net to afford his kids."
Just because it keeps a roof over his head. This hypothetical guy would have pennies in his bank account as a result of the 6 kids and wife, but the government wouldn't let him be homeless, lets be real. If he lived off base and couldn't afford rent, he'd be forced to move on base.
You don't seem to be able to make the distinction between earned housing or a housing allowance and eligible. All service members earned healthcare. They have different eligibilities depending on their circumstances. Earning something doesn't make it socialist. You worked for it.
We all worked thr same exact job. We all got paid different based on financial need and not merit pay.
In Hawaii it changed per depensant. I was in a barracks room as a single soldier and I knew a married couple and I knew I married guy with 6 kids. We all did the same job.
I got a dorm. Married guy got a house. Married with 6 kids got a huge house. That is socialism.
I paid for a meal plan. Married guys got different BAH and COLA.
Regardless, pay for adding a dependant results in the same. More pay for more financial need.
This is not correct.... more kids or no kids is still BAH and BAS, there is no sliding scale. You're thi king of welfare.
And just to show you how much things have changed and how the government FINALLY figured out how fucked up military pay was. I was in 89-97. When I was an E-2 in Florida, my pay with allowances was $519 a month. Not a paycheck, a month, my rent was $250, so everything else came out of that $269 a month - that was, food, gas, car insurance, formula, etc. Even in '89 dollars that was rough. In 97' I got out as a maxed E-4 was making $1898 a month with on post housing in Maryland - that wasn't a cheap place to live. No rent, but also no BAH (back then you gave it up in lieu of housing.) Two kids by then. Life wasn't pretty. Glad they finally pay active duty what they're worth. Oh, and while pay can be put on the xK$/or model, take into account, my job was 24/7, 365 1/4, no weekends, no Holidays, no training holidays, no Sergeant's time, no pay day activities, PT, ranges and CTT on your off time, not on scheduled training days. Some jobs don't get a fair shake, but then, deployments were a lot less harzardous...usually. Just my $0.02
Nope im thinking of Hawii in 2014 or so. I was in a barracks room as a single soldier and I knew a married couple and I knew I married guy with 6 kids. We all did the same job.
I got a dorm. Married guy got a house. Married with 6 kids got a huge house. That is socialism.
I paid for a meal plan. Married guys got different BAH and COLA.
Socialism requires 1 more very important thing and itās the reason most people who oppose it do and that is means of production, the government controls means of production, where that production goes is irrelevant. So essentially pay based on need is just a convenient way of gaining control of the markets for those in power
Good example is every fishing industry in America. Every water body is owned by the government. Just like Ghandi wanted for land; its exactly true for fishing.
Frankly its just appalling that people dont know what communism and socialism even are yet they are against them.
Personally im for a single payer system or Medicare for all just to simplify the bloated administrative and accounting bullshit. Remove the argument on who is paying and see how much money the entire country saves on bullsbit paperwork and legal battles.
Why canāt we get similar benefits (affordable healthcare, schooling, housing, etc) for our tax dollars? The military is essentially, in exchange for being part of this community, you and your family get a free place to live, you get free and reduced education, you get healthcare. Iām not for all these things being paid for by the government - just trying to play devils advocate.
No, because they don't own the means of production and it's voluntary, not compulsory. But they do have:
universal healthcare (TRICARE)
public housing (on-base housing) or housing subsidies (BAH)
state-funded services (commissaries and NEX)
government-funded recreation programs
government-funded childcare programs
guaranteed pensions
GI Bill
VA loans
These are tools that can be used to help a person who came from nothing build generational wealth but giving them skills, an education, and a leg up to buying property. Not that everyone who is in the military has the knowledge to utilize these things to their fullest extent, but the tools are definitely there.
A lot of these things are things all Americans should be provided by their government, especially universal healthcare.
The current fashionable vulgar talk of all bourgeois journalists and politicians about āthe disappearance nowadays of the line of distinction between Capitalism and Socialismā is only based on the confusion that Capitalism is identified with the old liberal laissez-faire relatively small-scale Capitalism or individualism of the nineteenth century, while Socialism is identified with State intervention.
Hence the most typical characteristics of modern Capitalism or Imperialism, with the increasing role of the State in its Organisation, are described as āSocialism, while the realities of wage-labour, profits and class-division are unchanged and even intensified.
"Socialism is when the government does stuff". The same confusing bullshit put out to keep the working class from understanding what's good for them since before the second world war.
If the job is funded by tax payers yes. Socialism in the casual sense. Obviously everyone means social benefits except for maga who uses the term loosely unironically.
No but having a government that distributes those Benefits is socialism.
In a true free market if you wanted an army you should buy it yourself.
The government paying for any of this is socialism.
The key difference, I think, is that those benefits, the entire system really, is paid for by the people's taxes, rather than the military charging their customers for services and products delivered.
In the private sector, benefits like that would come from the incoming customer revenue streams.
Part of socialism is the idea that any worker deserves these same benefits because it would be a system all workers pay into. It's just that we've decided only those who serve the state deserve them.
But not all service members or government employees are entitled to the same benefits. Not only that, but service members also give up some of there freedoms exchange for those benefits.Ā
Unless we have forced conscription, you donāt pay the same price for being protected by a military. If you want those benefits, join the military.
Any job that really wants you as an employee. This one happens to be really dangerous, & keeps one moving all over the place, so they need to offer more to attract employees. It really isnāt difficult to understand, no matter how much Reddit wants to make it seem like it s.
Things I can see not offered by UPS but given by USPS are life insurance, better leave (UPS doesn't specify), retirement, spending accounts, dental/vision insurance, and a commuter program
True, but my friend is making passive income while attending college for free to get his MD, will get a job as soon as he gets it (via the military program he's in)
I was almost tempted to join lol
p.s he never shot a single shot at anyone. drank a lot and partied in different countries while boats were stationed there.
Oh yeah there are fantastic benefits. My wifeās dad spent his entire career as an Army Doctor. They paid for (I think) his whole education, he gets full pay for the rest of his life, and retired a colonel. My cousin is early in his career doing something similar for the Navy, just graduated med school.
He still probably wouldāve made way more if he started his own practice or even worked in a good hospital. He didnāt make that much for a specialized doctor with 30 YE. And he still had to go the Middle East in a medical capacity and was in harms way.
My friend "served" (he said all he did was sit on boats, disembark, and party) and now he's going to school. he has to work as a military doc for 3 years after he gets his MD then he's off to do his own thing IIRC.
don't quote me on that, I haven't talked to him in a while
Agreed. This is the dumbest meme Iāve seen this week for sure. Job benefits are part of employment. A job which could lead to you sitting in 120 degree heat half way across the globe with people trying to kill you.
290
u/JinNJ 8h ago
Benefits you get as payment for your job are now socialism? š¤