Militarism = parasitism

In a vein related to my WikiLeaks posting, I wanted to opine about a distressing trope I've noticed in the soi-disant liberal talk radio programs I listen to. Further evidence of how the corruption of militarization continues to progress.

It should not have escaped anyone's notice that Congress finally passed a healthcare insurance bill recently. (I deliberately do not use the word "reform" because the systemically disfunctional for-profit, private insurance industry remains firmly in control despite a few cosmetic - if welcome - tweakings along the margins.) It should also have not escaped anyone's notice that many right-wing pundits as well as their low-information audiences have been hysterically throwing around the words "socialist" and "socialism," as if America were only an executive order away from becoming the Soviet Union (or, worse, France).

Often the response of the left-leaning (but still quite moderate) hosts of my shows to callers who complain about Obama's socialist agenda is to mention the military as a prime example of successful socialism. I can only cringe in dismay and rail against the appalling of both caller and hosts. "Socialism" is an economic system where the means of production and the wealth therefrom is controlled by the producers. At a minimum, a socialist-leaning country ensures that its wealth is equitably distributed. A condition unknown in the U.S. since the Reagan administration. Eisenhower and Nixon were better "socialists" than Obama has shown himself to be.

By contrast, a standing army (which the Founders abhorred) is a parasite - it consumes the wealth and returns nothing (sort of like a tribble, and they at least emitted a soothing sound that had a strangely calming effect on...the...human...nervous...system....).

It could be argued that a standing army is necessary in the dangerous world of the 21st century. I would counter that standing armies are a significant factor in making this world so dangerous to begin with (Costa Rica manages to get by without one, why can't anyone else?). But for the moment, let's grant the argument a measure of validity and agree that we need a standing army. It still can't possibly justify a near-trillion-dollar war budget ($700B+, about $500B for the Pentagon plus some gravy for related ministries [Homeland Security, Energy, etc.]). And the means of production and wealth produced are most definitely not in the hands of the producers.

In a body, parasites can be tolerated as long as they don't threaten that body with death. Healthcare, economic stimulus, education, crumbling infrastructure, and all the other problems facing this nation are never going to be resolved without defunding the legions and reining in the military-industrial complex (if you want to see just how out of control things have become, read this TomDispatch).

Unfortunately, humans being humans and, as a group, a bit dull witted, it's unlikely anything short of utter economic collapse is going to stop our march to "victory" around the world.

Addendum: Speaking of the cost of the military parasite, check out the latest blog from TomDispatch.