48
nK bAd!!!
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2026
48 points (61.2% liked)
Memes
55554 readers
1141 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
In an ideal world, no country would even have a reason to have universal conscription. We do not live in an ideal world, though, we live in the era of dying imperialism, where the US Empire could lash out at any moment. In these circumstances, the decision to implement universal conscription is entitely rational. Further, I am not purely speaking of children, but also full adults getting their medical degrees and having to give back to the system by going to the areas most in need for a time.
As for democracy, the book I linked is the best source I've found.
I definitely oppose that. It might just be a difference in values.
You may oppose it, but you also likely do not live in a socialist country. Understanding why socialist countries have the policies they do requires understanding their situations. For example, in Cuba, sending doctors to the rural areas helped provide medical access to people who never had it before. These programs are not at all comparable to slavery, but are pro-social policies decided within a class, not imposed by one class onto the rest.
I actually live in a country that claims to be socialist, but I'm not sure they have gone very far to earn that label.
AFAIK no one is forced to become a doctor in Cuba
Not sure what you mean, if you don't live in China, Vietnam, Laos, the DPRK, Cuba, or potentially Venezuela, then I don't think your country is really socialist. Either way, my point is that universal conscription isn't at all the same as slavery.
Me either
I can't imagine why you oppose that. In fact, I think it should be mandatory in all countries. If your education is paid for by the state of the proletariat, then you HAVE to pay back to society.
I think this might be one of those individualistic vs collectivist moral thing.
In my country, if the state pays for your education, then you're mandated to do service for a few years to the underprivileged sections of society. Because it was THEIR money that paid for your education. I would never vote for anyone trying to change this.
All of us owe a debt to society because our lives are made possible by it. All of us owe something to our fellow humans.
I do have individualistic values, in the Marxist sense. I oppose a society oriented around the individual, but I do value individuality and the encouragement/development of it.
I find the concept of debt problematic, especially one that is not taken by choice. As to serving the state in return for education, that's more of a gray area if you still have the option to not accept the education.
You're not forced to become a doctor. But if you do, and you do so not in isolation but with the resources provided for the state, resources that include efforts and labour by the proletariat of the state, then you're expected to give back to those that will come after.
I truly don't understand how that concept is so difficult to understand.
Debt to society is a figure of speech, not a material debt. It's about participating in society that enables your life. If you don't want to, you can always move to the woods and live in a cabin away from civilization and do everything yourself. But if you want the benefits of society and civilization, then you have to realize that you need to give back as well. It's literally not that difficult a concept to understand, I'm not sure what's confusing you