• Synapse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I disagree, we don’t have to sacrifice social benefits and public service to divert all the money to the defense. We can tax the rich fairly and get both, a welfare state with strong public service and social security, and a strong army for our defense!

      Neo-liberals are using the current situation as a new justification for the same shitty policies they are pushing for 3 decades. No change in strategy, just a new excuse.

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        No disagreement here, though I’d say the image is probably not meant to be taken literally. After all, if it’s originally about the US, it doesn’t seem to factor in how much more funding actually goes to healthcare over the military. Basically, thinking of this idea:

        We can tax the rich fairly and get both, a welfare state with strong public service and social security, and a strong army for our defense!

        In practice, I think there will always be disagreements on where government spending can be best used, which is an argument that exists and will continue to exist regardless of how much extra revenue a country is able to obtain via changes in tax policy.

        Increase taxes on the rich and get more money on principle, because the rich should be paying their fair share regardless, but someone will always make the point that the extra revenue could still be better used by social programs over defense.

        It’s hard to put into numbers exactly how expensive it is for a government to prevent an existential crisis like the EU is currently seeing, but at this point they have a lot of catch-up to do after decades of assuming their American “allies” would continue to have their backs when needed.

    • Match!!@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      perhaps they can grow their military while being wise enough to prevent a politically powerful military-industrial complex

    • nuko147@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      Necessity maybe yeah, but it didn’t end well last time. Also it can be a permanent situation if the economies of France and Germany see development through militarism.

        • misk@sopuli.xyzM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          I mean, for people in countries that were prey for French or German militarism this is like saying it doesn’t matter which predator is going to eat your pet hamster. They might lose this game of fascist whack-a-mole eventually - what then?

  • misk@sopuli.xyzM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Rearmament isn’t optional but you can serve all of the tables if you have a fair taxation. Military specifically should be funded from wealth rather than income, after all military protects wealth while regular Joe can click the computer at a company regardless of who’s in charge.

    • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      I thought that was the cops’ job, military protects the working class as well.

      while regular Joe can click the computer at a company regardless of who’s in charge.

      Elaborate please.

      • misk@sopuli.xyzM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        There are people who work but don’t own things. There are those who own things but don’t work. In case of war those who own things lose due to destruction war causes. It’s in the interest of those who own things to finance their defence. Situation of those who don’t own things doesn’t change that much, they’ll pay rent to someone else.

        • real_squids@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          In my experience the vast majority of the upper class are the least interested in defence. They just move their money and movable assets somewhere far away.

          Situation of those who don’t own things doesn’t change that much, they’ll pay rent to someone else.

          If there is anything left to rent. As you said, the destruction leaves very little untouched, and then they either have to move or stay homeless.

          Progressive taxation is still the best move imo.

          • misk@sopuli.xyzM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            If there is anything left to rent. As you said, the destruction leaves very little untouched, and then they either have to move or stay homeless.

            Which they were always at risk of and had to account for even without war. It’s not a binary thing of course though.

            Progressive taxation is still the best move imo.

            I’m for all kinds of taxes if that wasn’t evident enough :D

    • nuko147@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      I always thought that Europe learned her lesson after 2 world wars. But humanity is surprisingly stupid.

  • TeoTwawki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    look how emaciated education is there with that cobweb on the globe at their table.