The problem with that is that the media isn't especially liberal, it's just not batshit crazy "conservative". It's not terribly extraordinary that military folk are being suggested for DoD sorts of positions, since that at least has a semblance of them being qualified. Ben Carson for HUD on the other hand...
Well you've elected Trump so it's time to come together and work as one. Just like how after Obama won the Republicans did all they could to push for bipartisan collateral working together in friendship so well. Even if he was a Kenyan Muslim terrorist.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
Mattis is qualified for the job without a doubt. I am just worried about the mindset he and other generals would take going into that job. Military people have a habit of myopia and needless aggression. I can see him fucking up the job by trying to run a giant department like his own military unit. You have to admit that putting one as secretary of homeland security is especially worrying,r right?DesertFox- wrote:
The problem with that is that the media isn't especially liberal, it's just not batshit crazy "conservative". It's not terribly extraordinary that military folk are being suggested for DoD sorts of positions, since that at least has a semblance of them being qualified. Ben Carson for HUD on the other hand...
The military has a weird hybrid corporate/Marxist culture that is about putting the needs of others before your own. Military people tend to also be a lot more dovish on a macro level than the rest of the population. Mattis will be fine. Flynn is the problem.SuperJail Warden wrote:
Mattis is qualified for the job without a doubt. I am just worried about the mindset he and other generals would take going into that job. Military people have a habit of myopia and needless aggression. I can see him fucking up the job by trying to run a giant department like his own military unit. You have to admit that putting one as secretary of homeland security is especially worrying,r right?DesertFox- wrote:
The problem with that is that the media isn't especially liberal, it's just not batshit crazy "conservative". It's not terribly extraordinary that military folk are being suggested for DoD sorts of positions, since that at least has a semblance of them being qualified. Ben Carson for HUD on the other hand...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay wrote:
The military has a weird hybrid corporate/Marxist culture that is about putting the needs of others before your own..SuperJail Warden wrote:
Mattis is qualified for the job without a doubt. I am just worried about the mindset he and other generals would take going into that job. Military people have a habit of myopia and needless aggression. I can see him fucking up the job by trying to run a giant department like his own military unit. You have to admit that putting one as secretary of homeland security is especially worrying,r right?DesertFox- wrote:
The problem with that is that the media isn't especially liberal, it's just not batshit crazy "conservative". It's not terribly extraordinary that military folk are being suggested for DoD sorts of positions, since that at least has a semblance of them being qualified. Ben Carson for HUD on the other hand...
Have you served? The backbone of the military is structured around a welfare state. Everyone of a certain rank is paid the same. Everyone is given a clothing allowance, and a food allowance, and a housing allowance. Everyone has access to free medical care. Promotions are transparent, and you know how much the guy next to you makes based on time in service and rank. People in leadership roles are trained under the "leaders eat last" mentality.uziq wrote:
Jay wrote:
The military has a weird hybrid corporate/Marxist culture that is about putting the needs of others before your own..SuperJail Warden wrote:
Mattis is qualified for the job without a doubt. I am just worried about the mindset he and other generals would take going into that job. Military people have a habit of myopia and needless aggression. I can see him fucking up the job by trying to run a giant department like his own military unit. You have to admit that putting one as secretary of homeland security is especially worrying,r right?
Among officers, it tends to be more corporate. They have constant meetings, politicking, and are trained to put the needs of the army before the needs of their individual soldiers.
For a guy like Mattis, he's lived his entire life worrying about the morale of the people working under him. I wasn't a marine, but the ones I know all have nothing but good things to say about him.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
i have family in the military and went to a school with a very strong military tradition (and an otc ethos). about the last word i'd use to describe that tradition-clad place is 'marxist'.
i think you must be willfully misunderstanding what marxism is in your haste to, yet again, ennoble trite observations with gilded names. just like you can't get a plato reference right, so are you haphazardly using 'corporate-marxism' to describe the military when another, simpler term will do.
for a start, isn't corporate/marxist the biggest oxymoron? not to mention the fact that the military is rigidly hierarchical and marxian societies, well, are not. surely there's a better way you can describe things? whenever you post here thesedays i laugh because i get the impression of someone with a word-salad of 'university graduate' terms but no real-world clue on how to use them. i get the impression you must hang around with a lot of very poorly read people who never call you out on this loose bullshit.
why can't you just say the military is based around the notion of 'service'? people know what that means and they understand how it relates to military life. or valour, honour, bravery - all those old, redolent terms? i can see how an experienced high-ranking officer would bring a bit of decorum and a sense of serving the public good to a role. i can't see how he'd bring a 'corporate-marxist' outlook. 'feeding your brother before feeding yourself' isn't really marxist; if it is, it's the part of marxism that came from good 'ole german protestantism, and roots in the NT/gospels before that. it's a very old christian ethic. so the military has its own forms of bureaucracy and notions of public service. ok. 'corporate-marxism' then for those who spend a lot of time in pseud's corner.
i think you must be willfully misunderstanding what marxism is in your haste to, yet again, ennoble trite observations with gilded names. just like you can't get a plato reference right, so are you haphazardly using 'corporate-marxism' to describe the military when another, simpler term will do.
for a start, isn't corporate/marxist the biggest oxymoron? not to mention the fact that the military is rigidly hierarchical and marxian societies, well, are not. surely there's a better way you can describe things? whenever you post here thesedays i laugh because i get the impression of someone with a word-salad of 'university graduate' terms but no real-world clue on how to use them. i get the impression you must hang around with a lot of very poorly read people who never call you out on this loose bullshit.
why can't you just say the military is based around the notion of 'service'? people know what that means and they understand how it relates to military life. or valour, honour, bravery - all those old, redolent terms? i can see how an experienced high-ranking officer would bring a bit of decorum and a sense of serving the public good to a role. i can't see how he'd bring a 'corporate-marxist' outlook. 'feeding your brother before feeding yourself' isn't really marxist; if it is, it's the part of marxism that came from good 'ole german protestantism, and roots in the NT/gospels before that. it's a very old christian ethic. so the military has its own forms of bureaucracy and notions of public service. ok. 'corporate-marxism' then for those who spend a lot of time in pseud's corner.
Last edited by uziq (2016-12-12 06:36:34)
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
A lot of people who served under Mattis have come out to say he is a dick with good PR and obnoxious quotes. One NCO complained about how his superior was relieved of his command during the Iraqi invasion due to them stopping their advance due to lack of food and fuel. Of course he probably would have been angry at the commander for running out of fuel if they kept pushing.
The guy has been in the military his whole life and probably has warped expectations and values.
The guy has been in the military his whole life and probably has warped expectations and values.
Okuziq wrote:
i have family in the military and went to a school with a very strong military tradition (and an otc ethos). about the last word i'd use to describe that tradition-clad place is 'marxist'.
i think you must be willfully misunderstanding what marxism is in your haste to, yet again, ennoble trite observations with gilded names. just like you can't get a plato reference right, so are you haphazardly using 'corporate-marxism' to describe the military when another, simpler term will do.
for a start, isn't corporate/marxist the biggest oxymoron? not to mention the fact that the military is rigidly hierarchical and marxian societies, well, are not. surely there's a better way you can describe things? whenever you post here thesedays i laugh because i get the impression of someone with a word-salad of 'university graduate' terms but no real-world clue on how to use them. i get the impression you must hang around with a lot of very poorly read people who never call you out on this loose bullshit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
you post here to get off on your own 'learnedness' but everyone just rolls their eyes at the bar-stool dilettante.
people would have an easier time responding to your points and arguments if you didn't obfuscate them in barely legible arcane references.
but of course that would mean having to actually argue a point in the first place and not jerking off to your own tune.
the us military as a marxist organisation - i've really heard everything.
people would have an easier time responding to your points and arguments if you didn't obfuscate them in barely legible arcane references.
but of course that would mean having to actually argue a point in the first place and not jerking off to your own tune.
the us military as a marxist organisation - i've really heard everything.
Last edited by uziq (2016-12-12 06:41:54)
What I had in mind was soviet-style scientific management (which were based on Harvard Business School tenets) coupled with the welfare state.uziq wrote:
why can't you just say the military is based around the notion of 'service'? people know what that means and they understand how it relates to military life. or valour, honour, bravery - all those old, redolent terms? i can see how an experienced high-ranking officer would bring a bit of decorum and a sense of serving the public good to a role. i can't see how he'd bring a 'corporate-marxist' outlook. 'feeding your brother before feeding yourself' isn't really marxist; if it is, it's the part of marxism that came from good 'ole german protestantism, and roots in the NT/gospels before that. it's a very old christian ethic. so the military has its own forms of bureaucracy and notions of public service. ok. 'corporate-marxism' then for those who spend a lot of time in pseud's corner.
I called it corporate because everything is about image and PR. We had crap like "sensing sessions" and "after action reviews" and quarterly counseling sessions etc. While you're in you feel very much like nothing more than a cog in a big corporate machine. Whether that is corporations mimicking the military, the military mimicking corporations, or the fact that leaders of both are taught out of the same handbook, who knows.
It all goes back to the old Prussian state though, yes. HBS idolized its supposed efficiency.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
That is sort of like this general I am talking about. The media others refer to him as a "warrior monk" because he reads and gets his officers to read.uziq wrote:
i have family in the military and went to a whenever you post here thesedays i laugh because i get the impression of someone with a word-salad of 'university graduate' terms but no real-world clue on how to use them. i get the impression you must hang around with a lot of very poorly read people who never call you out on this loose bullshit.
Of course owning 700 books doesn't mean you read them or understood what you read. Especially if you grabbed a bunch from the history shelf at Barnes and noble
soviet-style scientific management, you mean like mcnamara introduced into the military during the vietnam war? how is that particularly soviet, let alone marxist? scientific management was a nascent ideal in the west from the era of the enlightenment and europe's high beliefs in rationality to organise and run society. you may as well say the US military takes its aesthetic from the gardens of versailles or frederick's court, for all good sense your reaching references make.
i can get onboard with the idea that the military has become corporatised and privatised, has taken on management argot and business-world bollocks in an attempt to modernise. but it's almost like it's not enough for you to say that. and you undermine a perfectly good observation when you pair it with marxism. i know you're not particularly pro-left, jay, so i hope it doesn't astonish you too much to say that the left doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of putting others before yourself. it's not like there were no political systems of thought before the early 19th century that proposed this – it wasn't all quasi-scientistic objectivist bollocks and hobbesian moral voids.
i can get onboard with the idea that the military has become corporatised and privatised, has taken on management argot and business-world bollocks in an attempt to modernise. but it's almost like it's not enough for you to say that. and you undermine a perfectly good observation when you pair it with marxism. i know you're not particularly pro-left, jay, so i hope it doesn't astonish you too much to say that the left doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of putting others before yourself. it's not like there were no political systems of thought before the early 19th century that proposed this – it wasn't all quasi-scientistic objectivist bollocks and hobbesian moral voids.
Did you know that the pay disparity between a 4 star general in the US military and a boot private is only 13:1? Did you know that married soldiers are provided with on-base housing, free schools and free healthcare for their families? Did you know that single soldiers have free room and board and access to the same free healthcare? Did you know that every federal holiday is observed and that base commanders generally turn each of these into a free four-day weekend? Did you know that everyone in the military gets 30 days of vacation a year? If you go back to what unions demanded around the turn of last century, pretty much every box is checked short of the guaranteed 40 hour work week.uziq wrote:
soviet-style scientific management, you mean like mcnamara introduced into the military during the vietnam war? how is that particularly soviet, let alone marxist? scientific management was a nascent ideal in the west from the era of the enlightenment and europe's high beliefs in rationality to organise and run society. you may as well say the US military takes its aesthetic from the gardens of versailles or frederick's court, for all good sense your reaching references make.
i can get onboard with the idea that the military has become corporatised and privatised, has taken on management argot and business-world bollocks in an attempt to modernise. but it's almost like it's not enough for you to say that. and you undermine a perfectly good observation when you pair it with marxism. i know you're not particularly pro-left, jay, so i hope it doesn't astonish you too much to say that the left doesn't have a monopoly on the idea of putting others before yourself. it's not like there were no political systems of thought before the early 19th century that proposed this – it wasn't all quasi-scientistic objectivist bollocks and hobbesian moral voids.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
wow it's positively marxist! i can simply think of no other word to describe such a staggering setup.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
do the soldiers own the means of war?
jay seems to think that public sector workers who enjoy the same benefits as pretty much any military or public sector in the advanced western world equals soviet-marxism. 30 days of vacation a year and free healthcare! bejesus! don't tell jay about the trotskyite extremists who are running france, with their state-run laundry services, public creches for working families, and state-paid maternity/paternity leave!
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
I n Jay's mind, a marxist collective based out of the pentagon robbed him of his early twenties by sending him to drive some trucks in a circle around Baghdad.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
it is pretty cool that i can google the next first lady's nude pictures whenever i want.
Colonel Dowerty got relieved and sidearmed removed. He wasn't getting the job done properly.SuperJail Warden wrote:
A lot of people who served under Mattis have come out to say he is a dick with good PR and obnoxious quotes. One NCO complained about how his superior was relieved of his command during the Iraqi invasion due to them stopping their advance due to lack of food and fuel. Of course he probably would have been angry at the commander for running out of fuel if they kept pushing.
The guy has been in the military his whole life and probably has warped expectations and values.
There was a scene in generation kill about that.
- SuperJail Warden
- Gone Forever
- +644|3983
I am not sure if the instance I read about was the same one you saw on a television show
Even if Jay wasn't correct with his wording, he is still a million times closer than the echo-chamber-educated right-wing people at my work who unironically describe both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton as "communists", and I, for one, appreciate that effort.
what is it with americans' perverted desire to misuse political language? it's a sort of violence, rhetorical warfare, mudslinging. anyone left of neoliberal consensus is not 'communist'. a military paid for and provided by the state as a public sector job, with free health insurance and 40 days holiday, is not 'marxist'. you should resist these lazy abuses of language. they're a form of holding the floor of the conversation, as one would say in linguistics. they're rhetorical headlocks that keep the discourse firmly in the scope of those in power: if you can't talk sensibly or accurately about half of the political spectrum, then how can you critically engage with it?
Last edited by uziq (2016-12-13 01:37:02)
SuperJail Warden wrote:
I am not sure if the instance I read about was the same one you saw on a television show
the most famous incident of a removal during the invasion was colonel dowdy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_D._Dowdy
"He led his unit to within 130 km of Baghdad before being relieved of command on April 4, 2003 by Major General James Mattis, the commanding officer of the 1st Marine Division.[1] He was replaced by Colonel John Toolan, then chief of staff for the division. According to the spokesman for the 1st Marine Division at the time, Lieutenant Eric Knapp, Colonel Dowdy's removal "was a decision based on operating tempo."
The man I'm thinking of would probably call you a communist for reading so many books. He seems to be terribly suspicious of the educated.uziq wrote:
what is it with americans' perverted desire to misuse political language? it's a sort of violence, rhetorical warfare, mudslinging. anyone left of neoliberal consensus is not 'communist'. a military paid for and provided by the state as a public sector job, with free health insurance and 40 days holiday, is not 'marxist'. you should resist these lazy abuses of language. they're a form of holding the floor of the conversation, as one would say in linguistics. they're rhetorical headlocks that keep the discourse firmly in the scope of those in power: if you can't talk sensibly or accurately about half of the political spectrum, then how can you critically engage with it?