======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================
I've cut and pasted Artesian's comments and reply in the other font
Artesian wrote:
We should not forget how this discussion started-- which was about
discrimination in the military services and not the role of the army.
Peg:You are right to bring us back to how the discussion started.
Discrimination against those who wish to be honest about their sexual
preference should be stopped. I would like to see an effort to bridge
constituencies, those who support abolition of "dont ask dont tell" and
those who support abolition of discrimination against qny American who wants
to join the army and is not allowed to because of something they have done
in the past, because they are too old, or can't pass one of the mental or
physical tests. If you have ever known a kid busted for getting stoned who
missed graduation because he was in jail, and who could not get a job at
Walmart because of his "record," and he and his mother wept with joy when
you told them the DA said to tell him to go to the recruiting office and if
they called he'd say his record was clean, then maybe you wouldn't, but I
did, change my mind about absolutely tabooing relating to the military.
I've lived in the South most of my adult life. I've known an awful lot of
young people who 1) escaped viciously racist situations which would have
led to years in and out of prison by enlisting (the guy in the most recent
situation -- just described -- was however white) and 2) I can swear with
confidence that none of the young people I'm thinking of, would fire on
the people. And I thank Carol for raising this point in an earlier post.
Artesian: I don't think there is any disagreement about the role of the army
as an
institution. I don't think that I disagree with Dan's characterization of
the army as "an enemy of the people."Certainly, as an institution, that
is the military's role.
Peg:We disagree on the definition of the military as an institution. I would
not say it is "an enemy of the people" by definition That's why I began
with Engels' definition of the state as the *laws* to defend and advance the
interests of the ruling class and and *arms to enforce them. I do not
think it a waste of time to struggle to quantitatively increase working
class leverage vis a vis capital's while the interests of capital still
dominate the state, a state, any state. *
Artisian: The issue of contention was how best to "crack" the cohesiveness,
the
discipline that the military must have to function in that role.
Peg: I agree the issue is cracking the cohesiveness, but I would stress
cohesiveness of ideology and brain washing that divides those who sign up to
escape poverty and prison
from the objective class interests of others who are poor and in prison and
not in the military. I said poor and in prison, rather than working class,
because we are talking about Americans who would love to be working class,
but are discriminated against by where they are at this time and place in
the capitalist epoch
Artisan: The suggestions by Peggy, IMO, are mistaken not because they are
so utopian,
but rather because they're so "Proudhonian"-- that old "we want the
capital, but without the capitalists" idea. Here "we want the military,
without the miliarists-- we want the military to play a different role, to
change its spots."
Peg: I never studied Proudhon, mainly because I only ever heard of him
denigratingly.
But I will say if by "capital," he means the difference between the
accumulated exchangeable monetary form of the average labor time added and
the world average labor time in the necessities the worker who adds them
consumes, and if Proudhon understands this as the social surplus, or
commonwealth, monetized and privatized, then I don't object to being
characterized as wanting "capital" not even so radically as "without the
capitalists"; but just without those allocating and reallocating it
whatever they are called, being in a legal position to rip off most of the
commonwealth as they see fit with no accountability to those who created
that wealth (before its exchangeability for living labor is depreciated by
leaps in productivity). And yes, I want the military to play a different
role, but I understand it will not change its spots until made to do so.
Artisan: That's not going to happen, and agitating for a million recruit
increase is
not going to crack that discipline. First off, we don't advocate the
military as a way to reduce unemployment-- that's the military's line. We
don't advocate it because that doesn't attack the class structure within the
military, separate the ranks from the officer corps. We don't advocate it
because it's all too close to the "war is good for business, and what's good
for business is good for labor" argument.
I'm not sure who your "we" is. Is there a party line to the list that I've
naively missed?
Aretisan:As for the humanitarian capacity of the armed forces, I'd like to
point out
the great results of the humanitarian actions of the US military in taking
logistical command of the arrival and distribution of relief supplies,
personnel, and efforts after the earthquake in Haiti-- particularly the
redirecting away from Haiti of the shipments to support the MSF doctors; the
delay in accepting the rescue teams from Iceland; the rejection of the
specially trained and organized search and rescue teams from Houston,
Texas... etc. etc. etc.
Peg: Points well taken. That is why I would propose that they have to be
made to change.
Which I am neither utopian nor naive enough to expect to happen without
great strategy and struggle, that will not occur simply because I cast the
notion into cyberspace. But I'm of the old school with faith that the
temperature of water rises by quantitative degrees until the same matter
takes an different qualitative form
Artisan: And it's my personal opinion that there are no such things as
"grassroots
teabaggers." This is not a populist movement of poor and lower middle class
working and shopkeeper types. The teabaggers are well-to-do, materially
comfortable and exactly the type of people who invest in corporations like
Halliburton without blinking an eye about the abuse of military contracts,
the overcharging, double-billing, etc. etc.
I spoke to a grassroots teabagger on the elevator about an hour ago and made
my proposal to him. He said, "we don't want hoodlums we can't trust in the
military." When I mentioned Haliburton, he paused and thought, but when the
elevator stopped and he had to get back to work, he shot back "we need tax
cuts." He and his son fix and redo apartments in our building. They do not
make$250,000/year. He likes introducing me to strangers on the elevator as
a communist.
He is not my enemy.
- Show quoted text -
--
Margaret Powell Dobbins
www.PeggyDobbins.net
Sociology a form of Art
Es
________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
