In contemporary societies, armament is often presented as a self-evident and necessary element of ensuring security. Such an interpretation overlooks the broader context in which militarisation arises and is perpetuated. The trend towards militarisation is driven by various factors, as it is linked to economic, political and geopolitical interests. The defence industry represents a lucrative market, and as regular customers, states use armaments not only to strengthen security but also to bolster their geopolitical influence, domestic industry and jobs. This intertwining of interests is encapsulated in the concept of the military-industrial complex, which denotes the close interconnection between state institutions, the military and defence companies, and enables the reproduction of militarisation even in the absence of direct conflicts.

The key feature of the complex is the blurred boundary between the public and private sectors. The state, as the primary client, ensures stable, long-term demand, whilst private companies operate on the principle of maximising profit. This arrangement creates a specific market in which competition is limited and demand is largely determined by political factors. These circumstances have contributed to a high degree of concentration within the defence industry, where large defence conglomerates such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and others have emerged. Due to its close ties with state institutions and access to decision-makers, the defence industry is able to influence the formulation of public policy, particularly in the areas of defence budgets and arms exports. In this context, the authors draw attention to the issue of the »power elite«, which brings together political, military and economic actors and concentrates decision-making in the hands of a relatively small group of individuals. As early as 1961, President Eisenhower warned of the danger that such a concentration of power could lead to abuses and unduly influence democratic processes.

The military-industrial complex operates as a cycle in which security threats drive up defence spending; this, in turn, strengthens the industry, which then uses its political influence to promote further armament in order to remain profitable. At the international level, this can contribute to destabilisation and arms races.

Curbing the trend towards militarisation is not merely a security issue, but also a matter of socio-economic structures. In this context, economic democracy, particularly the employee-ownership model, represents one of the mechanisms for reducing the conditions that enable militarisation. Economic insecurity and unstable living conditions, particularly amongst young people, increase susceptibility to radicalisation and various forms of recruitment into violent or militarised structures. Conversely, employee-owned enterprises strengthen economic security, stability and a sense of future prospects, whilst also promoting participation and social responsibility within the communities in which they operate. Such communities are generally less susceptible to discourses that legitimise the use of arms as the primary response to social and security challenges. 

Slovenia, too, is not immune to militarism. Statistical data reveal an interesting pattern linking the economic situation of regions to the proportion of people employed in military occupations. Regions with a lower GDP per capita generally have a higher proportion of people employed in military occupations relative to the size of their working-age population. Whilst the Central Slovenia region, which has the highest GDP per capita, has a relatively low proportion of people employed in military occupations, in economically weaker regions such as Primorsko-Notranjska, the Podravska and Posavska regions, the proportion is rising more markedly. Although such data do not prove a direct causal link, they do suggest a connection between economic conditions, regional inequalities and the appeal of stable state or militarised professions. Militarisation is thus not merely a matter of security policies and geopolitics, but also a matter of economic structures, employment opportunities and a sense of life prospects. In regions with greater economic uncertainty, a military career may represent one of the few forms of stable employment and social security. 

Although employee ownership does not directly eliminate militarisation, as part of broader practices of economic democracy, it can contribute to more stable and inclusive societies in which the conditions for its reproduction and radicalisation are weaker.