Back to shipping (or lack thereof) in the Strait of Hormuz:
I think Trump is determined to get the Nobel Peace prize. He’s already declared the end of the war with Iran 39 or so times. Maybe the next time he says it is over is the charm. 
What does being “communist” have to do with declaring war or not? Communist countries typically have huge, outsized militaries (militaries do operate under a very socialist structure), and communist nations usually have no hesitation when it comes to saber rattling or even starting wars. Communist countries also are typically non-religious, so a communist country would seemingly be against the current Iranian regime running the country as a Theocracy.
Whoooh
Okey kokey kokey
Whoooh
Okey kokey kokey
Hmmm, sounds familiar. The name of a country that fit that description is at the tip of my tongue. Could it be…?
Communists see (capitalist) USA as an enemy and the rest obviously follows. Communists see all rebellious movements as fellow travellers such as BLM, fascists and socialists but especially Islamists. They think being friends with such deadbeats puts them at the top table when the Nazi Islamists eventually rule the world.
Alas, they are just feeding the crocodile that will eventually eat them.
Fear not, you have plenty of communists and sympathisers in America. The place is seething with them. Have you ever been to a university? That’s where communists are made.
Whaaaaa? Militaries throughout the world have developed along reasonably similar lines and are designed to achieve military objectives. The structure comes from the necessity of the job. Discipline is inherrent. That’s not socialism (lots of free stuff from a generous government).
The regime in Iran isn’t there to uphold the glory of god. It’s there to uphold the autocratic power of the ruling elite, an elite which sees its role as defeating the world into utter submission and the total elimination of every form of opposition by whatever means necessary. America, remember, is the great satan.
Norway?
So much that seems incorrect here.
For one communists and fascists DO NOT get along. WWII should be the most obvious example, however one thing that is consistent with all fascist movements/governments is they hate communists and see them as one of the biggest threats. Fascists can abide capitalists and to extent the state can embrace a quasi state centered capitalism, but communism is absolutely not tolerated by any fascist state, and typically any known or suspected communists are imprisoned or worse.
“Nazi Islamists”? What does this even mean? The Nazi’s weren’t Islamist in any way. Nazi’s tended toward either a perverted traditional Christianity, a mystical pagan Norse angle, or the elevation of the party as a pseudo religion. There is zero Nazi to Islam connection, and in all likelihood the Nazi’s would want nothing to do with Islam. Here in the U.S. those reprehensible individuals who choose to identify with Nazism are virulently Islamophobic; you see that in Europe as well. Those most extremely on the right who go as far as to deny the Holocaust or chant “Jews will not replace us” are also staunchly opposed to Islam and have this weird fear of Islamic immigrants and Sharia law invading society.
Militaries are absolutely socialist, and in most societies are the most socialist of any entity. Everyone wears the same clothes (a uniform), everyone gets the same health care, food and housing are taken care of by the state, even the idea of sacrifice for the good of the group rather than the individual, military personnel are paid a flat rate based on rank and length of service, that is all textbook socialism. Joining the military is willingly compromising one’s individuality and choice to join and serve a larger group and to in turn rely on the state to take care of you and provide for your needs while you serve.
I said I would no longer comment on this thread and in essence I’m not. I’m here only to applaud @Rock_Hill ‘s paragraph above. It’s a great bit of analysis. I’ve read a thousand books and I’ve never heard of modern militaries described in that way before. It’s rare to come across new insights. Kudos.
This is so true. But even more closer to home for working mariners, our ships are also socialist/communist environments. A close friend / coworker of mine once made a comment on board that socialism/communism were horrible & didn’t work. He was shocked when I told him I disagreed with him. I explained to him how our little bubble on that ship was communism & the same thing about our military. I then explained how well socialism worked in Northern European nations when mostly everyone had the same education level, morals, work ethic, values, heritage & goals. It worked great! Problems develope when you add diversity, different values, different goals, poor work ethics, conflict caused by different heritages & world paradigms. Then not everyone is the same. Groups work against one another. Not everyone participates equally. Some will be the workers, some the abusers & others the controllers, all pretending to live in a socialist paradise while trying to game one another. Actually socialism with a bunch of diversity is just capitalism with the chains of socialism/communism keeping everyone locked in their place. It works on a small scale with no rabblerizers causing conflict or asking questions.
I think you have got the nub of it regarding the military and indeed at sea generally and it helps maintain the peace where multicultural crews are the norm onboard.
In Society where there is only two different cultural groups they mix quite well and there is a lot of intermarriage. Become multicultural and there is a tendency to circle the wagons and the different cultures tend to retreat to silos.
I agree. Reasons follow.
But if you analyse what each says is their philosophy, they are identical. Tell me what differences you see? They both seek power for a tiny elite. My position above is that they cooperate to defeat a common enemy (USA, western civilisation). Perhaps I should have added that after that enemy is defeated they with scratch each other’s eyes out so that one small elite rules and eliminates all the others. BTW, do you forget the treaty between Hitler and Stalin?
My term for a modern phenomena. Nazis exist today so they aren’t something to be talked about in the past tense. Islamic leaders were definitely very pally with Hitler back in the day. Look it up. Oh, and Nazis are on the Left, not Right. They are socialists. They say they are socialists. It’s in their name, “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. Again, they may claim differences but their philosophies align and they will unite to defeat an enemy (you). You make a common error of conflating authoritarians with the ‘far right’. Authoritarians infest the Left far more than they do the other end.
Perhaps you confuse political philosophies with organisational philosophies. Militaries are not political organisations deciding the structure of a government and the administration of a nation. The “most socialist of any entity” is right there in your own house with you. It’s called a family. Or did you charge your toddler board and lodging? So you are a socialist (sometimes).
You should also check the definition of ‘socialism’. Roughly, socialism seeks to own and control the means of production and distribution of goods and services. Militaries don’t own anything. They exist separately to and created by the state (the owner, on behalf of the people) and remain strictly under the control of the civilian government which has as it’s first and foremost responsibility as the preservation, defence and security of the state.
So we wear a uniform? It’s essential under the laws of war. No uniform and you cannot be a prisoner of war nor be given the protections of the various conventions of war, Geneva etc. You just get shot. To be defined as a legal combatant requires a disciplined force under the control of the government and the wearing of a uniform. Uniforms are everywhere. Even university students now all wear a uniform … a keffiyeh. To not do so would risk ostracism. Texans wear big stupid hats - even inside eating meals or watching TV.
The provision of healthcare, food and housing are essential elements of a fighting force, not some idyllic socialist paradise. Would you send troops to war without food and healthcare and leave their families unhoused? Every employer who sends employees to a remote work site does the same. Are they socialists? George Washington himself learnt the lessons of sustaining an army in winter without food, clothing, munitions, and a cohesive source of funding.
You list the elements of militaries and declare them ‘socialist’. They are not. They are organisational requirements, not political. Militaries are specifically prohibited from political activity in uniform, but are free to engage in political activity when not associated with their work.
Because it’s stupid and wrong.
Also wrong and stupid for the same reasons. Did you own the means of production and distribution?
Those nations were capitalist, thus creating sufficient funds for distribution to their citizens. They traded in the world’s markets, grew successful competing businesses, and made money for private enterprises whilst taxing them to create social programs. Their success derived from an enterprising, educated population of largely homogenous ethnic origins. Not so much any more.
Above is not true.
The fellas below
do not smoke Cuban cigars and have accommodation and dine in Waldorf Astoria. Admirals , Generals un Colonels do.
Further:
Hierarchy vs. Equality:
While socialist and communist ideologies theoretically aim for a classless, egalitarian society, military organizations are strictly hierarchical.
Power, privilege, and decision-making are concentrated at the top and distributed based on rank.
Political Control:
In communist and socialist theories, the means of production are controlled by the workers.
In the military, the “means of force” are controlled by the state and an elite officer corps, with no democratic input from the enlisted ranks.
Coercion vs. Voluntary Association:
Participation in military structures involves strict legal conscription or highly regimented contracts, whereas socialist theory emphasizes voluntary, cooperative labor associations.
Therefore:
The military structure is fundamentally comparable to socialism and communism *in its economic organizatio*n—such as the collective ownership of resources, central planning, and the distribution of goods based on need rather than market value.
But it is politically distinct due to its authoritarian, hierarchical command system rather than democratic or worker control.
What do you call someone who always think others are stupid, wrong, low IQ persons?
Answer; a narcissist, an egomaniac, misanthrope, or even solipsist.
PS: There is one person that come to mind, but his name slips my mind right now. Oh well it can’t be anyone of consequence then.
And not everyone wears the same uniform. Based on rank (which is worn prominently to display your increased status within the organization) your uniform changes, you earn higher wages, are exempt from certain labor/tasks, better berthing (in some cases better food) and more privileges. In some cases the senior most members of the “lower class” carry with them more clout than those in even the middle ranks of the “upper class.”
If I wished for clout I’d rather be a Sergent Major than most any upper class with less than 3 stars.
I seemed to have touched a nerve with the comparison of military structure and socialism but I will try to clarify. Interestingly some people seem to strongly agree with me, while others think it is patently false.
Part of the problem I think stems from the definition of socialism or communism, and then how it actually manifests itself in the real world. As much as we have seen elements or aspirations of socialism or communism in the the world in various places over the last century or so, there’s no country that I know of that has fully and truly adopted socialism or communism in its theoretical form. There’s also the difference between economic systems such as capitalism and socialism, compared to political systems such as democracy or totalitarianism. Economic and political systems can be combined in any way, but with most allegedly “communist” countries we’ve actually seen a fairly consolidated power structure rather than a rule by the workers broadly. Theoretically you could see a communist democracy with all the rights of regular and free elections and a right to a fair trial and jury by peers etc., but all means of production and property owned by the state; that would be interesting.
Communists and fascists are NOT identical. While they both elevate the state, they are very different in the goal or perspective in how they do this. Fascism is almost by default totalitarianist, but with communism this is not so, though again the examples of most allegedly communist countries certainly fit that description. Fascism is indeed concerned with strengthening the elite and it says so outright, and does so via corporate statism to include private property and private enterprise all to benefit the state. It insists on a top down structure. Communism aspires to abolish private property and impower the worker, theoretically elevating the lowest of the low with equal rights and value for all. Not necessarily what we’ve seen in “communist” countries, where indeed a class of elite has emerged even though the stated goal of communism is to abolish the elite (gee, I wonder why communism keeps failing? Perhaps because they say one thing and always do another?)
Sure Hitler and Stalin had a brief treaty but it didn’t last. However the U.S. and Britain worked longer and closer with Stalin and the U.S.S.R. I don’t think these brief war time treaties used for strategic purposes are really indicative of ideological similarities. However in Germany when the Nazi’s took power, one of the very first things they did was round up the communists. If their philosophies are identical why did they act in this way? Why didn’t they work with the communists if they are so similar ideologically?
Nazi’s are definitely not on the Left. Don’t let one word in their name trip you up. The Nazi’s were NOT socialists. Admittedly when you go extreme left or extreme right the two ends kind of bend around to meet each other. And unfortunately totalitarianism is an underlying thing as well, with the repressive machinations of the state being present in the extremes either way. If you want to lump all the bad on the extreme left and keep the extreme right squeaky clean there’s no way I’ll agree with you. I just can’t see a world where the Proud Boys and ANTIFA are uniting to defeat me. Here in the U.S. we do have various flavors of Nazi, white power, Aryan Nation types; none of them are extreme left. They are extreme right. I do however agree that probably the majority of authoritarian leaders that we have seen in the last century have been far left. However, there were still a lot of lesser known such leaders in other parts of the world that were right (Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, etc.) Historically speaking, when monarchies were the norm and very much totalitarianist, they were typically right not left; so across human history most totalitarianists have been right, but in the last 100 years they’ve probably mostly been left.
As for political philosophies compared to organizational philosophies, political philosophies (and economic philosophies which I think socialism is, rather than political) often focus very heavily on organization. The organization of the people or power and the organization of the economy. As for other employers that provide food, shelter, healthcare, even a pension, yes I would say those things are socialist elements, though obviously on a smaller scale than a nation state. Socialism can take a lot of different forms and doesn’t exists exclusively in just national governments and my household. Services provided by the state or other organized entity to benefit the common good is socialism. Things like police, fire departments, public libraries, public schools and universities, public parks, public roads and transportation, public health care (in most of the first world, sadly not the U.S.). In other words your “lots of free stuff from a generous government”, those things are socialism, even if the countries that utilize those elements aren’t truly socialist nations. Just because you use those things or support those things it doesn’t make you socialist. If all families are a socialist organization, does that mean anyone who has a family or supports families is also a socialist? No, it obviously does not. But if you aren’t a socialist and you happen to not like socialism (the word or the concept), you can’t pick the things you like, like the military or the police (or families?) and pretend that they aren’t socialist, and then lump the things you might not like such as libraries, public schools, and Social Security as some evils of socialism. They are all socialistic elements and nations often operate in a spectrum of socialism. Canada is usually seen as more socialist than the U.S., however all the electronic U.S. nautical charts are free online to anyone that wants them (that’s socialism); while if I want Canadian ENCs I have to buy them.
To further the military element, here in the U.S. those who serve also earn free (or virtually free) college, and if they serve long enough they also get health care for life and a pension for life. These things too are socialism. You can argue why they do that but those are socialistic elements.
A nation could say they give free health care to all their citizens not to be socialist, but instead to have a healthy work force that is productive and helps the economy and produces healthy offspring that are more productive and cheaper citizens. Doesn’t matter, it’s still socialism.
As for the generals smoking Cuban cigars and dining in Waldorf Astoria, the leaders of allegedly communist North Korea do the exact same thing. Unfortunately most “communist” countries haven’t done a great job of living up to their aspirations of empowering the worker. Instead they have often relied on centralized power and some sort of Dear Leader type element. I would be very curious to see communism attempted in a manner that hews more closely to the alleged goals. What these totalitarianist communists have typically done is have a very large military and often rule by authoritarian, hierarchical command system rather than democratic or worker control (unfortunately).
I would rather never see it attempted in any way anywhere ever again.
Fair enough. I certainly don’t long for any return or growth in totalitarian element like we sadly see remain in North Korea, China, and Cuba. Thankfully it has ebbed significantly from it’s peak during the Cold War when it oppressed a good portion of the globe.
China is a really interesting case in that we’ve to some extent enabled their transition to a number of state run companies; in sense they’ve kept the totalitarian surveillance state with a singular party and lack of freedoms from the communist era, but over time they’ve gradually introduced increasing elements of state capitalism (that the West facilitated) to now make them look almost more like a fascist state than a communist one. Even their society as well as some institutional policies and agendas have some racist undertones aimed at certain ethnic groups or minorities; rather frightening fascistic elements, especially in such a dominant world power.
They don’t have to. The requirement is for the uniform to be recognised as the uniform of a soldier etc of that nation.
I did training in England and courses with the Royal Military College of Science where (for my sins) I became my navy’s expert on land and tank warfare whilst studying military operations analysis and research in the European theatre. The gaudy variety of British army uniforms would baffle any enemy and it was rare indeed if two officers would ever be dressed alike.
Each rank and specialisation has its place. Each has to grow into their fighting skill peak and that takes time and experience. Clout isn’t the peak aspiration. Command more likely is.
Yes, you have. I spent 40 years in the navy and never once considered my organisation socialist. It is simply the essential way a fighting force has to be organised and has been for centuries, It is silly to say we look alike and get free stuff from testate so it’s socialism. I add that I don’t know how other militaries are organised but I got one issue of free uniforms and then for 40 years paid for its upkeep for which an allowance was paid. I paid for my food and accommodation unless deployed exactly as any civilian would be sent away by an employer.
I gave the accepted definition. You cling to the notion all communists hold; that proper communism hasn’t been tried yet. Yes it has. And it doesn’t work that way so they revert to variations which invariably fail after producing misery and deprivations for the citizens and riches and power for the elites.
I never said they were. I said that if you read their philosophies, they match. Extremists each believe their extremism is best and want power above all and that includes the elimination/extinction of each and every rival.
Don’t let them tell me what they say they are? You can’t read it any other way. Hitler said he was a socialist and his party was socialist and current day Nazis say they are socialists. Believe them. They know what they are. What is your evidence that they are NOT socialists? Are they throwing the word in to confuse us?
Before you make bold, evidence-free declarations like that, perhaps tell us what an extreme left and an extreme right actually believe. If extreme left is communist what’s the opposite? Capitalist? Libertarian? Free marketer?
No. Wrong. They have been authoritarians. And authoritarians exist across the spectrum. Authoritarianism is NOT a trait solely of the right. Socialists are authoritarians by definition because they decide you can’t keep your earnings; they have to be distributed to favoured classes. The definite opposite to an authoritarian is a libertarian. Libertarians don’t seek power and government. They seek to be left alone by power and government.
Stop obsessing about sub-dividing every civilised activity into socialism or something else. It’s not socialism having a police force. It’s a civil necessity … strangely deplored by guess who? Antifa, BLM, Free Free Palestine, Democrat governments, Nazis, etc.
No. Again they are conditions of service to attract a volunteer to join and for those in the service to remain. They are simply benefits to encourage long service. That’s not socialism.
Must go. Lovely to chat. But you are wrong. 