this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2025
126 points (97.7% liked)

Ask Lemmy

27978 readers
1552 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This question was inspired by a post on lemmy.zip about lowering the minimum age to purchase firearms in the US, and a lot of commeters brought up military service and training as a benchmark to normal civilians, and how if guns would be prevalent, then firearm training should be more common.

For reference, I live in the USA, where the minimum age to join the military is 18, but joining is, for the most part, optional. I also know some friends that have gone through the military, mostly for college benefits, and it has really messed them up. However, I have also met some friends from south korea, where I understand military service is mandatory before starting a more normal career. From what I've heard, military service was treated more as a trade school, because they were never deployed, in comparison to American troops.

I just wanted to know what the broader Lemmy community thought about mandatory military service is, especially from viewpoints outside the US.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] justhach@lemmy.world 118 points 5 days ago (9 children)

Just imagine if instead of millitary service, it was compulsary public service that actually benefitted society. Nursing, construction/infrastructure, farming, teaching/childcare, etc.

Its astrounding how much money is pumped into the military industrial complex when it could be used to fund to many other programs for public good.

But that would be sOciALiSm.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 57 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

More hilarious when considering the US Military is an inherently socialist institution.

My sister and brother-in-law will go to the commissary, stay on base housing, get their paycheck from the US Govt., receive public Healthcare, and the GI Bill, then promptly go home and post on Facebook about how socialism bad.

[–] DempstersBox@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Realizing the US Army is the most socialist institution I've ever encountered didn't happen till years after I was out, lol

You want school? Get it! You want food? Get it! You want clothes? You already fucking got em

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'm not sure from the context of your comment with that "most socialist" line if you know or not but...

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. End line.

Everything else is just how the society organizes itself. The US Army seeing to the basic needs of its troops is not socialism, it is the government doing things. Scandinavian countries providing maternity and unemployment benefits is not socialism. It is the government doing things.

The US Army is not socialism. Nor is any other professional military, not even the ones working for socialist states. They are organizations trading capital for labor to empower the state.

If you were a slave soldier, taken in a war raid, working for a monarch like the Janissaries, they would probably still provide you all of the necessities to function, even spending money to entertain yourself and maintain morale, and it wouldn't be socialism either.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Socialism is the workers owning the means of production.

For instance, Trump's plan for the feds to buy TikTok

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hell no.

The premise of M-L types who wanted the state to control production for the workers is that the government was the workers, aka the dictatorship of the proletariat. In doing so excess production would be traded within the system to provide things like healthcare and housing.

In theory.

That obviously didn't work out too hot, but even that is different in theory from a fascist or otherwise oligarchal state controlling production for the benefit of the owner class with absolutely no pretentions of providing social services with the profits. They are proudly ripping up any social safety net they find as a matter of ideology.

Tl;Dr it's quite literally the opposite of socialism when kings or oligarchs control and profit from the state owned enterprise. That is just the eponymous late stage capitalism, or neofeudalism/technocracy depending on the angle you want.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's socialism as described by the GOP though, which is why it's so funny.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Yeah, but at the same time that's how they logic themselves into "the more things the government does the more socialist it is, and when it does a lot of things, that's communism."

All that misinformation has a purpose, and it's not to make the world a better place.

[–] hinterlufer@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This exists in Austria. Males have to choose between 6 months of military or 9 months of public service. Interestingly enough the existence of the public service option has been a strong reason why people voted against removing the mandatory service some years ago.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Out of curiosity, what do they do for public service?

[–] hinterlufer@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

Driving ambulance cars and doing first aid, helping in kindergarten, retirement homes, homeless shelters, institutions for people with disabilities,...

The ambulance is probably the most popular position, you can also choose what you want to do to a certain extent.

[–] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 14 points 5 days ago

I think compulsory retail service would fix society.

[–] DempstersBox@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

This is exactly what I would want a compulsory service to look like.

Fuck the military, let's build bridges and houses and schools, and cafeterias, and farms, and staff them. Roads and hospitals.

Nobody ever needed to make a fucking bomb

[–] seven_phone@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

That's too good of an idea to be usable, the powers that don't want it would tell the nurses, construction workers and farmers their livelihoods were being undermined by slave labour.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

Some places you can opt to do compulsory public service instead of military service.

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

I fully support this. It would help on so many levels. Provide a cheap workforce to help with currently in demand stuff and fix shit, help young people get away from home, get a new view on life and get some starter cash, and mix people from all walks of life. I genuinely see no downside.

[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

AmeriCorps is exactly this, but it's obviously not compulsory.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I don't think that would be any better. It is still compulsory service and a violation of people's individual freedoms to choose how to live their lives.

(and many countries do allow that as an alternative e.g. for conscientious objectors)