What are you reading, watching and listening to? - All languages

[Travis B.]

As for this new plan, you are suggesting that all young people be subjected to military discipline. What kind of a military is this? If recruits refuse to obey their officers, how are they punished? What are the escape clauses? How and by whom would these laws be enforced?

One note is that I believe that there should be no parallel system of military law, rather all people would be subject to the same laws regardless of whether they are actively serving or not. In the case of insubordination, probably the best way of handling it is by stripping said individuals of their military duties and diverting them into alternative forms of national service instead. One thing is I believe that officers should be elected and recallable by those underneath them from amongst their number, so if officers give orders that those underneath them disagree with collectively, they can be recalled and replaced. (Unlike in the case of Starship Troopers, being diverted into non-military service would not involve stripping people of their voting rights, as all people, whether they have done military service or not - remember that there are those who are not fit to serve for reasons beyond their control - would have the right to vote.)

[rotting bones]

One note is that I believe that there should be no parallel system of military law, rather all people would be subject to the same laws regardless of whether they are actively serving or not. In the case of insubordination, probably the best way of handling it is by stripping said individuals of their military duties and diverting them into alternative forms of national service instead. One thing is I believe that officers should be elected and recallable by those underneath them from amongst their number, so if officers give orders that those underneath them disagree with collectively, they can be recalled and replaced. (Unlike in the case of Starship Troopers, being diverted into non-military service would not involve stripping people of their voting rights, as all people, whether they have done military service or not - remember that there are those who are not fit to serve for reasons beyond their control - would have the right to vote.)

IIRC one of the characters in Starship Troopers did serve the military in a scientific capacity. I'd imagine he still had to obey the military hierarchy though. Sounds to me like you want to abolish this hierarchy and replace it with a militia of the people. One source of ambiguity in your post is this: Whatever hierarchy remains is obeyed by both soldiers and non-soldiers, so what is gained by transferring the soldier to a different profession?

Either way, this is very distant from the ethos of Starship Troopers. Now my questions would be more like: Do you think this militia would have sufficient discipline for operations that are routine in a modern military? Militaries don't enforce discipline for no reason. It's very important for them to stick to a single plan to prevent the operation from degenerating into a chaotic brawl. Even if the soldiers in question, unlike very many people, don't enjoy being insubordinate, having the power to question their commanding officers could make logistics much harder during the friction of war. Do you have special plans to deal with this? If not, do you think there should be special forces you have to sign up for that operate more like the traditional military? Do you think this would give the special forces too much power? If not, don't you think it's enough to arm and train most people instead of wasting manpower doing military drills that are unprofitable in the final analysis?

[rotting bones]

Hm. On second thought, I don't remember whether the intelligence officer shown in the film was present in the novel, which I read much earlier.

PS. If memory serves right, military service in Starship Troopers was nowhere near universal.

[bradrn]

A differing perspective: I’ve talked to at least one Israeli about this, and she said the sentiment is very different in Israel (which has compulsory military service). I can’t remember any specifics, but the general attitude seems to be that military service is part of one’s duty to the nation and generally a honourable thing to do. It isn’t ‘glorification’ of the military exactly, but I think there are certainly elements of this (e.g. I’ve heard that many teenagers look forward to going into the army.) This isn’t an attitude I agree with, but I suppose the perception of being surrounded by enemies on all sides, plus mandatory service with few exemptions, is enough to get people to think this way.

PPS. I can't believe how much time I wasted doing nothing this week. It's not just the work immediately before me. After Chartier, I have to finish reading Deep Learning on Graphs (IIRC graph traversal is spiky: the book discusses how to perform deep learning in this space), Piketty's Capital and Ideology* (halfway through) and the Gormenghast series (abandoned after the first book a long time ago).

Oh, I finished the second book of Gormenghast just a couple of months ago! I think it must be one of the best books I’ve ever read. I’m looking forward to reading the third book. (I actually have all three books in one volume, so I could have started it already, but even though it isn’t yet overdue I felt guilty about borrowing it from the library for so long… I really should return it one of these days.)

[Ares Land]

IIRC most American soldiers are actually middle class. Regardless, many of the people starting out in the military are idiots without a direction in life. Their superior officers tell them what to do.

Hmm, nope. I mean, I don't know about the US, but in France the military is about the one institution that is willing to provide training and a job to high school dropouts or the very poor. The people who join up might like a direction in life, but they're not idiots.

(Maybe you get more direction then in civilian life. I follow a military officer on Twitter -- amusingly he mentioned yesterday that the military was for him, among other things, a way to escape a lifetime of bullshit jobs.)

My question is: What structure ensures these officers, who could be all kinds of people (one of them possibly being Curtis Yarvin, who has called for a military coup) won't lead the people under their command in undemocratic directions?

I agree with your question, but I laughed at loud at the idea of Curtis Yavin as a military officer. I don't think he'd even make it throug boot camp.

WWII was started by the Nazis. Why isn't that being counted as an effect of militarism?

Sure, but once you get Nazis in power, how do you get rid of them without an army?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Yes, the Soviet Union sucked, but these days, South Korea has become a darling of "leftists" somehow. Check out the condition of gay rights over there.

I have a pretty low opinion of South Korea, but what does that have to do with anything? It doesn't change anything about the Soviet Union.

(Unlike in the case of Starship Troopers, being diverted into non-military service would not involve stripping people of their voting rights (...)

FWIW, Heinlein's idea is that service is not necessarily military and in fact largely civilian in times of peace. You still get your voting rights.

Now my questions would be more like: Do you think this militia would have sufficient discipline for operations that are routine in a modern military? Militaries don't enforce discipline for no reason. (...)

I'm pretty sure a democratic approach to army hierarchies would work a lot better than we'd expect. Top-down strict hierarchical approaches are inefficient everywhere, would would it be different in the army?
Wouldn't soldiers behave like cowardly assholes? I think that's the effect of depriving them of all decision-making power and forbidding them to think. Treat people like idiots and you get idiots.
As I recall, parts of the Spanish Republican army worked that way, so did the Makhnovchina. Okay, both lost but they did prove surprisingly effective.

*IIRC he argued that medieval Europe was unique in having a celibate priestly/intellectual class or something. Is that true, though? Weren't Buddhist monks supposed to be celibate too? Weren't they the intellectual class in, say, Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia?

He's indeed wrong on that account. The idea of celibate priests/monks occured in several places independently.

[rotting bones]

A differing perspective: I’ve talked to at least one Israeli about this, and she said the sentiment is very different in Israel (which has compulsory military service). I can’t remember any specifics, but the general attitude seems to be that military service is part of one’s duty to the nation and generally a honourable thing to do. It isn’t ‘glorification’ of the military exactly, but I think there are certainly elements of this (e.g. I’ve heard that many teenagers look forward to going into the army.) This isn’t an attitude I agree with, but I suppose the perception of being surrounded by enemies on all sides, plus mandatory service with few exemptions, is enough to get people to think this way.

I wouldn't use the Israeli military as a poster child for peace. Israel also has a very small population, etc.

I do have a perception of being surrounded by enemies on all sides. In my case, these enemies are aided by the militaries of the world. This makes me suspicious of a military with more power than usual. If whole platoons feel compelled to defend their faith against the existence of marginalized communities, we could be in for a civil war.

Oh, I finished the second book of Gormenghast just a couple of months ago! I think it must be one of the best books I’ve ever read. I’m looking forward to reading the third book. (I actually have all three books in one volume, so I could have started it already, but even though it isn’t yet overdue I felt guilty about borrowing it from the library for so long… I really should return it one of these days.)

Thanks for the motivation. I'll try to get back in tomorrow.

[rotting bones]

Hmm, nope. I mean, I don't know about the US, but in France the military is about the one institution that is willing to provide training and a job to high school dropouts or the very poor. The people who join up might like a direction in life, but they're not idiots.

(Maybe you get more direction then in civilian life. I follow a military officer on Twitter -- amusingly he mentioned yesterday that the military was for him, among other things, a way to escape a lifetime of bullshit jobs.)

No, like I've seen data claiming the American military is mostly middle class.

(Edit: I've heard soldiers themselves claiming they knew nothing about how the world works when they joined up.)

I agree with your question, but I laughed at loud at the idea of Curtis Yavin as a military officer. I don't think he'd even make it throug boot camp.

Everyone who can be in the army is in this army. If Curtis Yarvin likes the army, he might climb to an officer's rank.

Sure, but once you get Nazis in power, how do you get rid of them without an army?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Just because some people happened to make sacrifices, and these sacrifices ended up serving the common good, it doesn't follow that those people intended their sacrifices to serve the common good. Many of them could have been motivated by, say, jingoism, jingoism that, in other circumstances, would lead them to make sacrifices that did not serve the common good.

I have a pretty low opinion of South Korea, but what does that have to do with anything? It doesn't change anything about the Soviet Union.

If A is X, B is X and I'm looking for Y, then I should be looking for something other than A or B.

I'm pretty sure a democratic approach to army hierarchies would work a lot better than we'd expect. Top-down strict hierarchical approaches are inefficient everywhere, would would it be different in the army?
Wouldn't soldiers behave like cowardly assholes? I think that's the effect of depriving them of all decision-making power and forbidding them to think. Treat people like idiots and you get idiots.
As I recall, parts of the Spanish Republican army worked that way, so did the Makhnovchina. Okay, both lost but they did prove surprisingly effective.

If your army doesn't move as a unit, then you must resort to guerrilla tactics. Guerrilla tactics don't scale, but they can be effective for defensive war in a battlefield with terrain like in Afghanistan.

[bradrn]

A differing perspective: I’ve talked to at least one Israeli about this, and she said the sentiment is very different in Israel (which has compulsory military service). I can’t remember any specifics, but the general attitude seems to be that military service is part of one’s duty to the nation and generally a honourable thing to do. It isn’t ‘glorification’ of the military exactly, but I think there are certainly elements of this (e.g. I’ve heard that many teenagers look forward to going into the army.) This isn’t an attitude I agree with, but I suppose the perception of being surrounded by enemies on all sides, plus mandatory service with few exemptions, is enough to get people to think this way.

I wouldn't use the Israeli military as a poster child for peace. Israel also has a very small population, etc.

I know all this is arguable. I don’t agree with mandatory service; I was simply outlining the Israeli position as perceived by Israelis, not arguing in favour of it.

[rotting bones]

I know all this is arguable. I don’t agree with mandatory service; I was simply outlining the Israeli position as perceived by Israelis, not arguing in favour of it.

I know. I'm just saying that after taking Israel into account as a data point, we probably shouldn't be trying to recreate Israel.

[Ares Land]

No, like I've seen data claiming the American military is mostly middle class.

(Edit: I've heard soldiers themselves claiming they knew nothing about how the world works when they joined up.)

I was referring to the claim that soldiers are idiots: of course, they knew nothing about how the world works. They join up young: who knows anything about how the world works at 18 or 25? (Even at 37 my main claim to wisdom is that I'm a little more aware of how much I don't know.)

Everyone who can be in the army is in this army. If Curtis Yarvin likes the army, he might climb to an officer's rank.

I somehow have a heard time picturing him crawling in the mud or running 20 miles. Also armies need to win at least a few battles, so they require of their officers the ability to think coherently and express themselves so as to be understood. Random stream-of-consciousness ranks about the Stuart monarchy aren't going to cut it!

(Come to think of it, I'd support a draft and a moderately difficult posting just for Curtis Yavin. I'm sure he'd learn a thing or two.)

Just because some people happened to make sacrifices, and these sacrifices ended up serving the common good, it doesn't follow that those people intended their sacrifices to serve the common good. Many of them could have been motivated by, say, jingoism, jingoism that, in other circumstances, would lead them to make sacrifices that did not serve the common good.

Oh, of course, there were a lot of dubious motives (a surprising number of fascists ended up in the French Resistance!)
But what's the alternative? I don't picture pacifism winning WWII.

This also assume that pacifists are free of ulterior motives! In pre-WWII Europe, that was very much not so. Typically the motives were a mixture of fascist sympathizing, antisemitism and plain cowardice. (Check out Céline for the sordid details.)

Interestingly, Trump fans brought up pacifism a lot. There's a lot of opposition to the Iraq War (somehow associated with the Democrats because mumble mumble deep state) and opposition to a war with Russia (pure fantasy, but don't blame me! I'm not the one to come up with it!)

I think fascists are opportunistic predators. They're not above preying upon pacifists if it serves their motives.

I have a pretty low opinion of South Korea, but what does that have to do with anything? It doesn't change anything about the Soviet Union.

If A is X, B is X and I'm looking for Y, then I should be looking for something other than A or B.

It seems what you're looking for is an ideal, utopian even human society. You're never going to find such a thing!

That doesn't make all values judgements meaningless, though. South Korea has many issues, but it's orders of magnitude better than North Korea. The US were a lot better than the Soviet Union in the 1950s, even taking Jim Crow laws into account.

If your army doesn't move as a unit, then you must resort to guerrilla tactics. Guerrilla tactics don't scale, but they can be effective for defensive war in a battlefield with terrain like in Afghanistan.

Is there any reason to believe a democratic army unit couldn't move as a unit, besides that it's never been tried? Everyone just assumes an army has to be stupidly authoritarian, that doesn't mean it really works better that way!

[Jonlang]

Recently I've been listening to Pink Floyd's Animals (1977) in anticipation of the forthcoming 5.1 mix. Reading... sadly nothing at the moment as I haven't had time (my house is currently taking a lot of time), but I shall soon be getting started on Stephen Fry's Mythos which has sat, unread, on my bookshelf since its publication a few years ago and there have been two subsequent books since (Heroes and Troy). Regarding what I'm watching - most of what I watch is watched with my girlfriend and we're almost at the end of the most recent series of The Crown, I am about to begin watching the final series of The Man in the High Castle; and I'm a few episodes into Clarkson's Farm which is hilarious.

[Travis B.]

I don't think that democracy in the military in the form of elected and recallable officers would result in a breakdown in discipline and fighting effectiveness, as soldiers would still be answerable to said officers, and thus to their entire unit who elects said officers. If anything the social influence of pressure from the other soldiers would likely be greater, because said officers would be one of them and would represent them as a whole rather than being imposed from without, so disobeying the officers would be disobeying the will of the unit as a whole.

[rotting bones]

I was referring to the claim that soldiers are idiots: of course, they knew nothing about how the world works. They join up young: who knows anything about how the world works at 18 or 25? (Even at 37 my main claim to wisdom is that I'm a little more aware of how much I don't know.)

In other words, idiots.

I somehow have a heard time picturing him crawling in the mud or running 20 miles. Also armies need to win at least a few battles, so they require of their officers the ability to think coherently and express themselves so as to be understood. Random stream-of-consciousness ranks about the Stuart monarchy aren't going to cut it!

(Come to think of it, I'd support a draft and a moderately difficult posting just for Curtis Yavin. I'm sure he'd learn a thing or two.)

TBH I kind of like his writing, though I like the writings of those infamously obscurantist French philosophers better. I also agree with him on some highly abstract points. For example, he says you shouldn't side with the future if it's not going your way since the future ends in the heat death of the universe. I'm a reactionary on that point. He talks about the equivalence, at some level, of votes and shares, though others have discussed it much more clearly and fruitfully. Somehow, this justifies authoritarianism for Curtis Yarvin. Didn't follow that at all.

Oh, of course, there were a lot of dubious motives (a surprising number of fascists ended up in the French Resistance!)
But what's the alternative? I don't picture pacifism winning WWII.

This also assume that pacifists are free of ulterior motives! In pre-WWII Europe, that was very much not so. Typically the motives were a mixture of fascist sympathizing, antisemitism and plain cowardice. (Check out Céline for the sordid details.)

Interestingly, Trump fans brought up pacifism a lot. There's a lot of opposition to the Iraq War (somehow associated with the Democrats because mumble mumble deep state) and opposition to a war with Russia (pure fantasy, but don't blame me! I'm not the one to come up with it!)

I think fascists are opportunistic predators. They're not above preying upon pacifists if it serves their motives.

I haven't argued for pacifism yet, only for professionalism in the military.

It seems what you're looking for is an ideal, utopian even human society. You're never going to find such a thing!

I'm arguing against the chauvinism I see on the contemporary "left", as if great things have been accomplished. It's not obvious to me that any human has ever accomplished anything great.

That doesn't make all values judgements meaningless, though. South Korea has many issues, but it's orders of magnitude better than North Korea. The US were a lot better than the Soviet Union in the 1950s, even taking Jim Crow laws into account.

I've heard some people escaped from South Korea to North Korea for affordable healthcare. I haven't verified this myself.

Is there any reason to believe a democratic army unit couldn't move as a unit, besides that it's never been tried? Everyone just assumes an army has to be stupidly authoritarian, that doesn't mean it really works better that way!

My impression from historical data is that because weapons are dangerous, the army is trying to be a single organization, not an infinitely fractured space like the business world.

[rotting bones]

I don't think that democracy in the military in the form of elected and recallable officers would result in a breakdown in discipline and fighting effectiveness, as soldiers would still be answerable to said officers, and thus to their entire unit who elects said officers. If anything the social influence of pressure from the other soldiers would likely be greater, because said officers would be one of them and would represent them as a whole rather than being imposed from without, so disobeying the officers would be disobeying the will of the unit as a whole.

How does recall work? Does it work by majority vote? If the units in the army disagree with each other, will the commanders be chosen by the will of the majority of soldiers or the majority of unit commanders? Can you recall the commanders in the middle of an operation? If minorities refuse to go along with the will of the majority, will their units be disbanded?

[Ares Land]

I haven't argued for pacifism yet, only for professionalism in the military.

Oh, OK. On that I agree with you.

I've heard some people escaped from South Korea to North Korea for affordable healthcare. I haven't verified this myself.

I heard that kind of claim for Cuba too.
Given a choice, I'd rather live a relatively free life and die of some stupid disease than get top-notch healthcare in North Korea.
Fortunately, it's not a choice I have to make. You can get affordable health care without a dictator. (FWIW I'm pretty sure they're lying about NK and Cuba.)

[Raholeun]

For almost two years I have been putting off watching Mishima: Life in Four Chapters* (Paul Schrader, 1985), because I promised to watch it together with a friend, but since sleep won't come to me I will mortgage my promise and take a sneak preview.

*Schrader has serialized 4 dramatizations of Mishima's novels and has done so in a sympathetic manner. Additionally, the music score is by Philip Glass, who I am not entirely a fan of, but he sure knows his stuff. The whole thing can be found integrally on youtube.

[Travis B.]

I don't think that democracy in the military in the form of elected and recallable officers would result in a breakdown in discipline and fighting effectiveness, as soldiers would still be answerable to said officers, and thus to their entire unit who elects said officers. If anything the social influence of pressure from the other soldiers would likely be greater, because said officers would be one of them and would represent them as a whole rather than being imposed from without, so disobeying the officers would be disobeying the will of the unit as a whole.

How does recall work? Does it work by majority vote? If the units in the army disagree with each other, will the commanders be chosen by the will of the majority of soldiers or the majority of unit commanders? Can you recall the commanders in the middle of an operation? If minorities refuse to go along with the will of the majority, will their units be disbanded?

Those are all very good questions. It would be a good idea for recalling a commander to require a supermajority vote, followed by a separate majority vote to select a new commander, to avoid frequent changes in leadership, especially since military leaders' decisions are bound to be unpopular at times. Higher-level commanders should probably be chosen by all of those under them, to avoid the problems associated with soviets of soviets. Recalling commanders should be possible during operations, e.g. if the commander is seriously botching things, but the frequency of this occurring should be limited by requiring a supermajority vote. As for cases where whole units actively disobey orders from the officers that have been elected, and those officers are not recalled, disbanding the units and reassigning those within them is probably the best option.

[Vijay]

Guys, I'm not quite sure what you're discussing, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have anything much to do with what you're reading, watching, or listening to now, right? Maybe it would be a good idea to discuss it in another thread if you're interested in continuing the discussion? Thanks.

[Ares Land]

Getting back on topic... Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen by Guy Standing is very good if you want a thorough coverage of the subject.
I still think it's a little weak on the issue of funding. My own take is that it's a hard sell because it's going to anger people both on the left -- because some social programs will have to be cut -- and on the right -- because you need a huge increase on wealth and income taxes. (Ultimately, though I came out convinced basic income is probably the only real option.)


Now re-reading The Illuminatus! Trilogy because I'm in the mood for some light-hearted fiction.
(I read it when I was 16... and I don't think I understood any of the references at the time.)

[KathTheDragon]

some social programs will have to be cut

Aren't a number of social programs in part superceded by UBI?