Supporting The Troops

[SocialPhilosophy]

When I was a Conservatard, I always went around shouting things like "support the troops" "stand behind them or in front of them," Things like that. and now that i dont support why they are fighting in Iraq And Afghanistan, I wonder what exactly supporting the troops Means. You always hear teh Liberal "support the trops, but not the cause, and i wonder How exactly that is done, if you support the troops, you give them the mental strength to keep fighting, prooxy supporting the war.. Help?

[RGacky3]

You support the troops as human beings, not what they are doing.

[SocialPhilosophy]

You support the troops as human beings, not what they are doing.

Then why dont we go around saying "support Human beings"? :confused:

[Patchd]

You support the troops as human beings, not what they are doing.
This, as in you support their plight when they want to go AWOL, you support them when they are left on the streets by the government, you support them when they suffer from PTSD or any other psychological trauma and at the same time, you highlight the oppressive nature of the role they once (or technically still are) playing. You don't support the Armed Forces, because that is an oppressive institution, but you support any victim of Capitalism, many human beings behind that uniform are victims also.

When a soldier is carrying a weapon, they are my class enemy as they act as an opponent to the working class of the world, but that is not to say that many are not conscripted economically into the Armed forces, many are forced to do so, or risk remaining unemployed or enter a low paid job with little other job prospects, or further education. They are as much fucked over by Capitalism and it's state as we are, sometimes more so, hence their joining the Armed forces.

The police on the other hand, are very much different. No one is economically conscripted into the police force.

[F9]

Then why dont we go around saying "support Human beings"? :confused:

They support the troops(which are(?) human beings) in killing other human beings, so they cant just say they support human beings because they dont..

[RGacky3]

This, as in you support their plight when they want to go AWOL, you support them when they are left on the streets by the government, you support them when they suffer from PTSD or any other psychological trauma and at the same time, you highlight the oppressive nature of the role they once (or technically still are) playing. You don't support the Armed Forces, because that is an oppressive institution, but you support any victim of Capitalism, many human beings behind that uniform are victims also.


You are spot on.


When a soldier is carrying a weapon, they are my class enemy as they act as an opponent to the working class of the world, but that is not to say that many are not conscripted economically into the Armed forces, many are forced to do so, or risk remaining unemployed or enter a low paid job with little other job prospects, or further education. They are as much fucked over by Capitalism and it's state as we are, sometimes more so, hence their joining the Armed forces.

I disagree, they are not a class enemy, anymore so that someone that works in a factory producing something the military uses is a class enemy, they are not more a class enemy, than someone who works as an accountant for Capitalists is a class enemy.

Do they surve the inrests of the ruling class? Yes, All workers do, why? Because the ruling class controls the economy.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Do they surve the inrests of the ruling class? Yes, All workers do, why? Because the ruling class controls the economy.

But there's a very clear distinction, between someone who in their day to day lives makes bread or any other product for capitalist consumption. And somebody who makes nothing, but earns a living destroying. They're the frontline of imperialism and in that action, they're class enemies.

They're class enemies because it's their job to wreck havoc against workers of another state and to do so on the behest of the ruling class of their home state.

I have full sympaties with those conscripted intot he armed forces out of poverty, as well as soldiers suffering from post war syndrome or post-traumatic stress dissorder. Absolutly, but when it's their job description to conquest foreign lands in the pursuit of profits for imperial powers, they're not just another worker.

That being said, i fully support, as a reformist tactc, unionisation of the miltary, only with them on side can we hope to secure a revolution.

[SocialPhilosophy]

When a soldier is carrying a weapon, they are my class enemy as they act as an opponent to the working class of the world, but that is not to say that many are not conscripted economically into the Armed forces, many are forced to do so, or risk remaining unemployed or enter a low paid job with little other job prospects, or further education. They are as much fucked over by Capitalism and it's state as we are, sometimes more so, hence their joining the Armed forces.

That Reminds Me of this,


The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

:glare:

[danyboy27]

But there's a very clear distinction, between someone who in their day to day lives makes bread or any other product for capitalist consumption. And somebody who makes nothing, but earns a living destroying. They're the frontline of imperialism and in that action, they're class enemies.



this is a verry big cliché , military personnal dont destroy stuff all day long, of course, its part of their training but their main objective is to control, not destroy. if they can secure an area with a minimal use of force, they will do it.

also, may i remind uyou that those soldier actively participate in many off military activities like search and rescue mission and disaster relief.

[h0m0revolutionary]

this is a verry big cliché , military personnal dont destroy stuff all day long, of course, its part of their training but their main objective is to control, not destroy. if they can secure an area with a minimal use of force, they will do it.

also, may i remind uyou that those soldier actively participate in many off military activities like search and rescue mission and disaster relief.

Yes ok agreed, my rhetoric was hyperbolic. But the sentiments remains, members of the armed forces are very distinguished from other workers. They're no less a worker, but their task in a class society is very rarely one which is fruitful to other workers.

[danyboy27]

Yes ok agreed, my rhetoric was hyperbolic. But the sentiments remains, members of the armed forces are very distinguished from other workers. They're no less a worker, but their task in a class society is very rarely one which is fruitful to other workers.

in a sense, they actually do.
they act has a deterent against countries or groups of people to disturb peace. yes, its twisted but in a capitalistic world it does make sense.

but i agree that the military should do more to serve their communities.
they could for exemple give first aid course to people or help in certain construction project.

those activities would also help the soldier to understand the civilian mindset and learn how to collaborate with them.

but eh, who am i to say that?

[SocialPhilosophy]

in a sense, they actually do.
they act has a deterent against countries or groups of people to disturb peace. yes, its twisted but in a capitalistic world it does make sense.

but i agree that the military should do more to serve their communities.
they could for exemple give first aid course to people or help in certain construction project.

those activities would also help the soldier to understand the civilian mindset and learn how to collaborate with them.

but eh, who am i to say that?

Military Types? Understand Civillians!? what sick and twisted world do you live in? :lol:

[danyboy27]

Military Types? Understand Civillians!? what sick and twisted world do you live in? :lol:

un a world of endless possibilities, unlike you.

[SocialPhilosophy]

un a world of endless possibilities, unlike you.

I'm a Third Generation Army brat, and i know how my family views civilians. :lol:

[h0m0revolutionary]

Call me a radical, but im for the disbandment of the miltary, as an arm of the repressive state apparatus.

I don't want them to understand my community, to be honest.

[danyboy27]

Call me aradical, but im for the disbandment of the miltary, as an arm fo te repressive state apparatus.

I don't want them to understand my community, to be honest.

you know, soldier are nothing but people with a expertise in fighting, just like engineer and medics are specialist in building bridges and saving lives.

i dont see any problem with having armed people protecting my ass, but i do have a problem with them putting repression on me.

not all people can effectively defend themselves, in that optic it make sense that other people get training and weapon to defend them.

i, in no way actually support the acvtual role of the army in society, but i dont see a problem with having a bunch of people specialist in the art of the military to protect my ass against potential threat.

[Ele'ill]

I want to revive this thread with a little Derrick Jensen -



dSa9tyuIdkI

[mykittyhasaboner]

"Supporting the troops," means supporting imperialist wars. The key here is to not support "the troops". This thread is funny and kind of sad. There's a very clear and obvious difference between helping and supporting veterans who have since turned against imperialism and suffer from sickness, etc by struggling amongst them and winning them towards the side of the working class; and "supporting troops"; who by definition are carrying out the occupation of any given country. No support should be given to individuals who volunteer to go fight for the American bourgeoisie in their conquest for market domination. Conscription on the other hand is different, but this isn't the case since the OP is clearly American and is speaking about supporting "the troops" in an American context.

[revolution inaction]

you know, soldier are nothing but people with a expertise in fighting, just like engineer and medics are specialist in building bridges and saving lives.

i dont see any problem with having armed people protecting my ass, but i do have a problem with them putting repression on me.

not all people can effectively defend themselves, in that optic it make sense that other people get training and weapon to defend them.

i, in no way actually support the acvtual role of the army in society, but i dont see a problem with having a bunch of people specialist in the art of the military to protect my ass against potential threat.

there not there to protect your ass or any other part of your body, they are there to protect capitalism and the interests of there ruling class of "there" country and to do what they are told blindly and without thought.

[Radical]

Was it right to support the German troops in Nazi Germany that defeneded the extermination of Jews?

It is no different with the Soldiers of Britan and USA

I shall not support the enablers of Imperialism that voluntarily spread oppressive beliefs throughout the rest of the world.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

When I was a Conservatard, I always went around shouting things like "support the troops" "stand behind them or in front of them," Things like that. and now that i dont support why they are fighting in Iraq And Afghanistan, I wonder what exactly supporting the troops Means. You always hear teh Liberal "support the trops, but not the cause, and i wonder How exactly that is done, if you support the troops, you give them the mental strength to keep fighting, prooxy supporting the war.. Help?

The more polite leftists and liberals will dance around the issue. They will claim something "special" is meant by "support the troops." Therefore, it is not supporting the war. However, it's by all means a tacit support. It's like the member of the Catholic church who claims to be for gay marriage and Catholicism. Everyone against gay marriage is going to use you as a member, the authority of numbers, to argue against it.

Similarly, the conservative movement exploits the fact that it's somehow taboo to say "I don't support the troops." Therefore, there is little means to withdraw from the war. The leftists can't argue for withdrawing forces because it somehow "hurts the troops." Similarly, we can't cut military funding because it "hurts the troops."

How about you do the thing that takes a little bit of, say, courage? When someone asks you if you support the troops, say no. If they want to change the definition of what "support the troops" means, say they are being ridiculous.

Seriously, supporting the troops means we want them to have access to mental health services, medical services, and not be slaughtered in action? Those things should extend to all people.

People who say they "support the troops but not the war" don't realize the ridiculousness of what they're saying. They also don't realize how such statistics as polls on "do you support the troops?" are manipulated by the political right.

Yeah, even moderate leftists will dislike you for saying "no." What else is new? You're already a communist, presumably, so I don't think you're going to lose any additional popularity points for not supporting the troops. The only way to reform views is to challenge them. Force them to use language clearly and correctly.

[danyboy27]

there not there to protect your ass or any other part of your body, they are there to protect capitalism and the interests of there ruling class of "there" country and to do what they are told blindly and without thought.

i didnt argues against the fact that they are FOR THE MOMENT the protector of capitalism.

what i was saying is that soldiers are expert in the domain of fighting, their original role should be protecting us, not the capitalist system, and i am pretty sure a lot of soldier worldwide join the military to protect their folks.

telling all soldier are nazi wont change a damn thing, yes they protect the capitalist system, but it dosnt change the fact that the main problem is their current affectation, not their role in a society has whole.

most of the german soldier of ww2 where normal guy, they did what they did beccause they where misinformed, but originally they wanted to protect their families against a threat, an imaginary one but has i said they where misinformed.

the SS where sociopath beccause their whole training was made to transform them in sociopath, it wasnt your everyday soldier training, creazy shit like holding still with a frag grenade over your head that can blow the shit out of you if you dare move. it wasnt just a soldier training, it was far more damaging for the mind of the participants.

[Comrade B]

Was it right to support the German troops in Nazi Germany that defeneded the extermination of Jews?
Support them deserting, and abandoning the cause they were forced to fight for. They are still human beings.


I shall not support the enablers of Imperialism that voluntarily spread oppressive beliefs throughout the rest of the world.
If you live in a capitalist society, every time you buy something, you are enabling capitalism. We are often forced to support it, otherwise we perish or are subject to extreme poverty.

[RGacky3]

Support them deserting, and abandoning the cause they were forced to fight for. They are still human beings.



I compleatly agree, people need to stop looking at everything as "them" and "us".

[Radical]

Support them deserting, and abandoning the cause they were forced to fight for. They are still human beings.


If you live in a capitalist society, every time you buy something, you are enabling capitalism. We are often forced to support it, otherwise we perish or are subject to extreme poverty.

Sorry, What I mean to say is, I do not support them when and if they commit these evil acts.

Personally, I would had rather resist and die than fight in the Nazi Germany Army. I cant really blame others though, as death for many is something to fear.

However in the UK and USA, soldiers are not forced. I choose not to fight in the Army because I am strongly against what they are fighting for. A lot of these soldiers dont know and dont even care what they are fighting for.

[danyboy27]

However in the UK and USA, soldiers are not forced. I choose not to fight in the Army because I am strongly against what they are fighting for. A lot of these soldiers dont know and dont even care what they are fighting for.

well, they might not know for wich reason they are in iraq or afghanistan, but many people in the us military are there mainly beccause thwy want to protect their folks.

for them, they are doing a job, the governement asked them to take control of an area, they did it.

a LOT of german soldier where volunteer has well you know, and has i said earlier the problem wasnt their intention but that they where mislead.

the whole jewish extermination wasnt the work of the weirmarch but of the SS. yes the wermatch had some involvement but the SS did most of the extermination process and has i said earlier, you cant mix SS and weirmarch.

its easy to say that they should have joined the resistance when they had a family and kids to take care of and a group of good suited in black making their neighbor magically disappear.

you shouldnt condemn a group of people beccause they are misused and misinformed.

[Comrade B]

Sorry, What I mean to say is, I do not support them when and if they commit these evil acts.

Personally, I would had rather resist and die than fight in the Nazi Germany Army. I cant really blame others though, as death for many is something to fear.
I am pretty sure my grandfather knew not a damn thing about communism....
I know he didn't know a damn thing about Nazism, the Nazis just picked up everyone and stuck them into the military.


However in the UK and USA, soldiers are not forced. I choose not to fight in the Army because I am strongly against what they are fighting for. A lot of these soldiers dont know and dont even care what they are fighting for.
I have a lot of friends joining the military. One needs to get citizenship so he can apply to scholarships, another couldn't find work in our town, another was kicked out of the high school. There aren't a great variety of opportunities to make a living.

Would you say the worker who works in a munitions factory is as guilty as the soldier who joins the army?

[Radical]

its easy to say that they should have joined the resistance when they had a family and kids to take care of and a group of good suited in black making their neighbor magically disappear.

This is where I and Capitalists strongly differ. I am a strong Collectivist. More much than most Communists. Love and care for the majority should come much before family and friends. Refusing to support a Government that exterminated innocent jews is more important than taking the risk of not being able to feed your family.

Capitalists lack principles. They will sell us the rope in which we hang them with.



I am pretty sure my grandfather knew not a damn thing about communism....
I know he didn't know a damn thing about Nazism, the Nazis just picked up everyone and stuck them into the military.

I have a lot of friends joining the military. One needs to get citizenship so he can apply to scholarships, another couldn't find work in our town, another was kicked out of the high school. There aren't a great variety of opportunities to make a living.


It's not about Communism, it's about moral awareness and a hate for racism and extermination.

There are also many people in the same situation as them. Except they refused to join the army because they believed it was wrong. It's about principles.

[Orange Juche]

Conscription on the other hand is different, but this isn't the case since the OP is clearly American and is speaking about supporting "the troops" in an American context.

Though an argument could be formed that they are "conscripted" by their economic situation, as a means of survival.

[Bright Banana Beard]

They should be opposed at utmost since they will go against the interest of the working class.

[Comrade B]

It's not about Communism, it's about moral awareness and a hate for racism and extermination.

There are also many people in the same situation as them. Except they refused to join the army because they believed it was wrong. It's about principles.
My grandfather did not know a damn thing about politics, if you grew up in a lumber community of under 2000 in die Rhineland Pflatz I doubt you would either. He joined the military because he was a kid from a small isolated village who wanted to fly and had never been in a plane before, I am pretty sure there are a lot of soldiers from the allied that joined up not knowing anything about the war either, but more interested in adventure. The proletariat of countries are kept uninformed for precisely this reason, because if they knew exactly what they were doing, they would no way in hell continue.

[danyboy27]

This is where I and Capitalists strongly differ. I am a strong Collectivist. More much than most Communists. Love and care for the majority should come much before family and friends. Refusing to support a Government that exterminated innocent jews is more important than taking the risk of not being able to feed your family.

.

hahaha, i wasnt talking about the risk of feeding their family, but the risk that guy have to have its kids and wife raped and tortured while a ss guard is making holes in his teeth in the room next to his family.

you dont seem to understand the gravity of consequence dissents where exposed back then.

you have a family do you?

[RGacky3]

They should be opposed at utmost since they will go against the interest of the working class.


Class interests are not so black and white.

[SocialPhilosophy]

I'm Not so sure i can live with myself saying " i don't support the troops" Because im the only one in seven generations to Not go into the armed forces at 18, and only then because i am 4F. i just don't know what to do. :blushing:

[Poppytry]

I always felt this aswell. If the troops are 18 yr old conscripts then fair enough as they have to fight but the UK and US armed forces are both professional armies and rely on men enlisting by free will. Now why on earth would i support a man who has willingly joined the army knowing that they will be fighting in a place where they shouldnt even be.

[SocialPhilosophy]

I always felt this aswell. If the troops are 18 yr old conscripts then fair enough as they have to fight but the UK and US armed forces are both professional armies and rely on men enlisting by free will. Now why on earth would i support a man who has willingly joined the army knowing that they will be fighting in a place where they shouldnt even be.

It always seemed heartless to say that you didn't support them, when i supported both wars blindly. and now im not sure what supporting the troops means, and how not to seem like a heartless bastard.

[danyboy27]

well, i do agree that this whole notion of supporting the troops is somehow absurd considering those are volunteer, but i think this is also absurd to rejoice of their death.

[Comrade B]

How is the worker who makes the gun less guilty than the worker who uses it?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Support the troops. Why though? Because they are doing their "duty"?

They're killing innocent Iraqis and Afghans.

You may say 'Oh, well they are protecting our freedoms'. No, they aren't. In fact, your own government has been stealing your rights and freedoms whilst you took your anger out on Arabs.

Nor are the soldiers fighting for any of our rights. They are fighting the war of the bourgeois. For oil, for power and for imperialism.

Anyone who had to go fight the war, because they were poor, and the military was their way out, should be supported (unless they commit an atrocity that was within their power to prevent).

I bet many of these soldiers still think Saddam Hussein plotted 9/11 with Bin Laden.

[danyboy27]

Support the troops. Why though? Because they are doing their "duty"?

They're killing innocent Iraqis and Afghans.

You may say 'Oh, well they are protecting our freedoms'. No, they aren't. In fact, your own government has been stealing your rights and freedoms whilst you took your anger out on Arabs.

Nor are the soldiers fighting for any of our rights. They are fighting the war of the bourgeois. For oil, for power and for imperialism.

Anyone who had to go fight the war, because they were poor, and the military was their way out, should be supported (unless they commit an atrocity that was within their power to prevent).

I bet many of these soldiers still think Saddam Hussein plotted 9/11 with Bin Laden.
wow, there is so much stereotypes in that post, my eyes are burning.

Propagandhi: soldiers are evil baby-eater killing rapist ignorants! all they know is killing civilian! and lets not forget most of them are illetrate!

there is verry fews difference between a worker and a soldier, we all play the game to make a living and most of us are misinformed at a certain level regarding the current structure.

[Comrade B]

Support the troops. Why though? Because they are doing their "duty"?
Because they are exploited workers. And you are supposed to be a communist.


They're killing innocent Iraqis and Afghans.
On order of their superiors, I buy from a chain store because I need to get food, the store supports a variety of evil causes with that money, including maintaining the sick capitalist system that sends the soldiers to kill people. The soldier joins the military because they need the food, they are just more directly helping capitalism, but indirect or direct doesn't really matter in the end, the fact is you are supporting it, no matter what you do. No one is trying to justify the actions of those that kill innocents willingly.


You may say 'Oh, well they are protecting our freedoms'. No, they aren't.
No argument there, the majority of people in OI are liberals, or member communists.


took your anger out on Arabs.
Not the reason people are fighting, the soldiers are fighting for personal survival, the government uses the people of the middle-east as a scapegoat to get people to continue financing the war inside politics, but not everyone believes that crap.


Nor are the soldiers fighting for any of our rights. They are fighting the war of the bourgeois. For oil, for power and for imperialism.
That is where the phrase 'support the troops, not the war' comes from.


I bet many of these soldiers still think Saddam Hussein plotted 9/11 with Bin Laden.
Jose, Joey, Brandon, Andrew (common enough names that I think I can say them without violating security culture) and my other buddies in the military know better than that. I don't know a single person joining the military for ideological reasons, they are there because it is work.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Much like how slavery in its pure exploitative form has been replaced by wage slavery in capitalist society, so has judicially forced conscription been replaced by economically forced conscription. Now most capitalist armies offer university and college tuitions, health and dental insurance and career training, which is aimed directly at working class youth.

Who are these "black hordes" of capitalism made out of? Are they the capitalists themselves? Of course not. Just like how capitalists don't actually produce goods, they don't fight their own wars either. Soldiers are, and have been since the dawn of civilization; workers (or peasants, depending on the era). These workers are humans too, and in a revolutionary situation, the vast majority will side with the working class, who are their brothers, sisters, parents and friends. Let's not forget that around 2/3 of the Imperial Russian Army sided with the Bolsheviks in the Revolution and subsequent Civil War.

[Radical]

I'm not willing to kill a man just because I can't get a job. That would be evil and is evil.

I'm also not going to buy into the propaganda that people join the British Army because they can't afford food.
This lie that is currently being spread across the Left that people will die if they dont become a Murderer is Ridiculous. As much as it would help our situation, nobody in the UK or US is dying of starvation.

Communist Revolutionaries should also have Humanitarian Principles. Meaning, They'd rather starve to death than take part in the murder of innocent people.

[Comrade B]

Would you be willing to kill people to make other people not starve?
All jobs continue capitalism, everything you buy, the profits go to maintaining capitalism, you buy things with the money from the place you work at, the place you work at is also doing something to support capitalism.

Would someone please answer also, how the worker who fires the gun is more guilty than the worker who makes the gun?

[danyboy27]

I'm not willing to kill a man just because I can't get a job. That would be evil and is evil.

.

then again you simplify the real purpose of a soldier.

the main job of a soldier, or at least what their main goal would be. is to secure their land against exterior threat and to stand for those who cant fight back.

there will always have group of dangerous people roaming around, and in that sense having a bunch of well trained and well armed people might be useful beccause lets face it, not everyone can go thru the training they been thru. i doubt you can ask to a community mainly composed of elderly people to get their shit together and form a milita to defend themselves. some people will have to stand for them.

[Radical]

then again you simplify the real purpose of a soldier.


No, I'm pretty sure all soldiers are expected to be willing to kill. I never said nor implied that thats all they do.

[danyboy27]

No, I'm pretty sure all soldiers are expected to be willing to kill. I never said nor implied that thats all they do.


but you said you wouldnt be willing to kill for a living, that implies that you think soldier are killing people all the time.

in case you dont know a LOT of soldier dont even touch their rifle at all; logistical and medical staff, truck drivers, cooks etc. Most of the troops arnt allowed to use their weapons unless its necessary.

[Spark]

It is important to conduct agitation among soldiers and sailors, particularly among the officers' corps, in order to win them over to the side of the proletarian struggle. The proletariat cannot triumph as long as the class enemy maintains control over its mighty armed forces. Soldiers and sailors must be taught that their interest is to smash the capitalist system. At the very least, the troops would need to remain passive as the proletariat wages a merciless struggle against the oppressors.

[brigadista]

but you said you wouldnt be willing to kill for a living, that implies that you think soldier are killing people all the time.

in case you dont know a LOT of soldier dont even touch their rifle at all; logistical and medical staff, truck drivers, cooks etc. Most of the troops arnt allowed to use their weapons unless its necessary.

but that is the PURPOSE of their training...

[FreeFocus]

Support the troops?

No, fuck the troops.

[danyboy27]

but that is the PURPOSE of their training...

wrong, the purpose of their training is to make then efficient at taking control of various objective and if necessary to kill any potential threat.


the best soldier are those trainined to use their weapon effectively and with moderation.

kill when you have to, not when you want to.

btw fuck the troops wont change a damn thing, but i could understand your lack of empathy for them, they where volunteer after all.
they still worker and slave of the system tho.

[Comrade B]

the best soldier are those trainined to use their weapon effectively and with moderation.

kill when you have to, not when you want to.
That is why Blackwater is considered particularly more evil than the basic military.


Support the troops?

No, fuck the troops.
Thanks for that in depth contribution.


but that is the PURPOSE of their training...
Survival is the purpose of their training. Some people in the military are crazy mother fuckers, especially high up, but we should not categorize all soldiers as blood thirsty sons of *****es

[Pavlov's House Party]

No, I'm pretty sure all soldiers are expected to be willing to kill. I never said nor implied that thats all they do.

Have you ever served in the armed forces?

No one but a psychopath wants to kill or be killed, you're just blanketing all soldiers as faceless killing machines.

In a revolutionary situation, everything will depend on whether or not the working class who comprises the armed forces sides with the revolutionaries. Calling them all willful murderers and implying they have no emotions ain't gonna help you.

[Orange Juche]

I always felt this aswell. If the troops are 18 yr old conscripts then fair enough as they have to fight but the UK and US armed forces are both professional armies and rely on men enlisting by free will. Now why on earth would i support a man who has willingly joined the army knowing that they will be fighting in a place where they shouldnt even be.

What do you make of someone in a poor area with a horrible education (who doesn't know better or isn't class conscious), who feels forced into the military due to economic circumstances?

[khad]

In a revolutionary situation, everything will depend on whether or not the working class who comprises the armed forces sides with the revolutionaries. Calling them all willful murderers and implying they have no emotions ain't gonna help you.
Doesn't work that way. Throughout the nineteenth century in Europe the military forces which came to the aid of the working class tended to be militia and national guardsmen. Invariably, national (in those days professional) armies with their long terms of service and separation from civilian society worked as the hand of the state in smashing uprisings.

It is facile and suicidal to think of the military as an institution which considers itself working class. There are elements which can be courted, but you will not likely have much success with the full-time military.

[Eat the Rich]

Khad
Doesn't work that way. Throughout the nineteenth century in Europe the military forces which came to the aid of the working class tended to be militia and national guardsmen. Invariably, national (in those days professional) armies with their long terms of service and separation from civilian society worked as the hand of the state in smashing uprisings.

It is facile and suicidal to think of the military as an institution which considers itself working class. There are elements which can be courted, but you will not likely have much success with the full-time military.I disagree. Even the proffesional soldiers have a class backround. They will split on class lines, especialy armies like the USA. I am saying that because many people, especialy opressed layers (blacks, latinos etc.), see the army as the only way to escape the economic and racial opression. It is unemployment, the hard life in ghettos or the army for them. They will not shoot against their brothers and sisters, when the latter enter the revolutionary movement.

That being said, there are elements from a working class backround that will side with the reaction. But I think a significant portion of the proffessional or not armies, can still be won over. That is why we can't adopt the petit-bourgeois * idea that all soldiers will always be servants of imperialism and the state. We should do propaganda within the army,as much as we can.

*The idea is petit-bourgeois because it is un-dialectic. It looks upon consciousness as something static, not something constantly in motion, that explodes like a volcano in a revolutionary situation. Furthermore, is is petit bourgeois because it glosses over the class nature and class divide within the army and it "categorizes" the class, according to the role that capitalism forced most of those people to adopt, through economic, social and racial opression. In plain English, it is easy to avoid going to the army for ideological reasons when your daddy or you have a lot of money or at least a decent living standard. For a working class person, especialy for one living in the ghettos created by racist capitalist America, it is not that easy to be an idealist.

[Hiero]

Would someone please answer also, how the worker who fires the gun is more guilty than the worker who makes the gun?

Because they shoot the gun.

[Pavlov's House Party]

It is facile and suicidal to think of the military as an institution which considers itself working class. There are elements which can be courted, but you will not likely have much success with the full-time military.

Because the full time sailors on the Russian Cruiser Aurora were such mindless killing-machines:rolleyes:

Oh, and how many soldiers in the Imperial Russian Army sided with the Bolsheviks in the Revolution and subsequent Civil War again? Wasn't it something around two thirds of the army?

[khad]

Because the full time sailors on the Russian Cruiser Aurora were such mindless killing-machines:rolleyes:

Oh, and how many soldiers in the Imperial Russian Army sided with the Bolsheviks in the Revolution and subsequent Civil War again? Wasn't it something around two thirds of the army?
Two words: conscript army. Those boys hardly depended on the military for their livelihood, unlike professional soldiers.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Two words: conscript army. Those boys hardly depended on the military for their livelihood, unlike professional soldiers.

As I said before, in this day and age forced conscription has been replaced by economically forced conscription. Many soldiers I know would much rather have other jobs, but still join because they need to go to university or college. It's a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that they would fire on their own citizens in a revolution, because they share the same class interests (coming from working class backgrounds) as the workers who will revolt.

[Comrade B]

Because they shoot the gun.
And? There is no tool to kill the person with if the workers in the factories decide to stop making weapons out of consciousness, however this cannot happen because the US has enough need for the weapons that it would break the strike and replace them with new workers. The workers also could have chosen to work anywhere else in the country, just as it could be argued that the soldier could work anywhere else (which isn't actually true, it isn't always that easy to get a job), but they chose to military/the factory that makes guns. If the soldiers were to decide they didn't want to go to war and that they would not go, the US government would have them court marshaled for desertion, and if the military were to resist, well, that would be a revolution of the workers.

[Hiero]

And? There is no tool to kill the person with if the workers in the factories decide to stop making weapons out of consciousness, however this cannot happen because the US has enough need for the weapons that it would break the strike and replace them with new workers. The workers also could have chosen to work anywhere else in the country, just as it could be argued that the soldier could work anywhere else (which isn't actually true, it isn't always that easy to get a job), but they chose to military/the factory that makes guns. If the soldiers were to decide they didn't want to go to war and that they would not go, the US government would have them court marshaled for desertion, and if the military were to resist, well, that would be a revolution of the workers.

Because they shoot the gun at the working class.

[Hiero]

I am not going to get into a moral arguement about soldiers. As Marxists or someother definition of revolutionary leftists we shouldn't take things at a personal level.

No we don't support the troops because they are humans beings, guess what? Everyone is a human being, even the bourgeoisie.

Terms like "support the troops" shouldn't even come into a vocabulary. We view the military in its sociological catergory, the represive arm of the ruling class. They are not workers, they are they state, we don't take it on an individual basis.

In your liberal view by bringing it down to a moral arguement you make an immoral conclusion. You would have us support the troops at the same moral level of supporting the victims of imperialism. Tha should sympathise just as much with the person who shot the gun as the victim. If anything our sympathy should be 99% with the victims of imperialism and 1% with the thought that thoose who join the army as subjects have done so under some soft coercion.

We do not discuss "support the troops", we discuss anti-imperialism and working class revolutionary, which entails the destruction of the armed wing of the bourgeoisie.


The State

The Marxist tradition is strict, here: in the Communist Manifesto and the Eighteenth Brumaire (and in all the later classical texts, above all in Marx’s writings on the Paris Commune and Lenin’s on State and Revolution), the State is explicitly conceived as a repressive apparatus. The State is a ‘machine’ of repression, which enables the ruling classes (in the nineteenth century the bourgeois class and the ‘class’ of big landowners) to ensure their domination over the working class, thus enabling the former to subject the latter to the process of surplus-value extortion (i.e. to capitalist exploitation).

The State is thus first of all what the Marxist classics have called the State Apparatus. This term means: not only the specialized apparatus (in the narrow sense) whose existence and necessity I have recognized in relation to the requirements of legal practice, i.e. the police, the courts, the prisons; but also the army, which (the proletariat has paid for this experience with its blood) intervenes directly as a supplementary repressive force in the last instance, when the police and its specialized auxiliary corps are ‘outrun by events’; and above this ensemble, the head of State, the government and the administration.

Presented in this form, the Marxist-Leninist ‘theory’ of the State has its finger on the essential point, and not for one moment can there be any question of rejecting the fact that this really is the essential point. The State Apparatus, which defines the State as a force of repressive execution and intervention ‘in the interests of the ruling classes’ in the class struggle conducted by the bourgeoisie and its allies against the proletariat, is quite certainly the State, and quite certainly defines its basic ‘function’.

Louis Althusser 1970, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, Lenin and Philosophy,