Ideas from history - "wealth conscription"
Defence commentating hobbit Tom Ricks has been on about the idea of bringing back conscription for most of this year, apparently out of some worry that the US Army isn't sufficiently representative of America. Presumably he doesn't want the US Army to have more mortgage debt and to be more obese, the two main points of difference.
I kid, I kid. Ricks is very worried about a) a version of the "where are the children of the rich?" argument, and b) some not-all-that-easy-to-understand concept of the military developing a separate culture from the rest of America and this being bad for democracy. Anyway, the answer is conscription, which makes one think the wrong question has been asked.
And so I bring up the historical curiosum of the "Conscription of Wealth". Basically, that the default method of financing a war should be a form of wealth tax (specifically, a confiscatory wealth tax which would be invested in war loan stock, to be repaid at the end of the war at less-than-market-rate interest). It seems rather attractive to me as a way of giving the upper class a stake in things, without taking their kids as hostages which always seemed a bit creepy to me. Not sure it would necessarily help with that "separate culture" thing, but one of my favourite cowboy philosophers of the interwar years seemed to hint that it might:
Will Rogers' Daily Telegram, 13 November 1926:
MR ROGERS MUSES ON CONSCRIPTION OF WEALTH AND FINDS IT TOO GOOD TO COME TRUE
LITTLE ROCK, Ark - I been reading and studying over President Coolidge's message to Kansas and Missouri. He brought out Mr Harding's idea (he didn't say it was, but it was) about the conscription of all wealth in case of war.
That sounds fine after the war is over. Funny nobody thought of it before the last war started, and I doubt if you hear anything of it just before the start of the next one. If they did do it, it would be a great enlistment boost for war, as we all know thousands that would go themselves just to see some of the money taken away from the ones that copped it during the last war.
It would be a very interesting experiment and would add novelty to the next war, as we have lots more fellows ready and willing to give lives than we have ones that would give their fortunes. You would have more suicides and heart failures on your hands than you would have shot by bullets.
It was a great idea even when Mr Harding recommended it, but it's like a campaign promise; it's too good to ever come true. It would be worth a war just to try it out. Yours for serious consideration of promises, Will Rogers.
At the end of the day, I have never been a great one for "intergenerational equality" arguments, but given that it is young people who get hurt in wars, there is something pretty shameful about fighting one on the basis of deficit financing. Also it does show you how much things have changed - conscription of wealth was a mainstream idea in the 20s and during the first world war (albeit as WR cynically notes, never a real likelihood even then), but something has really changed in the world - in the 21st century, we have had a succession of governments prepared to argue simultaneously that a) we are engaged in a struggle for the survival of our way of life itself, but b) it has to be financed by deficit spending as it would be politically impossible to raise taxes to finance it. Without wanting to get on a great big decadence kick, some future Gibbon is going to get a good couple of pages out of that one.
Presumably he doesn't want the US Army to have more mortgage debt and to be more obese, the two main points of difference.
ReplyDeleteObesity I'm not sure about - though a lot of US soldiers are fairly chunky - but debt is certainly a big issue for a lot of them. Predatory lending, credit card debt, probably mortgages too.
In fact, definitely mortgages.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.housingwire.com/2010/10/14/military-members-deeper-in-mortgage-debt-than-average-americans
"Americans employed in the U.S. Armed Forces are more likely to be overleveraged financially when compared to their civilian counterparts."
Eating lunch near an army base yesterday, there were four noticeably chunky soldiers on the table next to ours.
ReplyDeleteAnd as Ajay says, debt is a huge problem, in part because grunts are not paid that well, even though this is usually the best job on offer to them.
As kind of a side issue. When talking about higher unemployment in Europe, its worth noticing that an awful lot of Americans cannot afford to feed/house their families, despite working longer than 48 hours a week.
So its the young that die in the wars, which they will then pay for over their lives. Wars that are usually fought for the interests of the old. How Brechtian.
ReplyDelete> the military developing a separate culture from the rest of America and this being bad for democracy
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the Israeli experience indicates that with mandatory military service it is the military culture that takes over the civilian culture rather than vice versa.
I don't think we should assume that the writer is unaware of this or thinks it would be a bad thing. The colonies always were a laboratory of policing methods - particularly the more violent methods - and Israel increasingly plays a similar role for the US and the UK: our pet settler state.
ReplyDeleteI'm drawn to the argument Pynchon drops in to V, in the context of the genocide of the Herero. He says that the argument that such "excesses" are a pathology of imperialism is back-to-front: actually one of the drivers of imperialism is precisely the urge to create settings where people who want to starve, torture and massacre other people can get on with it. Or, for that matter, where policemen who want to crack heads can get on with it.
Predatory lending, credit card debt, probably mortgages too.
ReplyDeleteI remember a huge cluster of payday loan and pawn shops by Fort Knox when we drove through it many years back: apparently, there was a special rate-capping regulation to deal with this, because the sharks considered military families especially easy pickings.
So its the young that die in the wars, which they will then pay for over their lives.
ReplyDeleteNope, that's two different sets of people.
actually one of the drivers of imperialism is precisely the urge to create settings where people who want to starve, torture and massacre other people can get on with it
ReplyDeletePynchon, in his utter ignorance of history, rather touchingly thinks that this sort of behaviour wouldn't have been tolerated in the metropolis.
the Israeli experience indicates that with mandatory military service it is the military culture that takes over the civilian culture
No it doesn't. Israel's always been like that.
rather touchingly thinks that this sort of behaviour wouldn't have been tolerated in the metropolis
ReplyDeleteWhen "this sort of behaviour" refers to the pacificiation/extermination of the Herero, with a death toll of approx. 60,000 over a few years, that's rather a large claim.
No it doesn't. Israel's always been like that.
ReplyDeleteActually its got a lot worse over the past ten-twenty years. For example, the Israeli corporations are dominated by ex-military brass.
Israel's a mass of contradictions though. The young are both highly racist towards Arabs (much more so than their parents were), and much more reluctant to serve in the army. So I don't know how they'll resolve that one.
Pynchon, in his utter ignorance of history, rather touchingly thinks that this sort of behaviour wouldn't have been tolerated in the metropolis.
ReplyDeleteWho can forget after all the London Potato Famine. While one of the points to be made about the Peterloo Massacre was that it wasn't considered acceptable.
I've never hear Pynchon described as historically ignorant before, though. Always a first I guess.
Who can forget after all the London Potato Famine.
ReplyDelete"Metropolis" in this case means "the home country" as opposed to the colonies. It doesn't mean "the capital city".
And if your point is that a Potato Famine would never have been permitted - or forgotten - in Britain, then you should know about (for example) the Highland Potato Famine. Google "Destitution Road".
As for massacre: read up on the Napoleonic Wars. The treatment of the Herero wouldn't have seemed that much out of place to a revolutionary soldier fighting in the Peninsula or the Vendee.
While one of the points to be made about the Peterloo Massacre was that it wasn't considered acceptable.
Depends who you asked. The government of the day - the Prince Regent himself - supported it publicly. It attracted a lot less governmental criticism than the Amritsar massacre, or, for that matter, Warren Hastings' treatment of the Begum of Oudh.
Your examples are proving my point. In Namibia, tens of thousands of people - most of the population of the area in question - were starved to death. The people of the Highlands were treated with great brutality, but by and large they were kept alive.
ReplyDeleteTen or eleven people were killed at Peterloo; it was an outrage, but it scarcely compares with Amritsar (quoth Wikipedia, "1650 rounds of .303-inch ammunition had been fired. Dyer's own estimate of the killed based on his rough calculations of one dead per six bullets fired was between 200 and 300.").
And neither of the Begums were harmed at all.
ReplyDeleteThe people of the Highlands were treated with great brutality, but by and large they were kept alive.
Oh, well, that's all right. Don't know what all the fuss was about.
...saying things like that doesn't exactly help your point you know.
Obviously nothing I said should be taken to imply indifference to the Highland Potato Famine. I just think there's quite a big difference between being starved into forced labour and being starved to death.
ReplyDelete