Re: [Marxism] Stan Goff comments on Fahrenheit 9/11 critiques

["David Quarter" <davidquarter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  Paul,

  Jim's description concerning the make-up of the U.S. army is
consistent with a New York Times (feature) article written on the
subject not long after the commencement of the invasion. I had
posted it to this list.

I will try to locate in my mail folder and re-post it.



DOQ





From:                   "Paul H. Dillon" <illonph@xxxxxxxxxxx>


>   Jim,
>
>   that's all very nice but you still didn't give me any concrete research
> references, sources for your assertion.
>
>   Paul
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: "Craven, Jim" <JCraven@xxxxxxxxx>
>   To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
> <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>   Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 5:48 PM
>   Subject: RE: [Marxism] Stan Goff comments on Fahrenheit 9/11 critiques
>
>
>
>     Jim,
>     Something you wrote caught my attention  . . You wrote,
>
>     "Many who signed up, and even initially wanted to go to the Gulf (hard
>   to get a CIB or "war credentials/medals"
>     necessary for real advancement these days) . . ."
>
>     What evidence do you have that "war credentials/medals" are necessary
>   for "real advancement".  I confess that I also don't know exactly what
>   you mean by "real advancement". On the one hand everyone acknowledges
>   that the majority of front line soldiers are from working  class  or
>   lumpen background (i.e, the permanently unemployable that capitalism
>   needs) and are disproportionately representative of minorities.  Do
>   these "credentials" really provide them the possibility of real
>   advancement in the society as a whole?  Is there some evidence that this
>   is the case in a significant way? I also wonder if  young people from
>   the other end of the social/economic pyramid need such credentials to
>   achieve "real advancement".
>
>     Paul H. Dillon
>
>   Let me try to answer this--or give my opinion and the reasons for it--by
>   also dovetailing it with something David Quarter wrote:
>
>   I agree that most join the army for these reasons .  Yet what about
>   those who join because it is their only ticket out of poverty, e.g., to
>   receiving a college education? These are the people I have sympathy for.
>   Obviously, folks such as Tillman are low lives through and through.
>
>
>   First of all, I have read some of the literature--from the services
>   themselves--on the backgrounds of recruits (active duty, versus
>   Reserves/Guard) and some of their own stated reasons for going in. On
>   active duty, the poorest of the poor, the ones who may "THINK" there is
>   no way out of poverty except through the military, are found generally
>   in the MOS categories having to do with combat arms--particularly at the
>   "grunt" level. They can also be found as cooks, logistics, truck
>   drivers, etc. Actually, these days, with the squeeze on the middle class
>   and many young people unable to qualify for certain financial assistance
>   because their parents make too much (even though they may not be living
>   with their parents) many of the new recruits are not from strictly
>   working class--or at least ultra-poor working class--or
>   lumpenproletariat as was once the case; many are from families hardly on
>   the verge of starvation and outright poverty. Although money for college
>   and specialized training are the top reasons given among recruits in
>   interviews (not "killing commies/muslims for Jesus, patriotism, making a
>   difference, defending the country, etc) there are additional reasons as
>   well: the Audie Murphy Syndrome (nothing like a war to turn a nobody
>   into a somebody), low self-esteem (become a Ranger or Airborne or
>   Special Forces and come back home and show that bitch who dumped you in
>   high school for the quarterback on the football team that you are now a
>   somebody and now how does she feel about dumping you?), travel (get out
>   and see the world beyond that in-bred podunk town you were raised in),
>   adventure (watching too much JAG, war movies etc), a career (retire at
>   40 years old with a pension, medical benefits--less and less--), and of
>   course the standard--can't make it on the outside at anything
>   interesting and that pays more than minimum wage.
>
>

_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism