Conscription: State sponsored slavery?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Well, sure, enlisted soldiers with extreme discipline problems went there too... Then again, they had signed for it, and then committed breaches of contract.

Volunteers and conscripts treated the same? Blows the OP's theory out of the water. Thanks.

You'd expect conscripts eventually destined to come back to civilian life (eventually because time spent in the brig, or amusing variations on it found there, was not counted as time served, so you still had to spend more time under arms) to be treated somewhat more leniently.

Actually, I misspoke... It looks like the African Battalions saw few, if any actual enlisted soldiers, it seems they were specifically used as a posting for conscripts regarded as antisocial trouble makers, whether the trouble arose from disciplinary problems in other units, of for young men who were convicts before they reached the age when they were to be called for military service... those were inducted into those disciplinary battalions straight on getting out of jail... Then again, at the time, an enlisted soldier who could not be corrected by a couple months at his barracks' brig, with bread and water and hard labor was apt to get shot.

So, a penal post. Not at all strange that the discipline was rough.

[Svartalf]

Funny thing is that in time, some people came to call people in these battalions the 'mobsters' (loose translations), and that having been there, and the tattoo to prove it were excellent letters of introduction and motiuves for respect in criminal circlesbetween the two world wars.

[Warren Dew]

I'm a 54 year old woman with side effects from cancer treatment. I will never be in the trenches, even if I wanted to. Perhaps instead of laughing, you guys could help us understand. If no one tells us what its really like, how do you expect us to know? Especially since many of us were young decades ago. Of course our information is outdated or flat-out wrong. Chortling into your beer doesn't help the communication here at all.

So, please, someone, explain what its like. Thanks.

There's nothing to explain, really. I've done my time, too, and I'd say some of the posts from other veterans in this thread are uninformed or poorly thought out as well.

[Warren Dew]

What do you call it then, Gawdzilla, when politicians order their military to start taking people against their will and sending them to war? Recruitment? Encouragement?

It's part and parcel of the social compact in the particular society that does that. If you can't do anything about it, vote with your feet. Join a society where this does not happen.

No it's not... or you'll explain me why some conscripts go to war while others don't, in "peace time", and why, still in "peace time" and without reserve troops being called up or any kind of mobilisation being undertaken, some conscripts have seen their service time arbitrarily prolongated (with no say about it, of course)

You live in a society, right? You elect representatives to make decisions on your behalf. Those representatives may deem it necessary to introduce slavery. You don't like it, so what can you do? That's right - elect representatives that think slavery is not a good idea. If you can't find enough supporters for your cause, don't pretend you have the right to be personally exempted from being subject to popular sentiment. Suck it up or fuck off.

Conscription is involuntary servitude, which is the normal definition of slavery. Arguing that it's okay under some circumstances doesn't change that fact.

Volunteering for fixed terms is more like indentured servitude, which is not really involuntary. I wouldn't consider that slavery, though peoples' definitions might differ.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Conscription is involuntary servitude service, which is not the normal definition of slavery. Arguing that it's okay under some circumstances doesn't change that fact.

Volunteering for fixed terms is more like indentured servitude service, which is not really involuntary. I wouldn't consider that slavery, though peoples' definitions might differ.

Fixed, to remove circular reasoning.

[Warren Dew]

Conscription is involuntary servitude service, which is not the normal definition of slavery. Arguing that it's okay under some circumstances doesn't change that fact.

Volunteering for fixed terms is more like indentured servitude service, which is not really involuntary. I wouldn't consider that slavery, though peoples' definitions might differ.

Fixed, to remove circular reasoning.

There was no circularity. Voluntary servitude exists - it covers many employment situations, for example - and few would consider that to be literal slavery.

[Hermit]

What do you call it then, Gawdzilla, when politicians order their military to start taking people against their will and sending them to war? Recruitment? Encouragement?

It's part and parcel of the social compact in the particular society that does that. If you can't do anything about it, vote with your feet. Join a society where this does not happen.

No it's not... or you'll explain me why some conscripts go to war while others don't, in "peace time", and why, still in "peace time" and without reserve troops being called up or any kind of mobilisation being undertaken, some conscripts have seen their service time arbitrarily prolongated (with no say about it, of course)

You live in a society, right? You elect representatives to make decisions on your behalf. Those representatives may deem it necessary to introduce slavery. You don't like it, so what can you do? That's right - elect representatives that think slavery is not a good idea. If you can't find enough supporters for your cause, don't pretend you have the right to be personally exempted from being subject to popular sentiment. Suck it up or fuck off.

Conscription is involuntary servitude, which is the normal definition of slavery. Arguing that it's okay under some circumstances doesn't change that fact.

You fixed nothing. Yes, conscription is involuntary servitude, but not due to you being bought and sold. It is part of the social compact in the society you live in. And I have made no comment whatsoever that could possibly give you the impression that I argued that it's okay under some circumstances. I did say more than once now words to the effect that Conscription is "part and parcel of the social compact in the particular society that does that. If you can't do anything about it, vote with your feet. Join a society where this does not happen."

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not so:

ser·vi·tude (sûrv-td, -tyd)
n.
1. a. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
b. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
2. Forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime: penal servitude in labor camps.
3. Law A right that grants use of another's property.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/servitude

None of those apply to a circumstance of employment, at least here in California. None of those are voluntary, either.

Simply asserting that conscription is servitude is functionally the same as asserting that it is slavery. That makes your post a simple reassertion of what is being argued, without adding any support.

[Hermit]

Not so:

ser·vi·tude (sûrv-td, -tyd)
n.
1. a. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
b. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
2. Forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime: penal servitude in labor camps.
3. Law A right that grants use of another's property.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/servitude

None of those apply to a circumstance of employment, at least here in California. None of those are voluntary, either.

Simply asserting that conscription is servitude is functionally the same as asserting that it is slavery. That makes your post a simple reassertion of what is being argued, without adding any support.

You quoted four definitions of "servitude". 1.b. applies to conscription, 2. does not usually apply to slavery, 3. does not apply to either, and 1.a. does not apply to conscription. Soldiers are not owned by anyone in the sense that slaves are chattel. So, conflating servitude, conscription and slavery as if they were synonymous terms is, to say the very least, inaccurate.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Not so:

ser·vi·tude (sûrv-td, -tyd)
n.
1. a. A state of subjection to an owner or master.
b. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.
2. Forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime: penal servitude in labor camps.
3. Law A right that grants use of another's property.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/servitude

None of those apply to a circumstance of employment, at least here in California. None of those are voluntary, either.

Simply asserting that conscription is servitude is functionally the same as asserting that it is slavery. That makes your post a simple reassertion of what is being argued, without adding any support.

You quoted four definitions of "servitude". 1.b. applies to conscription,

Wrong. The state most certainly does not own the servicemember, and it is only his master during duty hours.

2. does not usually apply to slavery,

Wrong. Slaves by definition lack personal freedom.

3. does not apply to either,

Agreed.

and 1.a. does not apply to conscription.

Wrong again. Conscripts aren't free to act as they choose. They have some freedoms, more than a slave, but less than a non-military citizen.

Soldiers are not owned by anyone in the sense that slaves are chattel. So, conflating servitude, conscription and slavery as if they were synonymous terms is, to say the very least, inaccurate.

Agreed, and disagreed. Servitude and slavery, in the sense of both 1) and 1a) are interchangeable. A slave lacks personal freedom (he cannot decide to take the day off and drive to Santa Barbara for some shopping and a latté); a slave has a master, or owner, who decides what the slave will do, when he will do it, and where.

A conscript, on the other hand, had hardly any freedom at all during basic training, but once he cleared that and was accepted as a member of the service, he was free, away from duty hours, to do as he pleased, aside from breaking the law or removing himself from his duties in a permanent manner. His time away from duty was his own to spend as he saw fit so long as he was able to return to duty at the appointed time and place. He could drive to Dallas for the weekend, but had to return to Fort Hood by 0700 Monday for reveille.

He is not owned by the government; he serves it, for a legally-mandated period, usually shorter than a volunteer (out of consideration for the hardship of serving at the government's pleasure, instead of his own) and if you kidnap him you aren't accused of stealing government property. If you assault him you aren't accused of "destruction of government property" ... no matter what they say in the movies.

So yes, you're partially correct: Warren's application of the term "servitude" to conscripts is indeed off-the-mark, but that is because it is functionally synonymous with slavery, as I've shown here -- and only slavery, in the context of this discussion.

[Hermit]

1.b. applies to conscription,

Wrong. The state most certainly does not own the servicemember, and it is only his master during duty hours.

Would you please read 1.b? Unlike 1.a, it says nothing about ownership at all. It only says "Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses." Conscripts have no choice but to obey their superior ranks' orders. They'll soon find out what happens if they don't, and the consequences don't usually include being dismissed from the job.

2. does not usually apply to slavery,

Wrong. Slaves by definition lack personal freedom.

The key bits of 2. go like this: "punishment for crime: penal servitude" That does not normally apply to slaves, does it?

and 1.a. does not apply to conscription.

Wrong again. Conscripts aren't free to act as they choose. They have some freedoms, more than a slave, but less than a non-military citizen.

1.a is about subjection to an owner.

[Thumpalumpacus]

1.b. applies to conscription,

Wrong. The state most certainly does not own the servicemember, and it is only his master during duty hours.

Would you please read 1.b? Unlike 1.a, it says nothing about ownership at all. It only says "Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses." Conscripts have no choice but to obey their superior ranks' orders. They'll soon find out what happens if they don't, and the consequences don't usually include being dismissed from the job.

2. does not usually apply to slavery,

Wrong. Slaves by definition lack personal freedom.

The key bits of 2. go like this: "punishment for crime: penal servitude" That does not normally apply to slaves, does it?

and 1.a. does not apply to conscription.

Wrong again. Conscripts aren't free to act as they choose. They have some freedoms, more than a slave, but less than a non-military citizen.

1.a is about subjection to an owner.

My apologies; I was reading the numbers wrong. My points stand.

Allow me to go over them, one-by-one:

1. a. A state of subjection to an owner or master.

This certainly applies to a slave, and not to a conscript.

b. Lack of personal freedom, as to act as one chooses.

This applies to both slaves and, to a lesser extent, to conscripts.

2. Forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime: penal servitude in labor camps.

As above, we're agreed.

3. Law A right that grants use of another's property.

As above, we're agreed.

My point, that a slave is in a state of servitude while a conscript is not, is borne out. My apologies if my misapplication of the enumerators confused you; I was clearly turned around; but surely my point itself is clear: a slave is in a state of servitude (1a and 1b), and a conscript is not (only partly satisfying 1b). Do you have issue with that?

[Hermit]

My point, that a slave is in a state of servitude while a conscript is not, is borne out. My apologies if my misapplication of the enumerators confused you; I was clearly turned around; but surely my point itself is clear: a slave is in a state of servitude (1a and 1b), and a conscript is not (only partly satisfying 1b). Do you have issue with that?

It seems we are talking past each other. That post of mine you initially replied to concluded with "conflating servitude, conscription and slavery as if they were synonymous terms is, to say the very least, inaccurate." That point, however, is at best tangential to the main one I made here, and could perhaps be more accurately described as irrelevant. It was in short, that conscription is not slavery because it is part and parcel of the social compact each member of society is part of. I tried to reword this notion and elaborate on it several times since then in order to clarify what I meant, but unfortunately it has been met with total, deafening silence.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, I was addressing Warren and his application of the term "servitude" to conscription, and I think we are in agreement at least in part about that. I also think we are in broader agreement on the nature of the two conditions under discussion here. The only disagreement we seem to have is whether slavery is a form of servitude. We even agree that that discussion is aside the point.

I had seen your previous post regarding the obligations incurred my the members of a society, and hadn't responded to it because by and large I agree with your point that those who enjoy the protection of a society have an obligation to serve it (in one form or another, to my way of thinking -- not necessarily conscription).

My apologies for not saying something about my agreement with that point. It certainly wasn't ignored on this side of the monitor.

[Hermit]

Yeah, I was addressing Warren and his application of the term "servitude" to conscription, and I think we are in agreement at least in part about that. I also think we are in broader agreement on the nature of the two conditions under discussion here. The only disagreement we seem to have is whether slavery is a form of servitude. We even agree that that discussion is aside the point.

I had seen your previous post regarding the obligations incurred my the members of a society, and hadn't responded to it because by and large I agree with your point that those who enjoy the protection of a society have an obligation to serve it (in one form or another, to my way of thinking -- not necessarily conscription).

My apologies for not saying something about my agreement with that point. It certainly wasn't ignored on this side of the monitor.

Ha, that's more often the case with agreeing with a post; you silently nod to yourself "yeah, that's about right", and go on to the next post. Chances are that you disagree with it and are moved to write something explaining why. I do that myself heaps of times.

As for slavery being a form of servitude, I don't know how anybody can disagree with that. All I'm saying - and other posters have mentioned this before me - is that the two words are not synonymous.