Vincentvd

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago

For sure. Arm manufacturers are already lining up to fill their capitalistic pockets. In the meantime, their rare metals are extracted under bizarre conditions in former colonies or China.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

But a local autocratic government feels more reachable to change. The EU actually costs you a lot of money - and true, we also earn money by trade and other collaborations so it is not all negative - but after we vote, it feels like things just continue as normal. They interfere in areas where they should make policy for and now they decide that we as EU should spend 800 billion on defense.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Good point. One of the actually valid reasons for the EU to exist, cooperate. Not like the current state where the is basically an unite states of Europe but rather bringing together the countries to work together but still respecting their sovereignty.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Fair point that more wapons dont solve the problem. Didnt think of that. But an easy counter argument will be that as long as others keep investing in weapons, we also need.

It is interesting to think about how to prevent neo imperialism forces taking your country. In the Netherlands even the middle-left parties agree to strengthen the EU. They all somehow want to show their voters they fight for their safety.

I must say that especially the EU and their decisions feel really far away and out of reach. They really don't see (or don't want to) see the long term consequences of their actions. A single country can't make the difference in the EU.

 

The EU announced its 800 billion euro plan to re-arm the EU with Trump being an unpredictable partner and Putin in the east (read more here if you want to know more).

I would like to get your opinions on this from an anarchistic viewpoint because I struggle to give one. As an anarchist I don't like the idea of a central army (let alone an EU one). Also, to get this 800 billion, countries and the EU have to borrow more money in a world that is already effectively running on debt without a proper way out.

On the other hand, I also understand people I speak to their opinions. Both Trump and Putin are unpredictable so I also understand that people want to feel safer by investing in the army. They also find it a waste of money but if we neglect the army, we might one day face the consequence of that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

I have been raised with the phrase that voting a duty because a democratic system is not for granted and the rights to vote have been fought for. I live in the Netherlands and I don't say it is perfect (far from) but we have a democratic, functional political system. It is moving to the right quickly but as long as I can vote I will. There is no anarchistic party of course but I at least use my vote to vote for left.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago

I think this is the general conclusion in the topic that it depends on the situation. Maybe at the moment, emotion will also alter your decision at the moment. I suppose I would indeed never accept service to attack another country, only to defend my own country/land.

 

I have been reading a book about the history of Israel. One section was about people refusing to serve the army when Israel fought war in Libanon and Gaza because they didn't agree with cruelties the Israel army conducted/ accepted. It made me think about the other way around: What if your country is attacked and people are being called to service by the army, would an anarchist refuse out of principle?

Quite some anarchist reject the idea of a centralized army so an anarchist might refuse out of principle. On the other hand, your country is being attacked. You can argue that accepting service is accepted because it is different from invading another country because you now have to defend your own country.

What are your thoughts on this?