Question: Why is Communism Bad?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But you're not describing ownership or control of the means of production. You're describing a process by which the government buys a product from a private company, and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of companies which supply the U.S. military also have civilian products, and many of them indeed do sell to foreign countries as well.

Once the product has been purchased, the U.S. government does indeed own it, but it doesn't "own the labor". To quote DT... I'm sorry, you're just wrong.

Actually, he said

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

sorry, you're just wrong.

(yes I can make fun of myself, you have to in order to stay sane)

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But you're not describing ownership or control of the means of production. You're describing a process by which the government buys a product from a private company, and ignoring the fact that the vast majority of companies which supply the U.S. military also have civilian products, and many of them indeed do sell to foreign countries as well.

Once the product has been purchased, the U.S. government does indeed own it, but it doesn't "own the labor". To quote DT... I'm sorry, you're just wrong.

That is control over the means of production. We tell these companies what they can and can't sell and to whom. You can't buy a fighter jet from Boeing because our government controls the means of production for it. You can't start enriching uranium in your basement. These companies can sometimes sell to other countries, but this only under the permission of the government. There are supplies that the military does purchase that are available to the public, which is why from the beginning I stated part-socialist.

The government owns the land and control the labor that work within the military. It controls how the resources are allocated.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that our military is not part-socialized?

[ace1914]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

They did?

We owe them like 4 trillion dollars.

[Neon_Chaos]

To reply to the original post.

Communism isn't bad.

It's just that Communism, in reality, doesn't work.

China is essentially Communist in name only.

It's government is a semi-totalitarian regime (One party system; the CPP's hold over the government is guaranteed by the constitution, although there are also other parties that run for elected seats), while having a mixed economy where the government still controls most of the pillars of industry, while allowing for privatization and growth in most sectors. Heck, even their agriculture industry is no longer a collective and is primarily private.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by ace1914

We owe them like 4 trillion dollars.

And this makes them the new premier global power? Sorry, not buying it.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by ace1914

If Communism is so bad why on God's green Earth, why did China just pass us as the premier global power?

There's never been a real communist state. Basically, every communist revolt has gone like this. Some people do not like who holds all the wealth/power. They get the support of the lower/middle class by telling them that these few people own everything and have all the power. Lets overthrow them and the we'll all own everything together. The overthrow occurs, and then the new leaders own and control everything. The only difference is, they now claim to do so in the name of "the people".

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

Lately I feel the U.S. is proving that it is to beholden to the entrenched financial interests. Because it thinks of the mega-wealthy first, and the real and very large problems second, it has made and appears very eager to continue to make, big mistakes in economic and political policy.

Economics and politics are inevitably linked (again a plug for Hayek's book where he goes into more detail). If we refuse to solve disaster scenarios because doing so will make corrupted company ABC lose a billion dollars, we are in reality giving a great amount of power to ABC. They hold us hostage by us favoring them over favoring what must be done.

It is my opinion that inevitably economies and systems have corruption and inefficiency, regardless of whether they are capitalist, socialist, or whatnot. It is not inevitable that such corruption and inefficiency must grow, indeed most of human history has been the cycle of improving the strength of civilization, and the desparately sad declines when it fails. Often corruption and waste have grown so prevalent in a system that it collapses, and I fear this happening to us. Collapses are not fun, they are brutal periods.

The whole boom/bust model of the economy is flawed in my opinion. Just because we are deep in the bust, does not mean there will be a recovery. It is very possible for an economic system to have a negative feedback loop. The idea of 'natural recovery' depends on people not having too many assumptions, in a natural state when everything hits rock bottom there are then lots of opportunities for growth because people will always need something and whoever provides it has a chance for great wealth.

I agree with a large portion of this. I have always wondered why the US has been so gung-ho on the post-industrial/manufacturing economy. Sure, information is wonderful and is a powerful tool, but information in and of itself, does not pay the bills.

Every major country must have a manufacturing base. It is the only way to keep dollars flowing into a country when a bust cycle hits. If my washer or dryer breaks, I am going to get it fixed, but where do the dollars go? They go to Mexico, eventually. If I buy exotic fruits, eventually the money goes to Tropico.

When things really go bust, what do I need information for? What I need is a good tangible item that allows me to do something more efficiently. Right now, we can't produce that tangible item.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Samdari

There's never been a real communist state. Basically, every communist revolt has gone like this. Some people do not like who holds all the wealth/power. They get the support of the lower/middle class by telling them that these few people own everything and have all the power. Lets overthrow them and the we'll all own everything together. The overthrow occurs, and then the new leaders own and control everything. The only difference is, they now claim to do so in the name of "the people".

The reason why there has been no real communist state is that you need a ruling elite to keep everyone in line. When people realize that there are people that get the same benefit as they do for half the work, the system breaks down.

[ISiddiqui]

That's not entirely true. There have been some communes that have collapsed because outside forces (left and right) have taken them over. The probably with these commune like societies is that they can't defend themselves. Some sort of ruling leadership is needed for things like organizing defense and whatnot.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

The reason why there has been no real communist state is that you need a ruling elite to keep everyone in line.

I agree. A real implementation of communism would require everyone being able to work for the common good, not their own interests. If this were the case, everyone's commitment to the cause would obviate the need for keeping people in line. Clearly, that would never work.

But, I was really answering the original poster - don't confuse Russia, China, and Cuba with actual implementations of communism. What they are in actuality are another form of inequitable distribution of assets/resources very similar to all other forms of such since the first concept of 'owning' of a certain piece of ground popped into some biped's head.

The difference is the lies/promises told by the ones seeking a larger share to those whose support they needed to acquire their larger share.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Some sort of ruling leadership is needed for things like organizing defense and whatnot.

And hence it ceases to be communism, which was my point in the first place.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

They are pretty damn close, almost interchangeable (I would argue that they are interchangeable).

See for yourself:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communism

Are you really declaring equivalency between two complex politico-economic systems based on basic dictionary definitions?

I mean, that's like saying Alex Rodriguez is a better baseball player than Derek Jeter because he has a better batting average (note: I don't know if this is actually true).

And the Capitalists put the first man on the moon.

Irrelevant in the context of the post to which I was responding.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Because the State decided that was going to be a priority. They put the first man into space and they put millions of their own citizens into the ground.

Are you suggesting there was a causal relationship between launching Yuri Gagarin into space and the millions killed by the Soviet regime?

Anyway, both of you are reading waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much into my throwaway response to Jim's very small post. I certainly didn't intend to claim that Gagarin's achievement proved the efficacy of the communist economic model. I mean, come on guys, is there really a need to go knee-jerk nuclear all the time?

And to call Stalin a "bad man" is to be numb or ignorant of a particular economic model.

...

it's that communism REQUIRES the silencing of dissent and individual liberty.

No, I'm separating the theoretical economic model of communism from the political realities of implementing that economic model. I've already agreed, in a response to Greg, that Communism begets Totalitarianism. I'm sorry I won't follow your lead and just say "oh communism: bad, bad bad". I just feel it's intellectually lazy to just label entire concepts as good or bad all the time and move on. That's the kind of thinking that devolves pretty much every political discussion in this country into a black-and-white fight over single issues.

You know, there are some days around here that I think if I made a comment like "you know, the color of the sky is powder blue" someone would respond with "so you really believe the Detroit Lions will win the Super Bowl?"

Originally Posted by Arles

This is really the key point. There's only so much altruism one can expect from a society before those working hard look at those lagging and say "Why are we all treated the same?". At that point, the big stick of totalitarianism is needed to keep those who question in line.

I agree, but let's not be blind to the fact that we have a similar response in capitalist societies. The best example being the cyclical arguments over taxation that inevitably have some people saying "Why are the rich paying so much in taxes to support the poor, a bunch of whom are just lazy?"

This is not a problem limited to the implementation of communism. Every economic system, when implemented in the real world, ends up creating "haves" and "have nots", and when this happens the "haves" do their best to protect and perpetuate their position in society. It just so happens that in totalitarian systems the "haves" tend to be a lot more brutally direct about it than in oligarchical systems.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That's not entirely true. There have been some communes that have collapsed because outside forces (left and right) have taken them over. The probably with these commune like societies is that they can't defend themselves. Some sort of ruling leadership is needed for things like organizing defense and whatnot.

A key problem with communism is that it's not scalable because it's not particularly flexible. This is a key contrast to socialism, which can be implemented in a variety of ways that are still consistent with the central concept, and so is more flexible and more scalable.

[SteveMax58]

I don't think most people are confusing the implementation of communism (or what has been called communism historically) with the theoretical version of it (at least not in this thread). Just as I don't think most are confusing pure capitalism/democracy (or democratic republic) with what we have in the US today. But you have to classify the most comparable implementations of it in some way.

I think it is also worth noting that while communism is known for limiting upwardly-inclined people...it also does not allow the liberty to achieve nothing in society. The ability to be left alone and not contribute anything to a society that one does not wish to be a part of, without penalty.

[SportsDino]

My argument is that large-scale communism depends on an assumption that is a fairy tale. The advocates state that every example we have had to date is 'flawed', and there is no denying it, but the refrain of "well next time we'll do it right, and everyone will play along properly" is foolish. To use aran's terminology, I would consider it a puerile fantasy.

I would argue, and Hayek has argued, and numerous others both in political and economic science have argued, that systems built on faulty assumptions will fail. This has been applied to communism, socialism, and capitalism. It is my opinion that of the three capitalism offers the least weakness because it makes the most assumptions, and that it can be adjusted much more smoothly than those other systems to work out other wrinkles (like socialized goods/defense, cooperation and acceptance of communal systems within capitalism, etc).

I actually fear a worldwide turn to communism after the excesses we are seeing and will continue to see. People will learn too late that socialism only looks good on paper, that the same criminals that corrupt capitalism will be getting even more power to oppress them in a socialist system. Hell, I think most of our existing problems with 'excess capitalism' lie in the increasingly fuedal or socialistic bureacracy that exists at the top layer of our industry, which has the motive and means to oppress the lower classes to maintain their own position and excess. The increased abuse by the state of communal powers is choking out the freedom and competition that capitalism depends on to succeed.

China also is a bad example, look at who OWNS the stuff in China. It is party connected individuals who because they were on the right side of the tanks in Tiananmen Square were rewarded with incredible wealth while the rest of China has been moving at a steady glacial pace. To be fair, that glacial pace is better than most of the third world can point to.

So China is not really a good example of capitalism or socialism. It rewards oppression, it just happens that their culture and a little bit of wisdom that they know incremental improvement for the lower classes is enough to keep most people happy. (This is mostly true, I would wager the psychology of the average man is more to just be a bit better off than yesterday, while it is the uncommon man that is determined to get as much out of life as they can)

China also owes massive influx of external wealth to its success as well, if it did not have the US perfectly willing to buy, then it would have had to struggle with building up with only internal resources. I don't deny China being smart in a number of ways, I could probably list out what they did right better than most people that support them... but it is not a system I would want to live in, and its not a system that will save the world.

In fact, since 2008 in a lot of ways China has backtracked on its capitalist-like economic success. Thousands of companies were essentially ordered to close down, and I bet if you look at the controllers at the ones that remain you would see the most politically connected 'capitalists' in China.

I'd argue China is the example of what the future of U.S. might look like, read this paper and tell me it doesn't sound like modern America's direction:
undefined - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

-----

As for what the U.S. should do, I do think you need to be self-sufficient in terms of goods. I'm not anti-trade at all, but I think the U.S. has gone a little stupid in the head with its insistence that it is above 'certain kinds of jobs' or that outsourcing everything makes sense for anything except to concentrate wealth in the top 1%. I'd argue the notion that 'cheap as possible' goods is a failed economic model that is dangerous for the world environment and economy, since it depends on political oppression to maintain itself (indirectly through outsourcing to the third world where they are not afraid to shoot people to keep wages down).

What we should do is cut waste, make goods of ever increasing quality at reduced amounts of input per good (efficiency over bean counting), and cut the unrealistic reward for being a corporate toady over being a productive worker or even risktaker. Encourage real risk taking which is inventing ideas, creating new business, and so on, discourage so called 'safe-risks' like financial derivatives [only safe if you don't do the math.... since all equations must balance dolts!] or only lending to established corrupt players [ahem GM/AIG/banks beyond mention/politicians..].... in general we should care about economic activity, not an indirect measure like 30 well established but for the most part dinosaur-like companies in a weighted imaginary financial instrument (we should probably just take the DOW away from the media until they eat their vegatables).

You don't need a socialist system to do any of that, you need to stop the influence of government and established financial players from choking off creative individuals from doing it.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Are you really declaring equivalency between two complex politico-economic systems based on basic dictionary definitions?

I mean, that's like saying Alex Rodriguez is a better baseball player than Derek Jeter because he has a better batting average (note: I don't know if this is actually true).

Actually, Jeter has a better batting average than Rodriguez, but most people would rather have Rodriguez than Jeter. I wouldn't, but each to his own.

As for the dictionary definitions, I figure we have to start somewhere with a comparison, so why not at the simplest level? I realize that communism and socialism have some very large differences, but they are both based upon common property, at least in theory.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I mean, come on guys, is there really a need to go knee-jerk nuclear all the time?

FOFC, meet flere-imsaho. Flere-imsaho, meet FOFC.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You know, there are some days around here that I think if I made a comment like "you know, the color of the sky is powder blue" someone would respond with "so you really believe the Detroit Lions will win the Super Bowl?"

Now you are just talking crazy. Everyone knows the sky is overcast silver, which means the Oakland Raiders will win the Super Bowl.

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

This is not a problem limited to the implementation of communism. Every economic system, when implemented in the real world, ends up creating "haves" and "have nots", and when this happens the "haves" do their best to protect and perpetuate their position in society. It just so happens that in totalitarian systems the "haves" tend to be a lot more brutally direct about it than in oligarchical systems.

This has been mentioned several times, at least once by me, albeit probably with different wording. Human nature dictates our behavior, and this usually results in those with the power holding down those without it. I guess from what I know about communism, socialism, and capitalism (which is probably not much it appears), the difference in the three is that at least capitalism allows the common citizen an opportunity to raise his status in life, both politically and economically, while communism and to a lesser extent, socialism, do not allow this in any type of the same manner (without violence, usually).

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That is control over the means of production. We tell these companies what they can and can't sell and to whom. You can't buy a fighter jet from Boeing because our government controls the means of production for it. You can't start enriching uranium in your basement. These companies can sometimes sell to other countries, but this only under the permission of the government. There are supplies that the military does purchase that are available to the public, which is why from the beginning I stated part-socialist.

The government owns the land and control the labor that work within the military. It controls how the resources are allocated.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that our military is not part-socialized?

I am trying to state that laws and regulations do not equate to ownership or control of the means of production.

Control of the means of production is the Soviet Union buying what amounted to an entire Ford Motors factory in Michigan and moving it to the Soviet Union, forcing local workers to build the roads and infrastructure that the plant needed, telling local citizens that they were going to work at the factory, taking the passports of U.S. advisors and telling them that they are now Soviet citizens, putting government officials in charge of the plant, establishing quotas to be met and meting out government punishment when the the goals aren't reached, sending workers off to the Gulag (or worse) when necessary, etc.

If you really see no substantial difference between that and what happens in our society when the government places an order for 22 fighter jets or a billion rounds of ammunition, then I'm really sorry for you.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Socialism in an extremely general term is public ownership of means of production so that it is administered in an equal way for everyone.

Our military is probably the most obvious example. Schools would be another. That's just from early times. Today, just about everything we do in our daily lives is done through the benefit of socialism.

2009 US Government Spending
($6.4 Trillion)

16% -- Healthcare
14% -- Education
14% -- Govt Pensions
13% -- Military
09% -- Welfare
34% -- Everything else

Let's add in socialism to more than just the 2 million serving in the military and the million or so receiving pensions...apply it to everybody and 100% of our taxes won't cover the costs!

By the way, there are only two places in America (that I know of) where it is called "getting out" when you leave...

...Prison (a pure socialistic endeavour) and the military (the runner-up).

"Getting out" was also something that people in the Eastern Bloc of Europe strived for on a daily basis...

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I am trying to state that laws and regulations do not equate to ownership or control of the means of production.

Control of the means of production is the Soviet Union buying what amounted to an entire Ford Motors factory in Michigan and moving it to the Soviet Union, forcing local workers to build the roads and infrastructure that the plant needed, telling local citizens that they were going to work at the factory, taking the passports of U.S. advisors and telling them that they are now Soviet citizens, putting government officials in charge of the plant, establishing quotas to be met and meting out government punishment when the the goals aren't reached, sending workers off to the Gulag (or worse) when necessary, etc.

If you really see no substantial difference between that and what happens in our society when the government places an order for 22 fighter jets or a billion rounds of ammunition, then I'm really sorry for you.

There is a huge difference in how far the Soviet Union took it and how we take it. That was never the argument. I simply stated that we are part-socialist. If you disagree with that and believe that the military is a purely free-market capitalist entity with no government control or ownership, then lets discuss that.

I'm curious, how would you define our education system and military in economic terms? Since it is not socialized in any way in your mind, I'd be curious what you would call it.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

There is a huge difference in how far the Soviet Union took it and how we take it. That was never the argument. I simply stated that we are part-socialist. If you disagree with that and believe that the military is a purely free-market capitalist entity with no government control or ownership, then lets discuss that.

I'm curious, how would you define our education system and military in economic terms? Since it is not socialized in any way in your mind, I'd be curious what you would call it.

Move the goalposts much? You originally said that this country was "part-socialist". You then went on to say, "Socialism in an extremely general term is public ownership of means of production so that it is administered in an equal way for everyone.

Our military is probably the most obvious example. Schools would be another. That's just from early times. Today, just about everything we do in our daily lives is done through the benefit of socialism."

After I pointed out that the government does not own the means of production for our military, and instead relies on bidding and contracting for aquiring the goods that it needs, you continue to tell me that it's socialist because the government can place rules and restrictions on companies that make military items. By that definition, any society with laws is "socialist".

Now you seem to want to argue that if, at any level, government buys a product, it's "part-socialist". I suppose I could keep arguing with you, but what would the point be? You have no clue what you're talking about, and no amount of education on my behalf is going to convince you otherwise.

What would I call a system in which an entity decides it wants to have an item, and then goes out and buys it from a third party because it can't produce it on its own? If we're going to use simple terms, I'd call it capitalism.

[Galaril]

Becuz Glenn Beck says so.

[cartman]

Cam, you are correct in stating what the military consumes is produced by entities that are, for the most part, capitalistic. But the consumption is not what defines something as socialism, it is the output that defines it. The output of the branches of the military is national defense. So in that definition, it is most definitely socialism.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Becuz Glenn Beck says so.

Great, I have to rethink my position on Communism now

[Warhammer]

I guess I would ask what makes the military socialist?

[Daimyo]

China, despite being ruled by the Communist Party of China (big C), hasn't really been communist (little c) for over 20 years, if ever. I guess if you have to label it now its more like Totalitarian Capitalism. The government pretty much sets the direction top down and owns a lot of the infrastructure, but it is then mostly up to free enterprise to make it happen. Today, there is probably nearly as much opportunity for individual financial advancement there as here... maybe even more for smart people born into poverty.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out going forward... there will be a lot of things their setup will allow them to do better that we possibly can because their political system doesn't always drive them toward the lowest common denominator (ranging from the Olympics to transitioning to clean energy technology).

On the flip side, there is significantly greater risk both for individuals (our system is pretty amazing at avoiding tyranny) and the government (their system doesn't really allow people to "blow off steam" in a safe way so they always have to be vigilant against it festering into open rebellion).

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Because he peed on the rug. Bad Communism. Bad dog.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Move the goalposts much? You originally said that this country was "part-socialist". You then went on to say, "Socialism in an extremely general term is public ownership of means of production so that it is administered in an equal way for everyone.

Our military is probably the most obvious example. Schools would be another. That's just from early times. Today, just about everything we do in our daily lives is done through the benefit of socialism."

After I pointed out that the government does not own the means of production for our military, and instead relies on bidding and contracting for aquiring the goods that it needs, you continue to tell me that it's socialist because the government can place rules and restrictions on companies that make military items. By that definition, any society with laws is "socialist".

I said our country was part-socialism. You asked for a definition of it. You asked for examples of socialism in this country which I provided. I never said they were 100% socialist and even stated there has never been a true socialist economy. If you truly believe our military is a free market capitalist economy, then great. I consider massive rules and regulations that force companies to only be able to sell to one buyer, a market created where no competition may enter, as well as allowing that buyer to control the labor of that company a nice bit of socialism.

Now you seem to want to argue that if, at any level, government buys a product, it's "part-socialist". I suppose I could keep arguing with you, but what would the point be? You have no clue what you're talking about, and no amount of education on my behalf is going to convince you otherwise.

What would I call a system in which an entity decides it wants to have an item, and then goes out and buys it from a third party because it can't produce it on its own? If we're going to use simple terms, I'd call it capitalism.[/quote]

Capitalism, eh? We work hand in hand with an arms dealer to create a weapon that only can be sold to the U.S. government. Isn't a market a mandatory requirement of capitalism? The U.S. Government is the only market. So if they are creating a product that is requested by the government that can only be sold to the government. When are they considered just an extension of the government?

And what about the labor market? I wasn't aware soldiers could find another higher paying job if they like to. That there was a market for these individuals.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I guess I would ask what makes the military socialist?

Crimson Tide Preview says it all

Capt. Frank Ramsey (Gene Hackman) is the commanding officer of a nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Alabama. Ramsey is a distinguished veteran near the end of his career, and he leads his men with an iron hand; as he puts it, "We're here to preserve democracy, not to practice it."

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I said our country was part-socialism. You asked for a definition of it. You asked for examples of socialism in this country which I provided. I never said they were 100% socialist and even stated there has never been a true socialist economy. If you truly believe our military is a free market capitalist economy, then great. I consider massive rules and regulations that force companies to only be able to sell to one buyer, a market created where no competition may enter, as well as allowing that buyer to control the labor of that company a nice bit of socialism.

Now you seem to want to argue that if, at any level, government buys a product, it's "part-socialist". I suppose I could keep arguing with you, but what would the point be? You have no clue what you're talking about, and no amount of education on my behalf is going to convince you otherwise.

What would I call a system in which an entity decides it wants to have an item, and then goes out and buys it from a third party because it can't produce it on its own? If we're going to use simple terms, I'd call it capitalism.

I think its rather wonderful that your mom is socialistic. I mean that everyone in the nation takes part of her, if you get my drift.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Capitalism, eh? We work hand in hand with an arms dealer to create a weapon that only can be sold to the U.S. government. Isn't a market a mandatory requirement of capitalism? The U.S. Government is the only market. So if they are creating a product that is requested by the government that can only be sold to the government. When are they considered just an extension of the government?

Multiple defense contractors bid on the right to produce weapons platforms and weapons and the competition is fierce. Many of these weapons platforms are sold abroad. F-16's fly over the skies of Israel, Turkey, Thailand, etc.

F-16's were first built by General Dynamics and outbid 4 competitors for the right to build it. Pretty good competition.

And what about the labor market? I wasn't aware soldiers could find another higher paying job if they like to. That there was a market for these individuals.

A soldier must fulfill his contract obligations for obvious reasons (hopefully) with few exceptions (if you can earn a vastly larger sum of money than the military can offer you, you can get out of your obligations...see military members that play professional sports).

But other than that...yeah, it's pretty damned close to pure socialism. A closer version is the Turkish military. Where you are conscripted (obligated) for a year or so...then if the leaders like you they will offer you a lifetime job as a military soldier...and when they say lifetime...they mean fo life!