3 ms·

I wish we'd stop using euphemisms like "conscription" for the practice of slavery. Slave armies are still slave armies even if it's the government doing the en

by sneak 3y ago

I wish we'd stop using euphemisms like "conscription" for the practice of slavery. Slave armies are still slave armies even if it's the government doing the enslaving.

Muromec 3y ago
But conscription is neither slavery nor forced labor (like taxes aren't theft), because parties to ECHR agreed to give themselves exemption on that.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I do think it's slavery too. Especially because as a soldier you have no rights and you have to follow orders barked at you by most likely less intelligent people just because they have a few stripes on their shoulder. We still had conscription in the Netherlands when I was young but luckily I got a medical disqualification.
MockObject 3y ago
Think of it as less of a euphemism, and more of a specific type of slavery.
twelve40 3y ago
well... it is, but mostly for economic reasons. Contract army is the privilege of the very richest countries, and in most favorable conditions, too. To me, the idea to be obligated to go and die in some random place like Vietnam on the other side of the planet is obscene. But no society seems to escape this to a certain extent. Except... a few ultra-privileged ones, in peaceful times.
munificent 3y ago
Equating conscription with slavery conveys strictly less useful information. There are many social constructs that forcibly remove rights from someone while retaining others. The set of rights a conscript loses is radically different from the set of rights a slave loses. As a citizen of the US who is not of cosncription age, am I "slave" because the government has removed my right to own nuclear weapons or kill bald eagles? No, obviously not. While conscripts are forced to do some things, they maintain many rights and are treated as people, not property, under law.
- grotorea 3y ago
  Interestingly, Egypt is precisely one of the countries most historically influenced by the politically influential Mamluk slave-soldiers.

by sneak 3y ago

I wish we'd stop using euphemisms like "conscription" for the practice of slavery. Slave armies are still slave armies even if it's the government doing the enslaving.

Muromec 3y ago

But conscription is neither slavery nor forced labor (like taxes aren't theft), because parties to ECHR agreed to give themselves exemption on that.

wkat4242 3y ago
I do think it's slavery too. Especially because as a soldier you have no rights and you have to follow orders barked at you by most likely less intelligent people just because they have a few stripes on their shoulder. We still had conscription in the Netherlands when I was young but luckily I got a medical disqualification.

MockObject 3y ago

Think of it as less of a euphemism, and more of a specific type of slavery.

twelve40 3y ago

well... it is, but mostly for economic reasons. Contract army is the privilege of the very richest countries, and in most favorable conditions, too. To me, the idea to be obligated to go and die in some random place like Vietnam on the other side of the planet is obscene. But no society seems to escape this to a certain extent. Except... a few ultra-privileged ones, in peaceful times.

munificent 3y ago

Equating conscription with slavery conveys strictly less useful information. There are many social constructs that forcibly remove rights from someone while retaining others. The set of rights a conscript loses is radically different from the set of rights a slave loses. As a citizen of the US who is not of cosncription age, am I "slave" because the government has removed my right to own nuclear weapons or kill bald eagles? No, obviously not. While conscripts are forced to do some things, they maintain many rights and are treated as people, not property, under law.

grotorea 3y ago
Interestingly, Egypt is precisely one of the countries most historically influenced by the politically influential Mamluk slave-soldiers.