A West Point Grad Wrote 'Communism Will Win' in His Cap

[Fluffernutter]

Green to Gold program for junior enlisted people. My Rotc programs had a few cadets like that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Ham

General Ham went through the Green To Gold program

 

[jabba the punk]

I think for both sides of the political spectrum, as long as their loyalties are not in question, there shouldn't be a problem

I think the above case would certainly bring loyalties to question. As an officer of the US Army, you're handling at the very least, secret clearance information, and the stuff only gets more sensitive the way you make it up the officer chain.

Why would the US Army not bear questions of loyalties to a soldier who stands for another ideology (communism) vs (capitalism). Big conflict, either militarily or diplomatic, have sprung because of that very concept. Ie; the Cold War.

..... Think about that........

 

[SMEAC]

The timeline doesn't add up. He enlisted Option 40 as an 11X in 2010 and somehow graduated West Point in 2016. How is that possible?

2010 to 2012 as enlisted, probably put a packet in for active duty option in 11.

Let's just say I have it on good authority he completed RASP once and that he didn't complete Ranger School once this year

 

[Hollywood Jack]

I guess he's trying to get his skills up for when he joins Black Bloc...

 

[Kalitaur]

 

[Islam Imamate]

Ha, I knew legit communist when I was in the army. She was always talking about how we were going to invade iraq, and this was of prior to 911.

Why did she think that?

 

[splendica]

i hate when my apples aren't like my oranges.

Sounds racist.

 

[TheGreatA]

And yet, whenever Capitalism turns into oligarchy or plutocracy it rears its ugly head again, so is it Communism that needs to be vilified or Capitalism? The problem with capitalists, is they want to turn their system into an oligarchy instead of addressing the bad. They ignore the pleas of the poor until the poor get desperate and turn to Communism/Socialism.

If the bad in capitalism is not addressed, history will repeat itself and you will see another French or Russian Revolution type scenario unfolding.

There are answers other than communism that can address the problem of crony capitalism.

As far as I know, there has not yet been one communist regime which didn't immediately degenerate into an oligarchy, ruled by the few. There is no evidence, not even theoretical evidence, that communism can prevent the forming of a corrupt oligarchy. I would say, that in many ways, oligarchy is a pre-requisite to communism.

How desperate can the poor truly be, at this moment in time? Are people starving to death on the streets?

There's a huge difference between the poor in the early 20th century, and the poor in the early 21st century. The poor, a century ago, faced a legitimate existential threat at the hands of incompetent regimes. Turning to communism made sense, to over-throw monarchies and other terrible alternatives, which offered no chance for upwards mobility, even through hard work. But what excuse do we have to turn to communism today, after having witnessed its majestic failures? What problem can communism address today, that we cannot address through our capitalist system (which has adopted the necessary socialist influences)?

The only problem that communism can solve, is the problem of "inequality". But it only solves that problem by uniting everyone equally in their misery. Everyone is united equally in death as well, but mass suicide is hardly the answer to our worldly problems.

 

[KillMeGod]

he should have his citizenship revoked and he should be put on a raft and pushed out into the ocean

 

[sub_thug]

I think it's more of a curious coincidence that in the time of widespread Communist rule, you also had an abundant number of Capitalist countries essentially conducting an economic and philosophical war against those Communist countries. You can definitely point to the failure of Marxist political experiments, but ignoring the efforts of Capitalist countries is akin to ignoring the actual cancer affecting a cancer patient. Trotsky had a good observation regarding this phenomenon:

Spoiler: Excerpt from "The New Economic Policy of Soviet Russia and the Perspectives of the World Revolution"

The peasantry thus played a gigantic role in the Russian Revolution. It will also play a great role in other countries, for example, in France where the peasantry still constitutes a bigger half of the population. But those comrades are mistaken who assume that the peasantry is capable of playing an independent, leading role in the revolution, on equal rights, so to speak, with the proletariat. If we conquered in the civil war, it was not solely and not so much because of the correctness of our military strategy. It was rather because of the correctness of our political strategy on which our military operations were invariably based throughout the civil war. We did not forget for a moment that the basic task of the proletariat consisted in attracting the peasantry to its side. However, we did not do it after the SR fashion. The latter, as is well known, enticed the peasants by dangling an independent democratic role before them and then betrayed them hand and foot to the landlords. We were positive that the peasantry constitutes a vacillating mass which is as a whole incapable of an independent, and all the less so, leading revolutionary role. By being resolute in our actions we made the peasant masses understand that there was only one choice open to them – the choice between the revolutionary proletariat on the one side, and the officers of noble birth at the head of the counter-revolution, on the other. Failing this resoluteness on our part in tearing down the democratic partition, the peasantry would have remained confused, continuing to vacillate between the different camps and the different shades of “democracy“ – and the revolution would have ineluctably perished. The democratic parties, with the Social Democracy in the van – and there is no doubt that the same situation in Western Europe, too, will arise – acted invariably as the bell-wethers of the counter-revolution. Our experience on this score is conclusive in its character. You know, Comrades, that a few days ago our Red Army occupied Vladivostok. This occupation liquidates the last link in the long chain of the civil war fronts during the last half of a decade. Apropos of the occupation of Vladivostok by the Red troops, Milyukov, the well known leader of the Russian Liberal Party, has written in his Paris daily a few historico-philosophic lines, which I am prepared to term classical. In an article dated November 7, he sketches briefly the imbecilic and ignominious, but steadfast role of the party of democracy. I quote:

“This sad history – it has always been a sad history (Laughter) begins with a solemn proclamation of the complete unanimity of the anti-Bolshevik front. Merkulov (he was the chief of the counter-revolution in the Far East) acknowledged that the ‘non-socialists’ (that is, the Black Hundred elements) owed their victory in great measure to the democratic elements. But the support of democracy”, continues Milyukov, “was used by Merkulov only as a tool for overthrowing the Bolsheviks. Once this was achieved, the power was seized by these elements who in the main regarded the democrats as concealed Bolsheviks.”

This passage which I have just called classic may seem trite. As a matter of fact, it only repeats what has more than once been said by Marxists. But you must recall that this now is being said by the liberal Milyukov – six years after the Revolution. It ought to be borne in mind that he is here drawing the balance sheet of the political role of the Russian democracy on a vast arena – from the Finnish Gulf to the shores of the Pacific. This is what happened in the case of Kolchak, next with Denikin, and then with Yudenich. This is what happened during the English, French and American occupations. That is how it was during Petlura’s reign in the Ukraine. All along our frontiers the one and the same wearisomely monotonous phenomenon kept recurring. The democracy – the Mensheviks and the SRs – drove the peasantry into the arms of reaction, the latter seized power, unmasked itself completely, thrust the peasants aside, whereupon the victory of the Bolsheviks followed. Among the Mensheviks there ensued the chapter of repentance. But not for long – till the next temptation. And thereupon, the same history was repeated in the same sequence in some other – theatre of the civil war. First, betrayal, and discredited as it appears to be, we can nevertheless be sure that it will be repeated by the Social Democrats in all countries whenever the proletariat’s struggle for power becomes fierce. The primary task of the proletarian revolutionary party in all countries is to be implacably then semi-repentance. Yet, extremely simple as this mechanics is, and resolute once the issue is transferred to the arena of civil war.

Europe has offset the advance of Marxist philosophy due to embracing social traditions that serve to benefit working classes, even to the detriment of ruling classes (and the state itself in many cases). They effectively took the "best" parts of Marxist philosophy and used it to better their societies for the benefit of potentially disaffected classes. This is good. The US has done the opposite. We extended those provisions, and slowly chipped away at them until they were but a shadow of themselves. Ironically, our gripping of power has done nothing more than drive disaffected populations to Marxist philosophy and hasten our own economic shift. Propaganda has done a great deal to slow down this transition, but it can only do so much when presented with tangible wrongs inflicted by our increasingly more unjust system.

Those Communist states were conducting the same ideological and proxy wars against democratic states though. The KGB certainly had its hands throughout South and Latin America. The Chinese were propagating communism throughout Southeast Asia.

Honestly, this plus the argument that "we've never seen real Communism" is evidence of the fragility of the system (in my opinion, to the point where Communism is an exercise in futility and completely nonviable). Maybe it would be the best under ideal conditions, but those conditions can never be created or sustained for any appreciable amount of time. Say what you will, but democratic capitalism is resilient as shit. The US largely started the modern experiment of Western democracy, breaking ranks from the monarchies of Europe. Democracy has since become the standard for much of the world, and by and large, an overwhelming majority of people have benefited from it. No other system of government can boast such a track record.

 

[sub_thug]

Well, the military lifestyle is about the most communist scheme possible. Think about it: it's funded 100% by the state. Guys in the army give up a bunch of rights to follow orders. They eat, sleep, and shit in communal barracks. They constantly refer to each other as "comrades in arms."

It's just the actual wars that are for profit.

I've often joked that we are the most Communist institution in America, ironically enough. It's about the collective good ahead of what is good for the person in question, we share everything, and there is a sense of egalitarianism despite rank. One importance difference is, however, we don't manage an economy. Outside of select personnel, many of us do not even manage a budget.

This young officer, as a citizen of the US, can think whatever he wants. He is free to be in the military and believe in the Communist ideal. I personally have no issue with that. My issue with this young man is that he takes to social media regularly to be knowingly inflammatory, and he does things like scribble all over government property to promote his ideas. Clearly, he lacks good judgment. This is not the kind of man who I would trust leading soldiers as an officer in the US Army. As a rifle Platoon Leader, his first job as an Infantry officer (which he is), he would be leading about 40 enlisted men. Those are 40 sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands whose lives will be directly impacted by the judgment of this man. If he can't be trusted not to scribble all over issued equipment and act like a professional, then I don't trust him with those 40 lives. They simply deserve better than that kind of mental immaturity.

 

[Toothless King]

I think for both sides of the political spectrum, as long as their loyalties are not in question, there shouldn't be a problem

but you are talking about a military officer here, not private joe smuff.

 

[Whippy McGee]

I think for both sides of the political spectrum, as long as their loyalties are not in question, there shouldn't be a problem

Wrong. There is not "both sides". This nation was founded on Capitalism and for good reason. Also, on the citizen test it tells you "Capitalism" is our economic system. Communism sound so good, but in practice is inherently evil as fuck. To even consider that as "a side", makes you an enemy of what makes the United States great and we need to quit tolerating assholes that are against our nation. They need to be discharged, fired, and they can leave if they don't like it.

 

[8KresniK8]

Well look at this little fucking Yagoda in the making, makes me wonder. How many more are there in the US military?

 

[The Diplomat]

There's never even been true communism, and it won't work in practice unless it's a very small tribe or something. It doesn't work on a national level, humans need incentive to do better.

 

[SMEAC]

I've often joked that we are the most Communist institution in America, ironically enough. It's about the collective good ahead of what is good for the person in question, we share everything, and there is a sense of egalitarianism despite rank. One importance difference is, however, we don't manage an economy. Outside of select personnel, many of us do not even manage a budget.

This young officer, as a citizen of the US, can think whatever he wants. He is free to be in the military and believe in the Communist ideal. I personally have no issue with that. My issue with this young man is that he takes to social media regularly to be knowingly inflammatory, and he does things like scribble all over government property to promote his ideas. Clearly, he lacks good judgment. This is not the kind of man who I would trust leading soldiers as an officer in the US Army. As a rifle Platoon Leader, his first job as an Infantry officer (which he is), he would be leading about 40 enlisted men. Those are 40 sons, fathers, brothers, and husbands whose lives will be directly impacted by the judgment of this man. If he can't be trusted not to scribble all over issued equipment and act like a professional, then I don't trust him with those 40 lives. They simply deserve better than that kind of mental immaturity.

FYI he never got a platoon due to lack of tab. He was/is in HHC

 

[Falsedawn]

Those Communist states were conducting the same ideological and proxy wars against democratic states though. The KGB certainly had its hands throughout South and Latin America. The Chinese were propagating communism throughout Southeast Asia.

Honestly, this plus the argument that "we've never seen real Communism" is evidence of the fragility of the system (in my opinion, to the point where Communism is an exercise in futility and completely nonviable). Maybe it would be the best under ideal conditions, but those conditions can never be created or sustained for any appreciable amount of time. Say what you will, but democratic capitalism is resilient as shit. The US largely started the modern experiment of Western democracy, breaking ranks from the monarchies of Europe. Democracy has since become the standard for much of the world, and by and large, an overwhelming majority of people have benefited from it. No other system of government can boast such a track record.

I'd like to go more into whether or not the propagation of Communism is a subversive act as opposed to a persuasive act, but i'm limited on quotes as mobile is a bitch. I can however, speak as to the nature of the "not real communism" argument and why those criticisms tend to fall flat to Marxist adherents.

Marx and Engels understood very well the necessity of Proletarian Internationalism, or a world revolution. It's foundational theory for Marxists, Capitalism is an international economic theory, and has moving parts and bulwarks that contribute to its ongoing existence throughout the world. Without suppressing those bulwarks and navigating those moving parts, Communism (being a siezing of power by workers) was doomed to fail as Bourgeois classes would inevitably work to restore the status quo by utilizing economic weapons to "starve the beast" so to speak. As we can see, that's exactly what happened. Though Marxist theory did spread across the world, Capitalist countries used every tool in their belt to suppress any tangible international revolution, hence Stalin's renunciation of the international goal and focus on "Socialism within one state". (See: "Problems of Leninism", J. V. Stalin)

Absent from those pressures, Communist societies can very well thrive given acceptable inputs. Look no further than Hutterites in the good ol US of A. They own communally, work communally, and are thriving just fine. And they're not removed from the effects of modern society either, they simply aren't the target of animus that could potentially destroy their community from the outside. Now the Hutterites are not Communists (as they don't adhere to marxist philosophy in any appreciable form), but their society is a case study in the success of communal societies when allowed to exist unmolested.

Were Stalin not so opposed to classical Marxism (and really, not so devoted to his own cult of Soviet personality), you could very well have seen Internationalism take root in Great Powers around the world. The point is that this shift was a response to the issues of revolutions failing around the globe as a result of Capitalist intervention, not an intended result of the philosophy. The theory is sound, the execution (as a result of historical factors) is where we delineate Soviet Communism from True Communism as Marx (and Lenin to an extent) envisioned it.

 

[Protectandserve]

Guy is a sworn communist, part of the Democratic Socialist Movement, has pictures idolizing Chelsea Manning and a picture of folsing the flag and throwing it in the trash.

He is an absolute walking security nightmare. If I was doing his security packet he would be flagged for sure.

People like him are exactly the crowd who leaks secure info because they think they are smarter, more informed, more knowledgeable than others.

I can't even imagine being his CO and having this idiot in charge of a platoon with all his social media bullshit.

 

[Islam Imamate]

There's never even been true communism, and it won't work in practice unless it's a very small tribe or something. It doesn't work on a national level, humans need incentive to do better.

A friend of mine said he thinks communism would be great for a small island like Aruba or something. I agree, I don't think Marxist systems scale up well as evidenced by the Soviet and Chinese experience. If any Marxist systems have potential I think its the more anarchist ones and not the statist ones and even then I see no reason to attempt a far left anarchist reform/revolution in the stable democratic capitalist nations.

The people who should make use of those ideas are those of the third world where the nationalist, capitalist structures imposed via colonialism have consistently failed. For instance, the Kurds used to be Leninists but now they've moved towards more democratic, anarchist ideas and their political experiment seems promising relative to the corruption and exploitation seen in the national governments of the Arab states around them. I think that model can work for other less stable and splintered, tribal countries of the region like Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan.

 

[The Diplomat]

A friend of mine said he thinks communism would be great for a small island like Aruba or something. I agree, I don't think Marxist systems scale up well as evidenced by the Soviet and Chinese experience. If any Marxist systems have potential I think its the more anarchist ones and not the statist ones and even then I see no reason to attempt a far left anarchist reform/revolution in the stable democratic capitalist nations.

The people who should make use of those ideas are those of the third world where the nationalist, capitalist structures imposed via colonialism have consistently failed. For instance, the Kurds used to be Leninists but now they've moved towards more democratic, anarchist ideas and their political experiment seems promising relative to the corruption and exploitation seen in the national governments of the Arab states around them. I think that model can work for other less stable and splintered, tribal countries of the region like Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan.

And even then, an economic system is only really part of a nation's makeup. You can have the best system there is, but it won't work if the cultural values are shite, and citizens don't really care. Anything is prone to corruption.