Is Compulsory Military Service Fascism?

[Swimington]

Culture is not "a set of beliefs". That is called a custom, or an ideology. Culture is history- it is the clothes that you wear, the God(s) that you pray to, the songs that you sing- the stories that you and many, many others do. Again, characterizing culture as just being "peer pressure" is egoistic dumbfuckism and it gets you nowhere. Again, your ideal culture is little nothing more than an extension of your ideology. Is "Nazism" a culture? No. It's an ideology. Is "Communism" a culture? Also no.

I would love for you to enlighten me as to what your culture has beyond just being secular and globalist.

You are very right, but your statements are not valid for Turkey . maybe that's why Turkey is failing in the world arena. Women's right to abortion in Turkey came with a military coup. with top-down democracy. but you have to understand us too, modern democracy is a cultural expression, not an ideological concept. Turks have to blend their culture with European democracy, no one should accuse me of being a social fascist, but this is the truth. Rome collapsed Ottoman Empire collapsed. For example, society has no right to be homophobic. LGBT marriages should be forced into the constitution even if the majority of the society does not want it.

Seeming Kinda Fascist there.No Church Should be forced to marry LGBT.
Also Abortion is murder.

[Juansonia]

You are very right, but your statements are not valid for Turkey . maybe that's why Turkey is failing in the world arena. Women's right to abortion in Turkey came with a military coup. with top-down democracy. but you have to understand us too, modern democracy is a cultural expression, not an ideological concept. Turks have to blend their culture with European democracy, no one should accuse me of being a social fascist, but this is the truth. Rome collapsed Ottoman Empire collapsed. For example, society has no right to be homophobic. LGBT marriages should be forced into the constitution even if the majority of the society does not want it.

Seeming Kinda Fascist there.No Church Should be forced to marry LGBT.

Ideally, church marriages wouldn't mean shit in the eyes of the law, but would simply be a religious/social ritual. If marriage is to be recognised by the state, it should be through a clerk.

Also Abortion is murder.

How so?

If my life was dependant on you donating a kidney to me, and there was no other suitable donor, would withholding that kidney be murder?

[Swimington]

Seeming Kinda Fascist there.No Church Should be forced to marry LGBT.

Ideally, church marriages wouldn't mean shit in the eyes of the law, but would simply be a religious/social ritual. If marriage is to be recognised by the state, it should be through a clerk.

Also Abortion is murder.

How so?

If my life was dependant on you donating a kidney to me, and there was no other suitable donor, would withholding that kidney be murder?

Are you really comparing a baby to a kidney?
Also am i literally stabbing you or am I withholding you something.

[Relikai]

I don't think it's fascism or Authoritarian, but I understand people might not want to serve and that's their own right to deny joining the army.In my home country you are obligated to show up at any military site once you turn 18 years(if you are men if not you don't need to),if you don't not show up, they have the right to deny public services and even prohibit leaving country ,till you show up, but most of us won't be active members of the army if we tell them we do not want to.
Those of us who wish to not serve the army joins the reserve force and will only be summoned if the country is threatened or if the main force lacks members.

It is 100% authoritarian, the government is actively forcing its citizens to do it, that's literally a textbook definition of authoritarianism.

Compulsory education is enforced in some countries.

Educating one's citizens and making sure they are smart is facism.

[Apatosaurus]

I certainly would not describe the practice as "fascism". Fascism is a very specific set of actions which together form the ideology; and while facists regimes can certainly engage in forced military service, that does not make the practice inherently fascistic. Nonetheless, forced military service is necessarily an unacceptable practice which violates persons' rights to freedom of conscience and right to life. No person should be legally required to kill or die in order to prop up their government.

[Juansonia]

Ideally, church marriages wouldn't mean shit in the eyes of the law, but would simply be a religious/social ritual. If marriage is to be recognised by the state, it should be through a clerk.How so?

If my life was dependant on you donating a kidney to me, and there was no other suitable donor, would withholding that kidney be murder?

Are you really comparing a baby to a kidney?

No.

I'm comparing the fetus to a functional adult, and I'm comparing the physical, emotional, and resource toll of pregnancy to a kidney donation.

The point is, my right to life doesn't entitle me to leech off your body.
It would take tens of thousand lives to excuse mandatory blood donation from one donor, and that's a crisis scenario.

Also am i literally stabbing you or am I withholding you something.

In that scenario, you would be withholding lifesaving treatment.
In the scenario of abortion, the pregnancy is ended because someone doesn't consent to carrying a fetus, and killing it is the only way to stop it from violating the carrier's autonomy.

[Adamede]

Ideally, church marriages wouldn't mean shit in the eyes of the law, but would simply be a religious/social ritual. If marriage is to be recognised by the state, it should be through a clerk.How so?

If my life was dependant on you donating a kidney to me, and there was no other suitable donor, would withholding that kidney be murder?

Are you really comparing a baby to a kidney?
Also am i literally stabbing you or am I withholding you something.

A fetus isn't a baby. Acting like pregnancy is the same throughout the entire thing is idiotic. Regardless what does this have to do with mandatory military service?

[Eshen]

I'm pretty sure western society got to where it is because of Christianity and now its going downhill because of the lack of it.

how come?

[Fahran]

Ideally, church marriages wouldn't mean shit in the eyes of the law, but would simply be a religious/social ritual. If marriage is to be recognised by the state, it should be through a clerk.

I honestly trust religious institutions to preserve the significance of marriage more than secular governments at this point. A blasé attitude towards what was historically one of the most important social institutions has been one of the principal results of the liberalization and secularization of marriage and, while access has theoretically increased, very few of the people this was intended to benefit have even bothered getting married and starting families statistically. Marriage among the LGBT+ community is sitting at 10% compared to 53% of the population more generally. Mind you, marriage is always going to be the business of the state, but the state hasn't been doing a great job of it of late.

If my life was dependant on you donating a kidney to me, and there was no other suitable donor, would withholding that kidney be murder?

It'd make you less than a paragon perhaps, but, no, it would not be murder.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

-snip-

...who has a blase attitude towards marriage?

"Yeah, so your partner is abusing you emotionally, sexually, and physically, but marriage rites are sacred!"

Religious ceremonies should not be recognised by law. Religious ceremonies should not be protected by law. Under no circumstance should people's legal status be changed because they danced naked under the full moon or whatever superstitious nonsense people used to believe in the old days.

I don't believe that marriage should be a legal status at all, but if we insist on making one for whatever traditionalist reason then it should at least be under the sole control of secular authorities.

[Fahran]

...who has a blase attitude towards marriage?

The people who are engaging in social behaviors previously associated with marriage while abstaining from marriage itself or those simply forgoing conventional relationships altogether in favor of continuous sexual gratification. We can actually document the decreasing importance of marriage to Americans from the 1990s to now, and it has been a fairly stark decrease.

"Yeah, so your partner is abusing you emotionally, sexually, and physically, but marriage rites are sacred!"

I do not see where I advocated remaining with abusive partners. And, in point of fact, I absolutely do not advocate that. There's not really anything in my worldview that even lends itself to that perspective because we Jews have never really perceived marriage as a votive offering in the same way that Christians used to do.

Religious ceremonies should not be recognised by law. Religious ceremonies should not be protected by law.

That second suggestion would absolutely violate separation of church and state and fundamental human rights because it implicitly violates the right to religious freedom and expression.

Under no circumstance should people's legal status be changed because they danced naked under the full moon or whatever superstitious nonsense people used to believe in the old days.

All legal marriages in the US are civil marriages and most involve a secular court in the US. You're not actually married, except perhaps through common law marriage, without that license. The inclusion of a religious ceremony isn't what creates the legal responsibilities associated with marriage outside of religious courts, which sometimes have jurisdiction if a plaintiff and defendant stipulate as much in the contract - which, again, is a legal contract. I believe this somewhat addresses the statement above as well.

The recent change has been more related to social attitudes and to the broader discourse surrounding marriage where it has been solely reduced to a legal contract involving two people who may or may not love one another. That said, we've disassociated love, sex, and marriage as well - which is almost solely the result of the progressive approach that has been promoted since the 1960s. Again, I appreciate that you may not like marriage or family existing as institutions, but it's not really controversial to point out that the conventional liberal view of marriage has become very blasé. There's not really another way to explain observed social phenomena.

I don't believe that marriage should be a legal status at all, but if we insist on making one for whatever traditionalist reason then it should at least be under the sole control of secular authorities.

And that's completely fair. I strongly disagree with you.

That said, the fact that you think marriage becoming increasingly infrequent and diminished in its importance is a good thing doesn't mean that the aforementioned things aren't happening, to some extent as a result of a deliberate sallies in the culture wars.

[New Visayan Islands]

While all this is interesting, I believe it would be best to stay on topic.

That said, the general opinion regarding the question posited by OP can be summed up as "you keep using that word," as far as I understand from the responses that point out that compulsory military service is not fascist in itself. Which is true, a measure stereotypically associated with authoritarian regimes is not in itself a fascist measure, unless we go on and conflate authoritarianism with fascism, which in itself flies in the face of authoritarian regimes that disavow fascism.

[Fahran]

While all this is interesting, I believe it would be best to stay on topic.

Fair. My apologies. I'll try to be better about straying from the OP going forward.

That said, the general opinion regarding the question posited by OP can be summed up as "you keep using that word," as far as I understand from the responses that point out that compulsory military service is not fascist in itself. Which is true, a measure stereotypically associated with authoritarian regimes is not in itself a fascist measure, unless we go on and conflate authoritarianism with fascism, which in itself flies in the face of authoritarian regimes that disavow fascism.

Indeed.

My thoughts actually keep going to the USSR during World War 2.