Democracy, the military and the face of a liberal

"I hate soldiers. I hate to see a man with a bayonet fixed on his rifle, who can order me off the street. I hate to belong to an organization that is proud of obeying a caste of superior beings, that is proud of killing free ideas, so that it may the more efficiently kill human beings in cold blood. They will tell you that a conscript army is Democratic, because everybody has to serve; but they won’t tell you that military service plants in your blood the germ of blind obedience, of blind irresponsibility, that it produces one class of Commanders in your state and your industries; and accustoms you to do what they tell you even in time of peace.

Here in America we have our chance to construct someday a Democracy, unhampered by the stupid docility of a people who run to salute when the band plays. They are talking now about building up an immense standing army, to combat the Japs, or the Germans, or the Mexicans. I, for one, refuse to join. You ask me how I am going to combat a whole world thirsting for our blood! And I reply, not by creating a counter-thirst for the blood of the Japs, Germans, or Mexicans. There is no such thing as a “moderate army” or an “army of defense.” Once we begin that, Japan, Germany, or Mexico, whichever it is, will begin to build up a defense against us. We will raise them one, and so on. And the logical end of all that is Germany; and the logical end of Germany is, and always will be, War. And you, gentle reader, you will be the first to get shot."- John Reed, 1915. On the question of the World War in Europe. ( http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1915/masses01.htm )

And it's true. Our entire society in Sweden bears the vague marks of this remnant of the old monarchical society. Military men have very rarely been sane, and the idea that our rulers were were rulers because of their military might is appalling. Armies always have the effect of creating nationalism, stupidity and conformism. If there is anything the liberals should assault it is this - for what is more along their ideas of conformism than this? Of course, they don't. Though they rarely admit it, their underlying loyalties that they are forced to, or which come naturally to them, are not to the freedom of humanity but in an alliance with what remains from the old world.

Why is this? Well, it's because there seems to be few other tactical options open, perhaps. Many of those who congregate in the so-called high society hold title or used to have land. It is painfully obvious how far the ideas of freedom go when liberals have no problems espousing militarism, royalism and nationalism. There's lot of idle talk about the futility of getting rid of the army, about the idea of having a republic or about 'that it should still be okay to like Sweden'. Again, my partners in arms in many of these questions could be liberals. If they had the guts to stand up to the core of their beliefs. If you truly wish to have freedom we must eradicate all of the artificial, conformist systems that are still held in place. And we must do so effectively. In a few years we could have "saved" you 97 million Swedish crowns in support of the royal family - money that go from the taxes that you so lament. Let me reveal where my loyalties lie: I feel no need whatsoever to maintain a facade that is so grotesque as a monarchy, not even in the dusty cultural heritage that they remain. It is a natural consequence of a democrat to rid themselves of kings and despots of other kinds.

So, let us be republicans and let us democratize the military. Though discipline is necessary, stupifying is not. Or is it so that the liberals fear the lack of support from institutions that carry them on their shoulders...? Are you afraid that the floor will give way if we work against old dogmas? If you are true liberals - you will fearlessly work together with the left. But if you are, as I suspect, burgeoise you will not. And then you must concede yourself to the fact that you are only liberals because it serves your interests. The difference between the liberals and the burgeoise is that the liberal believes himself to be serving freedom. A member of the burgeoise only serves himself and his class by extension.