Conscription: State sponsored slavery?

[Svartalf]

No, it's just that they do need the girls to do it too if they have to have the numbers not to be crushed under the weight.

[Hermit]

Oh my, this thread is moving fast.

May I take your silence on my other points as agreement?

you mean points like "I regard the experiences of a serviceman as carrying more weight in this discussion, because the rights, privileges, and prerogatives of a serviceman are different from those of a civilian, they directly impact this topic, and a GI is much more likely to have useful knowledge in that regard. It's not "pulling rank"; it's acknowledging the obvious." ? Actually, yes, which means It's my turn to make a retraction. I have repeatedly claimed that having seen active service in the military does not give one special insights on the nature of war. In saying so, I have repeatedly and carelessly ignored the context claims to the contrary were expressed - people with first hand experience have better idea of what it is like to be a soldier, be it a conscript or a volunteer.

My mistakes stemmed from my insistence to narrowly focus on conscription from the angles that conscripts are forced into military duties due to the social compact they find themselves in, while slaves are bought and sold like cattle. In order to equate conscription with slavery, the definition of slavery would have to be expanded to an extent that the discussion loses meaningfulness. I could do with a bit of training to make it easier for me to not just look at other people's point of view, but to actually get inside them. That would make for better discussions.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I appreciate that you're being thoughtful, and I'm not trying to prod you, or anyone else, here.

[Warren Dew]

World War 2 -- Britain conscripted women. Israel does, as does Taiwan and Peru.

Israel doesn't count; that's universal service, not conscription.

But given you came up with other examples, I'll provide a fuller answer: no, slavery does not imply that the master can do anything he wants with the slave. As I demonstrated above, when slavery is legal, there are laws limiting how slaves can be treated, and those laws vary from case to case. A case in point is miscegenation laws some of which prohibited any sex with one's slaves in the antebellum south.

Whether it should be voluntary is not the same question as whether it, or conscription, is slavery.

It's involuntary servitude, which is my definition of slavery.

you mean points like "I regard the experiences of a serviceman as carrying more weight in this discussion, because the rights, privileges, and prerogatives of a serviceman are different from those of a civilian, they directly impact this topic, and a GI is much more likely to have useful knowledge in that regard. It's not "pulling rank"; it's acknowledging the obvious." ? Actually, yes, which means It's my turn to make a retraction. I have repeatedly claimed that having seen active service in the military does not give one special insights on the nature of war. In saying so, I have repeatedly and carelessly ignored the context claims to the contrary were expressed - people with first hand experience have better idea of what it is like to be a soldier, be it a conscript or a volunteer.

Let's keep in mind that there are military veterans on both sides of the argument here.

My mistakes stemmed from my insistence to narrowly focus on conscription from the angles that conscripts are forced into military duties due to the social compact they find themselves in, while slaves are bought and sold like cattle.

The "social compact" argument is bogus. Forcing part of the population into servitude because they happened to have draft numbers that came up is no different from forcing part of the population into servitude because they happen to have darker skin. You could argue that either is part of the social compact in some societies, but a truly just society would have neither.

[Audley Strange]

I can see both sides of this. (Surprise!!!)

Best distinction I can come up with is that slaves are chattel and conscripts are generally meant as bullet sponges (from a political view more than a military one btw) There is also a distinction between an army of conscripts and an army of slaves.

However if one's state is forcing it's citizens to die or be murdered for the benefit of political masters, then the state itself I'd say is acting like a dispassionate slave owner.

[Tyrannical]

I can see both sides of this. (Surprise!!!)

Best distinction I can come up with is that slaves are chattel and conscripts are generally meant as bullet sponges (from a political view more than a military one btw) There is also a distinction between an army of conscripts and an army of slaves.

However if one's state is forcing it's citizens to die or be murdered for the benefit of political masters, then the state itself I'd say is acting like a dispassionate slave owner.

Slaves had value as property, conscripts do not. Owners may have been able to demand money for the death or injury of their slaves, and slaves were fairly valuable.

[Coito ergo sum]

and those lasses were even more frightening than gaghaffi's panthers or NK female soldiers...

Well, North Korea is basically a slave state, so, obviously we have to look at degrees. In the normal course of a normal country, the people are not slaves and they have individual rights, even conscripts, and they are subject to legal obligations, but they also have legal rights.

[MrJonno]

Not convinced women were conscripted in the UK in WW2 in the convential sense of having to join the military. There were required to register their skills and many were given a choice of jobs that would help the war effort.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As the war continued men from the other registered age groups received their 'call-up' papers requiring them to serve in the armed forces. In 1941 single women aged between 20 and 30 were also conscripted. Women did not take part in the fighting but were required to take up work in reserved occupations - especially factories and farming - to enable men to be drafted into the services.

http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW2/conscription.htm

[Coito ergo sum]

Not convinced women were conscripted in the UK in WW2 in the convential sense of having to join the military. There were required to register their skills and many were given a choice of jobs that would help the war effort.

If they were required to work, then weren't they just as much slaves as any conscripted soldier?

[Audley Strange]

I can see both sides of this. (Surprise!!!)

Best distinction I can come up with is that slaves are chattel and conscripts are generally meant as bullet sponges (from a political view more than a military one btw) There is also a distinction between an army of conscripts and an army of slaves.

However if one's state is forcing it's citizens to die or be murdered for the benefit of political masters, then the state itself I'd say is acting like a dispassionate slave owner.

Slaves had value as property, conscripts do not. Owners may have been able to demand money for the death or injury of their slaves, and slaves were fairly valuable.

That's a good point. Slaves are considered human objects not human beings. Conscripts are still considered citizens of the state with the same rights for which they are obligated to serve or be punished dependent on I suppose the social contract.

This leads to an interesting point.

If a society is not a democratic state, then without mandate by the people to rule them, conscription is slavery.
In a democratic state, which is of for and by the people then conscription is not since they made the choice.

Yes? No?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think democracy is an important point, so long as the conscription is enacted by elected representatives of the citizenry, and not simply decreed by a bureaucrat.

[Svartalf]

I can see both sides of this. (Surprise!!!)

Best distinction I can come up with is that slaves are chattel and conscripts are generally meant as bullet sponges (from a political view more than a military one btw) There is also a distinction between an army of conscripts and an army of slaves.

However if one's state is forcing it's citizens to die or be murdered for the benefit of political masters, then the state itself I'd say is acting like a dispassionate slave owner.

Slaves had value as property, conscripts do not. Owners may have been able to demand money for the death or injury of their slaves, and slaves were fairly valuable.

That's a good point. Slaves are considered human objects not human beings. Conscripts are still considered citizens of the state with the same rights for which they are obligated to serve or be punished dependent on I suppose the social contract.

This leads to an interesting point.

If a society is not a democratic state, then without mandate by the people to rule them, conscription is slavery.
In a democratic state, which is of for and by the people then conscription is not since they made the choice.

Yes? No?

You're wrong on multiple points.

a) a conscript, while indeed considered a citizen, did lose any number of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship under the French practice. They temporarily lost the ability to vote if their service happened to be during an election year, and while conscripts were mostly too young to be eligible to many political functions, those who were actually elected officials have to step down and go serve. Simlarly, while the right to go on strike is a basic right of the French worker, it was utterly denied to conscripts, who would also be punished if they engaged in the practices career soldiers used in lieu of going on strike, even if they did so in support of, and/or for the same reasons as career soldiers.

b) in a so called democratic state, conscription is no less enslaving than in despotic ones, unless it's a first generation democracy and you're one of those who actually made the choice... if the choice was made by your forebears, then you're given a Hobson's choice or Zugwang, since you can either submit, or renounce citizenship and probably have to exile yourself.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think democracy is an important point, so long as the conscription is enacted by elected representatives of the citizenry, and not simply decreed by a bureaucrat.

I don't see that as a salient point. Slavery, even if voted in by a majority, is still slavery. So, the analysis of whether it is slavery depends on other factors.

[Audley Strange]

a) a conscript, while indeed considered a citizen, did lose any number of the rights and prerogatives of citizenship under the French practice...
...temporarily.

So not like slaves, who are neither considered citizens or have rights to lose temporarily.


b) in a so called democratic state, conscription is no less enslaving than in despotic ones, unless it's a first generation democracy and you're one of those who actually made the choice... if the choice was made by your forebears, then you're given a Hobson's choice or Zugwang, since you can either submit, or renounce citizenship and probably have to exile yourself.[/quote]

Or one could, if one actually believed in democracy, accept that conscription is a consequence of the choice of Government. Do people believe in the concept of government of for and by the people only when it benefits them? Also while the choices may be difficult, a potential conscript has choices. I don't think slavery was big on giving people the choice to be slaves or not, though obviously there are traditions and exceptions.