I really don’t like compulsory military service, it’s a human rights violation in my opinion.
Depends really, if it is inside a bourgeoisie nation. Then yes, I do consider that a violation of human rights since the track record of these nations shows a will to use the military for the benefit of the owners and financiers and not of the majority of the people.
In socialist nations surrounded by possible external attackers and enemies of the revolution it is a necessity for the safety of a worker’s state. From what we have seen, and are seeing now, all socialist nations have been arbiters of peace not willing to use any kind of military force for achieving goals outside of their borders (of course as we know a revolution is not a stroll in the park, but an utmost use of force by the majority of the population, this though is not the traditional use of a military). No subduement of weaker nations for profit and or exploitation, or sacrifice of whole generations to protect the interests of the owners in countries far, far away the soldiers can’t even point to on a map. The only use of a military in those countries was protection of the people, and the protection of socialism from outside threats.
Thus I believe compulsory military service is a complicated topic that cannot be outright claimed to be a human rights violation in all cases, but probably most, seeing as most of us live in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
The only use of a military in those countries was protection of the people, and the protection of socialism from outside threats.
i’m just glad that this is a very concrete stance that definitely will not and never has been bent to absurdity to justify wars 🤗
Lacking context and only having numbers you can’t clearly see the track record of the Chinese and the Soviet Union being much better than that of the US in the amount of wars they partook in. So I also urge you delve deeper in these conflicts, (outside of wikipedia obviously, this stuff is more complicated than a page of that biased crap can or is willing to show)
Check everything past the civil war:
A list of the Soviet Unions involvments (inherently biased against it, since it’s wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia#Soviet_Union_(1922–1991)
And then in comparison, the United States…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States#20th-century_wars
That is also ignoring the more peaceful socialist countries of Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and yes the DPRK too. They are more peaceful than the US ever was, just because they have controversial self defense measures doesn’t discredit them.
So stop saying things that only apply to capitalist countries that use similar rhetoric of “protection” to plunder poorer countries. If they wanted to give their people this “protection”, they’d try to stay inside their borders and not make the Soviet Union need to chip in help to revolutionary movements the US doesn’t like.
that’s admirable, (if you sideline the fact that US isn’t a terribly high bar to overcome in terms of non-involvement in military conflict) but that’s not my point
just because one’s goals happen to be “good” or “bad” doesn’t change the fact that mandatory military service is a violation of human rights; the precursor, justification, consequences, economic system, surrounding rhetoric are not relevant, because we’re discussing the semantics of “violation of human rights”, not whether its consequences lead to more or less peaceful outcomes
Huh, I’ll look into it more on why one might consider mandatory military service to always be a violation of human rights as that is an interesting position seeing how despite any and all material conditions you take it as static. It’s a very interesting position, as you said it’s mostly around the semantics of what human rights constitute as. And you may be correct.
mfs already part of nato AND eu, why do they have to pile even more on top? if anyone is safe, it’s them 🥲
Aside from contributing to the alliance, you’d still need to be able to defend until help arrives, and Latvia is tiny.
the mandatory military service requirement would apply only to men
Very disappointing.
Fucking disgusting, warmongering at its finnest.
Very disappointing.
(The next statement contains a lot of assumptions, read with a grain of salt)
Yeah, dude! We need more women in the military complex! Wait how about, more queer and LGBT folks? More people to die on the front line for nothing, woohoo!
What is actually disappointing is the mandatory military service in a bourgeoisie nation that glorifies fucking Nazis as heroes. Fuck that shit!
