They play our soldiers' Involvement with fighting terrorism off as what keeps us in "democracy" and out of Sharia

Can you reduce this to ideological indoctrination? If so, it is indeed very powerful device for social control.

Yes

They always talk about them protecting our freedom

Ha! In that case we should have soldiers posted around sharp objects, to protect our freedoms from their tyranny.

The citizen really is his own worst enemy.

America has a consumer culture

It is clear the army nowdays exists against ideas and not material threats.

Which is a very strange thing.

its not too strange

ideas have always been enforced or opposed by martial means

Do you believe that these armies are the instruments of the ruling class?

Which explains the war on ideas.

Yes

A state is the tool of the oppression of one class

@Deleted User Do you agree with this?

Be it proles or bourgeois

not necessarily

what i would agree with is that they belong to powerful individuals

not simply an entire class of people

Well even with the individuals they tend to cater to a certain class

I think that the definition of a private army means that those with the most private goods stand to benefit the most from an environment that uses martial force.

yes, however, that does not always have to be the (ruling) class

which is why i didn't give a decisive answer

It generally varies based on state

You can't draw a solid conclusion that covers all states

Hey.

@TordTheTordis hej

yes, that's certainly true

however you also cannot always state from the get-go that a martial response is enacted on behalf of whichever ruling class governs

@Deleted User Is it possible to have dominant individuals with the most private goods, but who are not also the ruling class? It seems like a contradiction.

oh definitely

it doesn't have to be abstract or physical

just like the autumn harvest revolution

they certainly weren't the ruling class

but they were definitely dominant

the strong laborer who makes a fiery speech to his fellow serfs can be dominant in the same way that others could be

That's a very good point. Ideas can be more powerful than status if the conditions are ripe enough.

i think it is wrong to automatically assume any ruling class is responsible

this could potentially do your own movement harm, or discredit a genuine movement, simply by making the assumption

Can a rich man start a revolution for the poor, and a poor man start a revolution for the rich?