Your views on People in the Army.

[The Red Next Door]

Do you believe, they all are baby killing bastards and do you believe in times, where they killed innocent people, they have gotten their orders mix up or they did it on purpose?

[tornwarriorx]

Usually, I believe it is they got their orders mixed up, or some other mistake. I have alot a friends who are going into the military, and I myself am going to the military. Why? Because I think it will be a good experience, but that's me. HHonestly, though, most people in the military are good people. Like always, there are exceptions. To say an entire group of people are all evil just because they are in the military is ignorant in my opinion.

[Crusade]

Usually, I believe it is they got their orders mixed up, or some other mistake. I have alot a friends who are going into the military, and I myself am going to the military. Why? Because I think it will be a good experience, but that's me. HHonestly, though, most people in the military are good people. Like always, there are exceptions. To say an entire group of people are all evil just because they are in the military is ignorant in my opinion.

Why would it be a good experience?

[which doctor]

Regardless of what you think of soldiers themselves, it is important to understand that the fate of a socialist revolution would hinge on the support of the military. In a world as militarized as we are now, a people's revolution would stand no chance against the huge and powerful militaries of countries like the US and China. While they may not necessarily perform any productive labor, they still belong to the working-class.

[cb9's_unity]

I don't think many soldiers are 'baby killing bastards'. It takes a special and rare psychopath to kill the innocent with no remorse for little to no reason.

The murder of innocents is most often the result of an unwillingness to question authority/orders. To my knowledge soldiers can legally disobey truly awful orders, but they won't be penalized if they follow through with them. A soldier can pass the blame to an officer that ordered the killing of innocents. However there are events like the Mai Lai Massacre that must have been influenced at least in part by the most extreme form of racism.

Even though it doesn't directly apply to the military, I'd check out the Milgram experiment. It shows how ordinary people can do pretty horrible things when they are ordered to. It isn't hard to imagine how the effect would be intensified when you are receiving orders from a commander in the midst of a war.

Basically soldiers aren't inherently bad people, they are just making a massively poor decision and are put into an organization that often encourages them to make even worse decisions. We must not wholly reject soldiers are murderers but instead try to make them understand how they are being mislead by bourgeois propaganda.

[x371322]

Regardless of what you think of soldiers themselves, it is important to understand that the fate of a socialist revolution would hinge on the support of the military. In a world as militarized as we are now, a people's revolution would stand no chance against the huge and powerful militaries of countries like the US and China. While they may not necessarily perform any productive labor, they still belong to the working-class.

This.

It seems counter productive to bash the soldiers too much, as the time will come when we could really use them on our side. I've got friends in the military right now, and while I don't agree with their decisions to go, why they're there, or what they're doing, I wish them well and hope they come home safe. We must also remember that most of them are indeed working class, and the number 1 reason for kids joining up is money for college. (Kind of makes you realize why we don't have free college education in the states... if college were free for everyone, the military would take a big loss in soldiers)

[tornwarriorx]

Why would it be a good experience?

I find myself attracted to hands on, adrenaline pumping work. Also, using weapons would be fun. Like, I'm going into artillery. How many other chances do you get to fire cannons? And I'm only going into the national guard, so it's nothing full time.

Also, along the lines of what witch doctor said, it is good training for a revolution.

[ArrowLance]

I find myself attracted to hands on, adrenaline pumping work. Also, using weapons would be fun. Like, I'm going into artillery. How many other chances do you get to fire cannons? And I'm only going into the national guard, so it's nothing full time.

Also, along the lines of what witch doctor said, it is good training for a revolution.

I'm sure you will get a lot of adrenaline pumping artillery action in the national guard. . .

Soldiers, that is the destructive tools of capitalism and imperialism, are of course evil and all that. But at the same time people who are soldiers are still workers in many cases. I think just about everyone knows a few people who are in the military and I'm sure they aren't all baby eating monsters. It's a job, and a pretty secure one in comparison to much of the rest of the market.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think it's useless to try and make a moral judgment on individual soldiers. Were they innocent people? Of course, if the modern US military is somewhere, no matter who's getting killed, they are innocent in terms of not being the imperialist power trying to mold the world in its own interests. Did they get their orders mixed up? Well their job is to kill and suppress the local population and so it's insanity to expect them to know a civilian walking down the road from an insurgent walking down the road. A lot of counter-insurgency activity anyway is just the US military sending a convoy into some town and if they get shot at, then the military knows there's insurgents there and so it blows up the block.

The only judgment that's really relevant or important is about the military machine and imperialism. Soldiers for the most part are just pawns.

In the US, the military is one of the largest employers of people - the military spends a lot of it's ample money advertising on TV, radio, online, and are probably the originators of "viral marketing". When you sign up for the military, it's a binding contract - if soldiers go into the military for sociopathic reasons, then why have a binding term of service? If soldiers were just natural sociopaths, why does the military lie in it's advertisements or recruitment pitches?

Soldiers in general are just normal people and they have been put into an insane situation where they are made to kill for interests that are not apparent to them. People have all sorts of strange reactions to being put in this situation and can become brutal, or can become basket-cases who are afraid of their own shaddow; they can use gallows humor, the might even take macabre trophies from people they've killed.

Specifically, as other people said, soldiers in modern imperialist countries have always come from working class urban or petty-bourgeois/working class rural backgrounds. This means that not only are they fighting a war not in their class interests, but their interests in regards to class struggle at home are actually done a diservice by their fighting. This class divide makes it possible for there to be a wedge in imperialist armies where working class movements at home can influence soldiers and lead to them going awol or even mutinying. In Vietnam this played out first for black soldiers who recognized the class and racial interests were not being served by the war because of the civil rights and black power movements - "no vietnameese ever called me nigger"; in other words, why fight abroad only to increase the power of your enemy at home.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think the majority of people join the army who have been failed by Capitalism and seem stuck with nowhere else to go. They see the military as good job which will take them out of the trap. I think once it gets to that stage I still think they have to be held responsible to some extent for the atrocities imperialist armies commit and my sympathies will always lie primarily with the victims of imperialism over the pawns of imperialism. Nonetheless you can't forget the indoctrination and flat out brainwashing those in the army are given and it's not just a case of people in the army wanting to go out and kill people.

[R_P_A_S]

I find myself attracted to hands on, adrenaline pumping work. Also, using weapons would be fun. Like, I'm going into artillery. How many other chances do you get to fire cannons? And I'm only going into the national guard, so it's nothing full time.

Also, along the lines of what witch doctor said, it is good training for a revolution.

What would you do if you were asked to serve in a war where you know it was a working class revolution taking place? and you were sent to smash it?

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

I find myself attracted to hands on, adrenaline pumping work. Also, using weapons would be fun. Like, I'm going into artillery. How many other chances do you get to fire cannons? And I'm only going into the national guard, so it's nothing full time.

Also, along the lines of what witch doctor said, it is good training for a revolution.

I bet the Boy Scouts is good training for the revolution too. You know, living in the woods, rubbing twigs together to make fire, and tying knots. So would training with a christian fundamentalist militia!! Doesn't mean you should join that shit! The military stands for something, and it's not just "fun, adrenaline and shooting guns."

Been playing with your G.I. Joe's a little too much?

[tornwarriorx]

What would you do if you were asked to serve in a war where you know it was a working class revolution taking place? and you were sent to smash it?

Good point, comrade. I guess in that situation I would Do my best to let the insurgents off the hook, whenever I have the opportunity too.

[tornwarriorx]

I bet the Boy Scouts is good training for the revolution too. You know, living in the woods, rubbing twigs together to make fire, and tying knots. So would training with a christian fundamentalist militia!! Doesn't mean you should join that shit! The military stands for something, and it's not just "fun, adrenaline and shooting guns."

Been playing with your G.I. Joe's a little too much?


And the military's also a career and money during this capitalist crisis. And a Christain fundie militia probablty would be useful in training, but I'm not right wing. What alternate do you have that can give people the same standard of training as the Army National Guard that is more in agreement with our view? I'm dying to know. I don't need shit from you just because you don't agree with my decision, so stfu.

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

Well here goes...I know I'm new and all but...

Speaking as a former British soldier. We're not all baby killing bastards as you so eloquently put it Midwest Anarcho most of the time we were acting on bad intel and even worse leadership. I not saying this condones some of our actions. I am merely suggesting that you do not buy into the press opinion of us and judge us upon our leadership not the individual.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think it's productive to attack low-level grunts. Sure when the shooting starts you may get get shot at by them, but until that point I don't think it's wise to shoot back. Getting the rank and file on our side as much as possible is something that we should aim for, as someone else pointed out.

Commissioned officers, on the other hand...

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

Commissioned officers, on the other hand...

Should most of the time not be officers. I think a system whereby you have to have done some time in the rank and file would stand you in better stead to lead.Unless you know how we poor dumb grunts work then you should not be allowed to lead.

[Nosotros]

Alot of soldiers are sadistic wankers in my opinion, the proof is there and always has been and I don't see how anyone can properly justify being a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan in 2010. However, some are from poor backgrounds with a lacking education if any and thats the reason some join, they see it as a way out of poverty and hopelessness. But it is important ofcourse to remember that we need the military on our side during a revolution.

[Nosotros]

I find myself attracted to hands on, adrenaline pumping work. Also, using weapons would be fun. Like, I'm going into artillery. How many other chances do you get to fire cannons? And I'm only going into the national guard, so it's nothing full time.

Also, along the lines of what witch doctor said, it is good training for a revolution.Killing brown people for the ruling class is not good training for the revolution, it is good training for having guilt, insomnia and depression for the rest of your life though.

[Bitter Ashes]

My choices at 17:
- Sell more drugs
- Get another minimum wage job until I get sacked
- Join the army, where I get to go on adventures and get paid far better than anything I could get in civvie street.

Was not a political descion. Just had my parents yelling at me to do something useful with my life and I did that to get away from that. I regret the army, but I don't think it makes me a bad person. We're talking about overthrowing goverments and we accept that there will probably be bloodshed to do that, ultimatly we're doing it for selfish reasons, so that we can have the basic access to goods and services that we as workers deserve. How's that different to a teenager who doesnt know any better joining the army to put some food in them and cash in thier pockets?

Did I kill children? No. I'll say that flat out. All wars are is a bunch of workers on one side who've been conned into fighting for thier bourgeois against a bunch of workers on the other side who have also been conned into fighting for thier own bourgeois.

I wasnt even a fulltime soldier when I joined. I joined as TA to get the cash and get the parents off my back. We were promised that we wouldnt be called up to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan. We were lied to. We were told that we'd be gaurunteed a break of several months between we'd be called up for another tour. We were lied to. We were told that we had to do difficult things for the benefit of other workers. We were lied to.

Ask most ex-soldiers about why they joined and what they think of officers and you may well be suprised.

Some ARE sadistic bastards, but not all. Some civilians are sadistic bastards too. Maybe there's a higher proportion in the army. I dunno. Most of them I found were company level officers and high ranking NCO's. Most of us were only intrested in trying to get hold of cigarettes, alchohol and staying out of jail for a few more days.

[The Red Next Door]

Well here goes...I know I'm new and all but...

Speaking as a former British soldier. We're not all baby killing bastards as you so eloquently put it Midwest Anarcho most of the time we were acting on bad intel and even worse leadership. I not saying this condones some of our actions. I am merely suggesting that you do not buy into the press opinion of us and judge us upon our leadership not the individual.

I don't think that at all, i was just asking.

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

Alot of soldiers are sadistic wankers in my opinion, the proof is there and always has been and I don't see how anyone can properly justify being a soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan in 2010.

Well thank you for that very informed (not) opinion, as a bunch soldiers are by and large decent and thinking people (I should know I used to be one.) Yes I can't justify being in Iraq or Afghanistan either but thats not down to us. Don't make a sweeping generalisation about something you know NOTHING about it makes you look pathetic.


However, some are from poor backgrounds with a lacking education if any and thats the reason some join, they see it as a way out of poverty and hopelessness.

I'm not from a poor background at all. In fact if anything my upbringing was distinctly middle-class. I do realise this isn't the case for all soldiers. Also a lot of the more technical guys do not lack education. I myself earned a degree while serving and I know many others that did. Don't make the mistake that we're all dumb unthinking grunts as thats not the case. Also as a ex-Brit soldier I can say that this is not the case in the British army. As for the U.S. army I'm not qualified to say.


But it is important of course to remember that we need the military on our side during a revolution.

I think you'll find that our attitudes towards you would be better if looked at the army not as a tool but as a group of people. We don't like people who mistake us for cannon fodder. Thats a mistake Blair and Bush made.

[FreeFocus]

My thoughts are that they can go fuck themselves, if they are part of an aggressive, imperialist military (most notably, the US). I don't blame soldiers in, say, the Bolivian military, because when did Bolivia last engage in aggression and kill innocent civilians (not including under the dictatorships when the military was used for internal repression)?

I don't consider imperialist shock troops working class, and my strategy isn't to try to show them the wonders and miracles of the Manifesto and communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't consider imperialist shock troops working class,

In spite of the fact that they sell their labour?


and my strategy isn't to try to show them the wonders and miracles of the Manifesto and communism.

So your strategy is what, precisely?

[gorillafuck]

I think most soldiers are good people that are out for some college money and often feel remorse for what they do. Most people aren't mentally capable of killing other human beings until they become desensitized to it. That being said, I'd rather have soldiers killed than the victims of imperialism and foreign occupation.

But those people who are from families where their dad is a general and they want to join for the glory of shooting for the gleaming USA? Fuck them.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Anyone who joins our "all volunteer army" is most likely completely proletarianized and fucking knows it.

He's halfway to communism already since he obviously sees no damn future for himself in American capitalism.

From Lenin's 21 Conditions of Admission to the Communist International:


4. The duty of propagating communist ideas includes the special obligation of forceful and systematic propaganda in the army. Where this agitation is interrupted by emergency laws it must be continued illegally. Refusal to carry out such work would be tantamount to a betrayal of revolutionary duty and would be incompatible with membership of the Communist International.

[Red Commissar]

Most people who join the Military are average people. Most have either joined out of some sense of purpose, want a career in the military, or had no better alternative when they hit 18. Or if you live in a country where service is compulsory.

The stuff we see occur when some of them snap and kill people, we can't apply that to all of them and say they are all bloody murderers. I think like has already been said we can't write off the members of the military like that. If you want to take up an issue with them, the brass and intel groups are the ones who ultimately move the military.

Many of them are average working-class people and can be put on to our path given that they haven't been indoctrinated. Their aid will be necessary in the event of a revolution. Other wise what chance will a working class revolution have in a country like the United States with its kind of military?

[red cat]

My thoughts are that they can go fuck themselves, if they are part of an aggressive, imperialist military (most notably, the US). I don't blame soldiers in, say, the Bolivian military, because when did Bolivia last engage in aggression and kill innocent civilians (not including under the dictatorships when the military was used for internal repression)?

I don't consider imperialist shock troops working class, and my strategy isn't to try to show them the wonders and miracles of the Manifesto and communism.

True. Revolutionaries don't "explain communism" to imperialist troops when they shoot at the masses. Revolutionaries shoot back.

[Devrim]

I think the majority of people join the army who have been failed by Capitalism and seem stuck with nowhere else to go.

In your country yes, but if you look on an international scale, the majority are probably conscripts.

Devrim

[The Red Next Door]

My thoughts are that they can go fuck themselves, if they are part of an aggressive, imperialist military (most notably, the US). I don't blame soldiers in, say, the Bolivian military, because when did Bolivia last engage in aggression and kill innocent civilians (not including under the dictatorships when the military was used for internal repression)?

I don't consider imperialist shock troops working class, and my strategy isn't to try to show them the wonders and miracles of the Manifesto and communism.
They are brainwash, let educate instead of kill, if we can.

[which doctor]

My thoughts are that they can go fuck themselves, if they are part of an aggressive, imperialist military (most notably, the US).
How exactly would you plan on winning a revolution if you don't have rank and file support from the most powerful military in the world?

[Invincible Summer]

Although I dislike many members of the military that I've met (lots are cocky assholes that look down on "civvies"), I understand that lots of people do it out of economic necessity. It makes me sad, but sweeping generalizations don't really cut it here.

I know some people in the military aren't really that proud of what they do (mainly the people who are doing it out of economic necessity), but the ones that are like "Fuck you if you don't care about our country!" can just fuck right off.

[Guerrilla]

'Support the troops but not the war'? That's like saying, 'support the rapist but not the rape'.

[Invincible Summer]

'Support the troops but not the war'? That's like saying, 'support the rapist but not the rape'.

My line is "Support the troops that aren't assholes, but not the war and the ones that are jingoist douchebags"

But yes, the "Support the troops, but not the war" thing is sort of problematic - the troops wouldn't be troops if it wasn't for the war, so how could you support them but not the war?

[leftace53]

I've been trying to formulate where exactly I stand on this. I can't say I support the troops or the war, because it seems like the troops are full of sheeps, killing people for no apparent reason when they could be contributing to society. I realize that current capitalistic economic conditions may drive some to the army, but why I just don't understand why, if one is forced to say join the army, it is more respected than say someone who is forced into prostitution.

How would the general communist population respond to the whole "our troops are fighting to defend their country/capitalist ideology" - you know, like the ones who voluntarily join rather than those who are forced? I know there must be a proper rebuttal to this, I just can't find it.

In a country where capital punishment is illegal, I don't understand why killing in the army is acceptable. I mean if we don't kill criminals here, what makes it okay to kill innocents as well as possible criminals elsewhere. I guess its just a case of "if I don't have to clean it up, its okay"

[cenv]

As communists, we should vehemently oppose imperialism and its means, but we don't have to pass sweeping moral judgments on people in the army. Different people are there for different reasons -- maybe there's no other way for them to escape their shitty lives, maybe they just watched to many war movies growing up. Of course, there are some people who are clearly just scum, but capitalism forces everyone to make compromises, so we should always be careful about passing moral judgments in the name of communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've been trying to formulate where exactly I stand on this. I can't say I support the troops or the war, because it seems like the troops are full of sheeps, killing people for no apparent reason when they could be contributing to society.

There are all sorts of reasons why soldiers kill, but since combat situations can be incredibly confused and messy even at the best of times, it's hard to tease out the main reason in each and every case. Yes, they are taught to shoot at people, but actually getting people to overcome their natural reluctance to commit bloodshed (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=uuYor_8QCycC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Soldiers'+reluctance+to+kill&source=bl&ots=ZBWVWolYvU&sig=y0zw7nkTj5KLf7NYzx72ub46OGQ&hl=en&ei=sePBS-3dI53bsAaj-IzMBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Soldiers'%20reluctance%20to%20kill&f=false) is a real issue for military training.

As for "contributing to society", that's a point of view. Another point of view has it that society needs its butchers as well as its shepherds. I'm not completely sold on that viewpoint, but I can understand why some would draw the conclusion.


I realize that current capitalistic economic conditions may drive some to the army, but why I just don't understand why, if one is forced to say join the army, it is more respected than say someone who is forced into prostitution.

I blame Judaeo-Christian "morality", which lauds killing and depicts sex as inherently "sinful".


How would the general communist population respond to the whole "our troops are fighting to defend their country/capitalist ideology" - you know, like the ones who voluntarily join rather than those who are forced? I know there must be a proper rebuttal to this, I just can't find it.

Easy. They're not. None of the countries that the US actually pitted troops against in the latter half of the 20th century and all of this one actually posed a threat to the US or global capitalism.


In a country where capital punishment is illegal, I don't understand why killing in the army is acceptable. I mean if we don't kill criminals here, what makes it okay to kill innocents as well as possible criminals elsewhere. I guess its just a case of "if I don't have to clean it up, its okay"

The rules are different on a battlefield, I suspect.

[which doctor]

'Support the troops but not the war'? That's like saying, 'support the rapist but not the rape'.
No it's not. Soldiers are workers who sell their labour power to the military. Rapists aren't in any way in a similar position.

[Vendetta]

I have no problems with most of the people I know in the military. It's just the military I have a problem with.

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

I believe the generally you have to question peoples motives for joining the armed forces; if they joined because they wanted to make a difference or they wanted to help, etc. then I have no problem with that but if, say, they joined to shoot up random 'Arabs', or to 'do my duty to Queen and country' then obviously Id despise them, But then it come down to the descisons one would have to make in the military so I believe that perhaps we would be cornering ourselves in if we were to judge people where they are now instead of judging them for what side they're on once the revolution starts.

[Bitter Ashes]

Ignorance IS a defence currently. If the left was more visable, especially to teenagers who may be considering the military, then they have no excuse. Right now, that's not the case, which is our failure, not thiers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

'Support the troops but not the war'? That's like saying, 'support the rapist but not the rape'.Yes if the US ruling class spent millions of dollars to train people to rape; made them sign up for a binding term of service for raping on the basis of saying of telling recruits that they were there to spread democracy; spent billions of dollars to promote pro-rape think-tanks and academics who argue that rape makes democracy possible; make deals with Hollywood to use their expensive military equipment provided that films always show rape in a positive light.

But yes, "support the troops and not the war" is problematic. I'd prefer: "support the troops in refusing and resisting their orders and deployments," or: "support the troops by ENDING the war".

[Bitter Ashes]

Tbh, I think you may be a little unreasonable to demand that soldiers break martial law. You've all seen pictures of what it's like in army jails and been horrified by them. Sorry, but I dont think you'll see many who'll hand themselves over to the RMP to go into army jail.

[AK]

'Support the troops but not the war'? That's like saying, 'support the rapist but not the rape'.
No it's not. Soldiers are workers who sell their labour power to the military. Rapists aren't in any way in a similar position.
However, support for troops almost always ends up being in the form of nationalistic propaganda/sentiment or reinforcements. There never really was a "support for the troops", instead there was a blinded support for what they were doing: killing; expanding empires.

[Andropov]

It depends on a given context which soldiers find themselves in whether they are progressive or forces of reaction.
In such a situation where the Brits are in Iraq or Afghanistan or Ireland or any occupation they are of course forces of reaction there to crush the working class of these nations in order for their masters in Europe to pillage resources or what ever socio-political advantage it gives the National Bourgeois of these countrys.
To have a sweeping statement where all Squadies are really working class in uniform is just pure Western Chauvanism, believe me when you see these squadies operate in occupations they are not forces of progression.
But then it is of course not fitting to have a sweeping statement saying they are all just degenerates because in their own national contexts they are often very progressive but when used as pawns in the Bourgeois's power plans their position with regaurds the working class changes drastically.
I'll make no bones about it, the more squadies that die in Afghanistan and Iraq the better because in those given contexts the only way to remove those forces of Imperialism is to kill enough of them to crush public opinion for those respective wars and make them untenable.
And dont give me that old bullshit of "their only working class lads that need the money". When in an occupation they are not progressive and that empty hollow justification for joining a marauding army is no more valid than the same justification for scabs, mecenarys and peelers etc.

[Andropov]

Tbh, I think you may be a little unreasonable to demand that soldiers break martial law.
Of course you would find it unreasonable, your loyaltys are blatantly obvious.

You've all seen pictures of what it's like in army jails and been horrified by them.
Ohh jesus christ, boo hoo.
Ive seen pictures of Abu Ghraib and such institutions that your squaddies run, Ive seen pictures of the dehumanising conditions of occupation, the slaughter the rape the pillaging all because of the materialistic position soldiers fill in an occupation.
If they were indeed morale and sympathetic to working class turmoil then they would opt for Military Jails instead of the brutality they inflict on the working class of a nation half a world away.

Sorry, but I dont think you'll see many who'll hand themselves over to the RMP to go into army jail.
So so true, hence why their deaths in occupations are progressive.

[Jimmie Higgins]

^I don't think anyone is arguing that troops are a progressive agent in their role as soldiers for the empire. But the fact that imperialist armies must draw on the working class to provide troops is an Achilles heel for imperialism because the class interests of the troops is actually opposed to the aims of the military (as a tool of the capitalist ruling class).

People resisting occupation need to defend themselves, that is not a question. But at the same time the deaths of grunts is not something to cheer, it's more blood on the hands of the capitalist ruling class: the master class always wants and declares the wars but it's always the subject class that must do the killing and dieing.

Obviously the first thing needed to stop an imperialist war is a resistance. This prevents the imperialist from consolidating power but it also shows the hypocrisy of the war to the rest of the world including the working class in the aggressor country. Since bourgeois countries usually have to sell their wars as protecting civilization or democracy, resistance shows that people can and want to rule themselves. So potentially an anti-war movement can be built - which can then potentially develop into an anti-imperialist movement. A domestic anti-war movement can potentially provide break away from ruling class ideology (i.e. the aims of the war are not actually in our interest despite what our rulers say) and this can help encourage dissection or even mutiny among enlistees or the conscripted.

In the Vietnam war, these three elements, resistance, domestic anti-war movement, and disobedience inside the imperialist military had a dynamic relationship to each-other and fed off of each other to the point that anti-war people in the US went from having moral problems with the war or just didn't want US soldiers being killed (basically the extent of most current anti-war sentiment) to identifying with the anti-imperialist struggle on principle, and astonishing numbers of GIs saw their primary enemy as their officers and the military, not the Vietnamese.

[Andropov]

^I don't think anyone is arguing that troops are a progressive agent in their role as soldiers for the empire.
But I see people excusing their membership of this reactionary force as soldiers of the empire on monetary grounds, really quite shocking show of western chauvanism.

But the fact that imperialist armies must draw on the working class to provide troops is an Achilles heel for imperialism because the class interests of the troops is actually opposed to the aims of the military(as a tool of the capitalist ruling class).
Indeed.

People resisting occupation need to defend themselves, that is not a question.
Its not so much "a need", it is merely progressive in the interests of the working class to do so.

But at the same time the deaths of grunts is not something to cheer, it's more blood on the hands of the capitalist ruling class:
To cheer or not is irrelevant, it is whether their deaths are progressive or not in the given imperialist occupations and in my marxist analysis I would conclude their deaths are progressive.

the master class always wants and declares the wars but it's always the subject class that must do the killing and dieing.
Indeed, another fact I do not dispute.

Obviously the first thing needed to stop an imperialist war is a resistance. This prevents the imperialist from consolidating power but it also shows the hypocrisy of the war to the rest of the world including the working class in the aggressor country. Since bourgeois countries usually have to sell their wars as protecting civilization or democracy, resistance shows that people can and want to rule themselves.
Indeed.
If one looks throughout history there have always been hollow justifications for war to hide the face of imperialism and occupation.
The Romans themselves justified their wars on their neighbours as an act of pro-active self defence, sound familiar?

So potentially an anti-war movement can be built - which can then potentially develop into an anti-imperialist movement. A domestic anti-war movement can potentially provide break away from ruling class ideology (i.e. the aims of the war are not actually in our interest despite what our rulers say) and this can help encourage dissection or even mutiny among enlistees or the conscripted.
This is all true.
But you are neglecting the more morbid fact that the highest currency among the civilian population and among squadies is death, death of their own soldiers.
It will inflame domestic public opinion and demoralise the troops.
Hence why I conclude that the death of Imperialist troops is progressive.

In the Vietnam war, these three elements, resistance, domestic anti-war movement, and disobedience inside the imperialist military had a dynamic relationship to each-other and fed off of each other to the point that anti-war people in the US went from having moral problems with the war or just didn't want US soldiers being killed (basically the extent of most current anti-war sentiment) to identifying with the anti-imperialist struggle on principle,
All true.

and astonishing numbers of GIs saw their primary enemy as their officers and the military, not the Vietnamese.
Who they saw as their enemys and who they treated as their enemys are two very different things.
Even though the grunts may and probably did resent their officers it is irrelevant until the point that they turn their guns on their officers and away from the resistance fighters.

[Bitter Ashes]

They did turn on thier officers. En masse. It wasn't usualy the draftees either, but the regulars who performed and called for "fraggings". I'm not going to necro one of the IRA debates again, but in those you'll find the sources about the number of officer fraggings in vietnam, as well as the suicide rates.

You want to go to Abu Gharib, then be my guest. We don't run them, the military police run them. The rest of us will do our best to avoid being anywhere near the RMP and thier prisons, who are the most sadistic assholes the world's ever seen.

Fight the Toms by all means if you ever had to, but ffs, don't hate them except when an individual proves themselves worth it.

[The Douche]

How easy it is to talk about "turning guns on their officers". If you think that is a progressive action, then why don't you drive a car bomb down to the RUC embassy?



I am so sick of threads asking for views on people in the army and the assinine replies they get. Why aren't there threads that ask "what is your view of the working class"? I mean, the majority of the working class support imperialism, guess we ought to line them up against the wall as well.:rolleyes:

[Andropov]

They did turn on thier officers. En masse. It wasn't usualy the draftees either, but the regulars who performed and called for "fraggings".
That is progressive.

I'm not going to necro one of the IRA debates again, but in those you'll find the sources about the number of officer fraggings in vietnam, as well as the suicide rates.
WTF are you on about the IRA??
We are discussing how progressive squadies are.

You want to go to Abu Gharib, then be my guest. We don't run them, the military police run them.
So squaddies have no part to play in Iraqi prisons?
Either way its irrelevant because my point was that the daily inhumanity faced by Iraqi civilians far exceeds the inconvenience of a squadie serving time in a Military prison instead of choosing to further degrade the working class half a world away.

The rest of us will do our best to avoid being anywhere near the RMP and thier prisons, who are the most sadistic assholes the world's ever seen.
Somehow I doubt that.

Fight the Toms by all means if you ever had to, but ffs, don't hate them except when an individual proves themselves worth it.
Your whitewashing of squadies is impressive.
I have detailed as to why and how sodliers in certain circumstances can be progressive and how they are not progressive.
But as a matter of note the most detested of all the squadies that ever served in Ireland in the past 50 years by a country mile has been the paras, scum of the earth in most peoples eyes over here not your RMP.

[Andropov]

How easy it is to talk about "turning guns on their officers".
I never stated it was easy, I merely stated it was the line between when the squadies are instruments of bourgeois imperialism and they are progressive forces for change.
Simples.

If you think that is a progressive action, then why don't you drive a car bomb down to the RUC embassy?
Firstly I am not a squadie serving in an occupation so that point is redundant.
Secondly I dont see what a car bomb in isolation will achieve, I dont see it constructive in the least.
Thirdly the RUC was a Police Force, so they didnt have embasseys, they had barracks's.

I am so sick of threads asking for views on people in the army and the assinine replies they get.
Ive tried not to be emotive in the least and merely apply marxist logic to this.
Sorry if that disturbs your delicate sensibilities.

Why aren't there threads that ask "what is your view of the working class"? I mean, the majority of the working class support imperialism, guess we ought to line them up against the wall as well.
Firstly the majority of the working class does not support imperialism.
Secondly the role which civilians play in their domestic countrys which are exporters of imperialism is completely different to that of a squadie serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The civilian does not actively participate in the subjegation of a people as the squadies do so hence your comparison fails.

[Bitter Ashes]

They go to the same jails most of the time, Andropov. If you think that the RMP hates the people defending thier own homes, then what do you think they'd do to anyone who they considered to be a "traitor"? Think about that one for a minute. Breaking ranks is a terryfying prospect for the squaddies and until they know they can do it at least relatvily safely, they simply won't do it.

And aye, I don't like the paras either. I still reserve most of my bile towards the RMP though, although that's a personal thing I think more than anything else.

[Andropov]

They go to the same jails most of the time, Andropov.
Indeed.

If you think that the RMP hates the people defending thier own homes, then what do you think they'd do to anyone who they considered to be a "traitor"? Think about that one for a minute.
I have no doubt that they have utter conempt for them.
And I know this would obviously isntill a certain amount of fear in the average squadie but that in no way excuses them in the role they play in the subjegation of a people.

Breaking ranks is a terryfying prospect for the squaddies and until they know they can do it at least relatvily safely, they simply won't do it.

Indeed.

And aye, I don't like the paras either. I still reserve most of my bile towards the RMP though, although that's a personal thing I think more than anything else.
I think this is veering a bit of course into emotional subjectivity and away from marxist analysis.

[danyboy27]

A soldier is someone who sign a piece of paper that make him the slave of the state for a determined amount of time.

I just think that a lot of people dont realize what they are doing.

[The Douche]

I never stated it was easy, I merely stated it was the line between when the squadies are instruments of bourgeois imperialism and they are progressive forces for change.
Simples.

I assume you don't know, in my profile, where I list IVAW stands for "Iraq Veterans Against the War". I am a soldier, if I were to frag my officer it would mean absolutely nothing, I would just spend the rest of my life in jail, or get a death sentence, the revolutionary movement would gain nothing by it, it would not be a "progressive force for change".


Firstly I am not a squadie serving in an occupation so that point is redundant.
Secondly I dont see what a car bomb in isolation will achieve, I dont see it constructive in the least.
Thirdly the RUC was a Police Force, so they didnt have embasseys, they had barracks's.

Correct, isoltated violence accomplishes nothing, fragging of officers doesn't do anything, thank you.


Firstly the majority of the working class does not support imperialism.
Secondly the role which civilians play in their domestic countrys which are exporters of imperialism is completely different to that of a squadie serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The civilian does not actively participate in the subjegation of a people as the squadies do so hence your comparison fails.

The average person has no aversion to the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, and said person pays taxes to supply the military with the weapons it needs. Most workers here in the US support the war, even if most don't, a large minority do.

[Martin Blank]

I am so sick of threads asking for views on people in the army and the asinine replies they get. Why aren't there threads that ask "what is your view of the working class"? I mean, the majority of the working class support imperialism, guess we ought to line them up against the wall as well.:rolleyes:

This. While the support they give may be back-handed and passive, it is still support. We are not seeing workers stopping munitions shipments and stopping troop transports, so there is, at the very least, a tacit level of support or acceptance that exists among workers for the existing system.

It seems that a lot of self-described revolutionaries have forgotten about things like the "economic draft", which is responsible for so many young workers joining the military, and tend to put an equal sign between them and cops -- and, in the process, ignoring not only the obvious differences (e.g., the difference between active duty, reserves and National Guard), but also the differences in their relations to society as a whole.


Firstly the majority of the working class does not support imperialism. Secondly the role which civilians play in their domestic countries which are exporters of imperialism is completely different to that of a squadie serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. The civilian does not actively participate in the subjugation of a people as the squadies do so hence your comparison fails.

First, see above about the passive and tacit support issue.

Second, you cannot make a mechanical separation of workers in both places. For example, what about workers who make the weapons and equipment of war? What about those who package, load and transport them? These workers are certainly "actively participating in the subjugation of a people" -- perhaps more so than an army clerk or cook. And what about military medics?

My point is that you cannot have a black-or-white view on this issue. cmoney can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems that most soldiers keep fighting in order to keep themselves and their buddies alive than because of flag or country. Most of them signed up because it was either that or flipping burgers (if they were lucky). They got shipped halfway around the world and dropped into a situation they have little or no control over. They'd rather be anywhere else but there.

And, yes, it is asinine to ask them individually to start shooting or fragging their officers. That's about as bone-headed as asking an individual to go out on strike all by themselves. The difference is that if you go out on strike all by yourself, you lose your job. Kill your officer in an "isolated incident", chances are you lose your life at the end of a rope.

The solution in both instances is organization. A soldiers' union, taking in enlisted personnel from E1 through E4, would be the ideal means of beginning to resolve the issue. However, organizing in the military like this is illegal and would have to be done clandestinely. Nevertheless, I tend to think it should be done -- albeit with care, caution and, most of all, silence.

[Bitter Ashes]

The solution in both instances is organization. A soldiers' union, taking in enlisted personnel from E1 through E4, would be the ideal means of beginning to resolve the issue. However, organizing in the military like this is illegal and would have to be done clandestinely. Nevertheless, I tend to think it should be done -- albeit with care, caution and, most of all, silence.
That is actualy a really positive idea! Such a thing bieng international, at least as some kind of loose federation would go a long way towards peace too!

[Andropov]

This. While the support they give may be back-handed and passive, it is still support. We are not seeing workers stopping munitions shipments and stopping troop transports, so there is, at the very least, a tacit level of support or acceptance that exists among workers for the existing system.
Without a doubt the majority of the working class does not support American or British imperial adventures, to argue otherwise is just absurd.

It seems that a lot of self-described revolutionaries have forgotten about things like the "economic draft", which is responsible for so many young workers joining the military, and tend to put an equal sign between them and cops -- and, in the process, ignoring not only the obvious differences (e.g., the difference between active duty, reserves and National Guard), but also the differences in their relations to society as a whole.
I have detailed their relationship in society as a whole.
And I have also detailed how financial cop outs like "the economic draft" do not in anyway excuse them par-taking in the pillaging and slaughter of another country.
Financial burdens also breed scabs and the like but that does not excuse the role they play in society.

First, see above about the passive and tacit support issue.
Seen it and I dismiss it.
To argue that the majority of the working class support these Imperial adventures is just wrong.

Second, you cannot make a mechanical separation of workers in both places.
You can and I did.
Both fulfill different social tasks.

For example, what about workers who make the weapons and equipment of war?
These are regular working class people who do not actively subjugate the working class of a different country.

What about those who package, load and transport them?
Also working class.

These workers are certainly "actively participating in the subjugation of a people"
No their not.
They are not subjugating a people at the barrel of a gun or enforceing imperial rule.
Granted they are a cog in the system but failing to differentiate between a cog in the system from the pinnalce of oppression is really a sad reflection.
A line must be drawn in such scenarios such as was the case in NAZI Germany.
To say that the average German working class individual was as culpable as the Einstazgruppen is just absurd and a deliberate attempt to distort the reality.

perhaps more so than an army clerk or cook.
No not at all.

And what about military medics?
Obviously par-taking in the active subjugation of the working class.

My point is that you cannot have a black-or-white view on this issue.
Obviously there are shades of grey but it is our job as Marxists to analyse and come to conclusion on where those shades of grey fall.

cmoney can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but it seems that most soldiers keep fighting in order to keep themselves and their buddies alive than because of flag or country.
Irrelevant.
What those imperial troops in Iraq or Aghanistan or where ever deulde themselves into fighting for is completely irrelevant.
They might have indeed the best intentions in the world but that is irrelevant if they play a regressive role in conflict with working class interests.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Most of them signed up because it was either that or flipping burgers (if they were lucky).
As I stated before the whole economic pit falls is absolute nonsense.
There are poor people all around the world. The working class of the third world are alot more poor than the working class of Britain or America but they dont feel the need to become mercenarys and profit from the subjegation of a foreign working class.
Like I stated before economic poverty does not excuse scabs for the role they play in society just like it doesnt excuse squadies who subjegate a foreign working class.

They got shipped halfway around the world and dropped into a situation they have little or no control over. They'd rather be anywhere else but there.
Ohh mother of god me heart bleeds.
These squadies have signed up to the two armys who have probably the worst reputations in the world as of now.
They signed up to armys that have a history of imperial expeditiions.
And the operative words being that they signed up, nobody made them sign up and economic burdens do not excuse them for the role they play in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is a pathetic attempt to whitewash their culpability.

And, yes, it is asinine to ask them individually to start shooting or fragging their officers.
I didnt ask them to any of that if you would re-read my posts.
I clearly stated that the moment between when they serve their officers whims begrudgingly and when they actually turn their guns on their officers is the line between when they are a progressive force and the line when the are still fulfilling a repressive role.
Now of course it isnt easy, but obviously you see it easier to humiliate, torture, murder, intimidate, rape and pillage a foreign people than become an outsider in the imperial army.

That's about as bone-headed as asking an individual to go out on strike all by themselves.
Good thing I didnt ask them to do that then.

The difference is that if you go out on strike all by yourself, you lose your job.
Ground breaking.

Kill your officer in an "isolated incident", chances are you lose your life at the end of a rope.
Ok instead of killing their officers in this present context they also have the choice to not serve in imperial adventures and be sent to prison.
It isnt simply a case of "kill your officers or serve as an imperial jackboot".

The solution in both instances is organization.A soldiers' union, taking in enlisted personnel from E1 through E4, would be the ideal means of beginning to resolve the issue. However, organizing in the military like this is illegal and would have to be done clandestinely. Nevertheless, I tend to think it should be done -- albeit with care, caution and, most of all, silence.
This would all be progressive but that is years away from even starting to develop.
In the mean time the working class of Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be subjugated by the squadies of the American and British imperial marauders and so in the meantime the only viable resistance to this imperialism does not come from within the Army Corps but from within the Iraqi and Afghani working class's and this resistance must be fully supported by all socialists.

[The Douche]

Without a doubt the majority of the working class does not support American or British imperial adventures, to argue otherwise is just absurd.

I have detailed their relationship in society as a whole.
And I have also detailed how financial cop outs like "the economic draft" do not in anyway excuse them par-taking in the pillaging and slaughter of another country.
Financial burdens also breed scabs and the like but that does not excuse the role they play in society.

Seen it and I dismiss it.
To argue that the majority of the working class support these Imperial adventures is just wrong.

You can and I did.
Both fulfill different social tasks.

These are regular working class people who do not actively subjugate the working class of a different country.

Also working class.

No their not.
They are not subjugating a people at the barrel of a gun or enforceing imperial rule.
Granted they are a cog in the system but failing to differentiate between a cog in the system from the pinnalce of oppression is really a sad reflection.
A line must be drawn in such scenarios such as was the case in NAZI Germany.
To say that the average German working class individual was as culpable as the Einstazgruppen is just absurd and a deliberate attempt to distort the reality.

No not at all.

Obviously par-taking in the active subjugation of the working class.

Obviously there are shades of grey but it is our job as Marxists to analyse and come to conclusion on where those shades of grey fall.

Irrelevant.
What those imperial troops in Iraq or Aghanistan or where ever deulde themselves into fighting for is completely irrelevant.
They might have indeed the best intentions in the world but that is irrelevant if they play a regressive role in conflict with working class interests.
The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

As I stated before the whole economic pit falls is absolute nonsense.
There are poor people all around the world. The working class of the third world are alot more poor than the working class of Britain or America but they dont feel the need to become mercenarys and profit from the subjegation of a foreign working class.
Like I stated before economic poverty does not excuse scabs for the role they play in society just like it doesnt excuse squadies who subjegate a foreign working class.

Ohh mother of god me heart bleeds.
These squadies have signed up to the two armys who have probably the worst reputations in the world as of now.
They signed up to armys that have a history of imperial expeditiions.
And the operative words being that they signed up, nobody made them sign up and economic burdens do not excuse them for the role they play in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That is a pathetic attempt to whitewash their culpability.

I didnt ask them to any of that if you would re-read my posts.
I clearly stated that the moment between when they serve their officers whims begrudgingly and when they actually turn their guns on their officers is the line between when they are a progressive force and the line when the are still fulfilling a repressive role.
Now of course it isnt easy, but obviously you see it easier to humiliate, torture, murder, intimidate, rape and pillage a foreign people than become an outsider in the imperial army.

Good thing I didnt ask them to do that then.

Ground breaking.

Ok instead of killing their officers in this present context they also have the choice to not serve in imperial adventures and be sent to prison.
It isnt simply a case of "kill your officers or serve as an imperial jackboot".

This would all be progressive but that is years away from even starting to develop.
In the mean time the working class of Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be subjugated by the squadies of the American and British imperial marauders and so in the meantime the only viable resistance to this imperialism does not come from within the Army Corps but from within the Iraqi and Afghani working class's and this resistance must be fully supported by all socialists.

:thumbup1: Keep sticking it to the man, bro. I'm out of this thread, you flat out ignore counter arguements, so what is the point of posting? You're not interested in dicussion.

[Martin Blank]

:thumbup1: Keep sticking it to the man, bro. I'm out of this thread, you flat out ignore counter arguments, so what is the point of posting? You're not interested in discussion.

It's even worse than that. He rejects an independent working-class solution because it's hard; it's much easier for him to throw his support behind disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism and reactionary so-called "anti-imperialists". Hence, this "Marxist-Leninist" adopts the social-democratic principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally", and tries to pass that off as the height of r-r-r-r-revolutionary praxis.

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

Ok I see that once more a cooler head shall need to intervene here. Andropov, you seem very much to suscribe to the theory that all squaddies are bastards. Not quite fair is it? I admit that in the case of the yanks many are extremely and overtly gung ho. But heres the rub. The yanks are trained to just needlessly obey. Whereas all brit troops are trained to and encouraged to use there own initiative.

In other words if you see a hole in the plan you make light of it in the brit army. Alright this is only at the platoon level really but if you spot and point out the mistake it can save lifes.

Also don't lump Brit troops in with the yanks. As a whole (at least when I was in) we were better trained and not as well equipped but one squad could get done in a day what it would take a platoon of yanks a week.

I do realise that it may sound like a whole our army is better than theirs soldiers tirade but it isn't just ask any Brit squaddie who's served with them he'll tell you exactly the same thing.

Just remember that as I said the lads on the ground are not at fault. The politicans who sent us to a God forsaken hellhole are.

[Andropov]

:thumbup1: Keep sticking it to the man, bro.
I dont consider countering the whitewashing of bootjacking imperial footsoldiers as sticking it to the man bro.

I'm out of this thread, you flat out ignore counter arguements, so what is the point of posting? You're not interested in dicussion.
This is just a flat out lie.
Anyone can re-read my post and see for themelsves that I have debated and discussed your every point, you how ever feel fit to leave with this debating equivilant as throwing the rattle out of the pram.
Just because I do not excuse the imperial foot soldiers does not mean I am not interested in discussion bro.

[Andropov]

It's even worse than that. He rejects an independent working-class solution because it's hard;
Link to where I stated I rejected this?

it's much easier for him to throw his support behind disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism and reactionary so-called "anti-imperialists".
Link to where I stated I threw my support behind "disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism and reactionary so-called "anti-imperialists".

Hence, this "Marxist-Leninist" adopts the social-democratic principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally",
Link to where I stated I adopt the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally"?

and tries to pass that off as the height of r-r-r-r-revolutionary praxis.
A nice mix of strawmen, lies and deliberate distortions of my arguement there.
Now when your ready to actually debate me like a Marxist please constructively argue with the posts I stated instead of running away and throwing snivelling slander and slurs.
Pathetic.

[Palingenisis]

Also don't lump Brit troops in with the yanks. As a whole (at least when I was in) we were better trained and not as well equipped but one squad could get done in a day what it would take a platoon of yanks a week.

I do realise that it may sound like a whole our army is better than theirs soldiers tirade but it isn't just ask any Brit squaddie who's served with them he'll tell you exactly the same thing.

Just remember that as I said the lads on the ground are not at fault. The politicans who sent us to a God forsaken hellhole are.

My understanding that the BA is a volunteer army...when was conscription introduced?

The Police as well as defending the capitalist state, etc do provide a service that is needed. Imperialist armies on the other hand only exist to terrorize and murder. I wonder what would be the reaction of most people here if someone started defending the police and making out they were decent lads?

I wouldnt confuse you with the yanks...From the reports I have heard you lot are biggers bastards over there in general than they are.

[Palingenisis]

Just remember that as I said the lads on the ground are not at fault. The politicans who sent us to a God forsaken hellhole are.

Just like former British goverments sent squaddies to the "God forsaken hellhole" of my country where they got off feeling up young lads on there way to school at checkpoints in South Armagh and shoving broom handles and assorted other things up people's anuses...Poor babies :(

[Andropov]

Ok I see that once more a cooler head shall need to intervene here. Andropov, you seem very much to suscribe to the theory that all squaddies are bastards.
Link to where I stated that?

Not quite fair is it?
Indeed, thats why I never claimed that.

I admit that in the case of the yanks many are extremely and overtly gung ho. But heres the rub. The yanks are trained to just needlessly obey. Whereas all brit troops are trained to and encouraged to use there own initiative.
These are all irrelevant points.
And dont worry ive seen how Brit troops are encouraged to use their own initiative first hand on my comrades.

In other words if you see a hole in the plan you make light of it in the brit army. Alright this is only at the platoon level really but if you spot and point out the mistake it can save lifes.
Irrelevant points when looking at the material position squadies of either Britain or America play in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan

Also don't lump Brit troops in with the yanks. As a whole (at least when I was in) we were better trained and not as well equipped but one squad could get done in a day what it would take a platoon of yanks a week.
Congradulations, the Brits are more effient in an occupation to the yanks.

I do realise that it may sound like a whole our army is better than theirs soldiers tirade but it isn't just ask any Brit squaddie who's served with them he'll tell you exactly the same thing.
I really dont care who is more effective at subjugating the working class of a foreign nation.

Just remember that as I said the lads on the ground are not at fault.
Re-read my points on this.
The squadies on the ground are no conscripts.
They signed up voluntarily and signed up to two of the worst Imperial Armys in this current context.
Not only this but the squadies on the ground continue to serve in the subjugation of a foreign working class instead of choosing to refuse to serve and be sent to Military Prison.
The squadies of course are not the instigators of this quagmire but they are very much a willing element in its continuation.

The politicans who sent us to a God forsaken hellhole are.
God foresaken hellhole? You do realise that is somebodys home.

[Comrade B]

The military should not be joined for shits and giggles. It is a fucking draining and dangerous decision. People tend to make it for the college money and benefits the military gives you.

I personally would not join the US military. You can get training in a shooting range too.

One of my oldest friends just got off on medical discharge from the marines after his best friend in the military shot himself. There are high suicide rates in the military for a reason.

[The Douche]

Ok I see that once more a cooler head shall need to intervene here. Andropov, you seem very much to suscribe to the theory that all squaddies are bastards. Not quite fair is it? I admit that in the case of the yanks many are extremely and overtly gung ho. But heres the rub. The yanks are trained to just needlessly obey. Whereas all brit troops are trained to and encouraged to use there own initiative.

In other words if you see a hole in the plan you make light of it in the brit army. Alright this is only at the platoon level really but if you spot and point out the mistake it can save lifes.

Also don't lump Brit troops in with the yanks. As a whole (at least when I was in) we were better trained and not as well equipped but one squad could get done in a day what it would take a platoon of yanks a week.

I do realise that it may sound like a whole our army is better than theirs soldiers tirade but it isn't just ask any Brit squaddie who's served with them he'll tell you exactly the same thing.

Just remember that as I said the lads on the ground are not at fault. The politicans who sent us to a God forsaken hellhole are.

In order to avoid a totally off topic and irrelevant pissing match lets avoid talking about the armed forces of countries in which we have no experience. I've worked with some paras, I was not impressed, I assume you have worked with some US troops and they were sub-par, you're a soldier so you know that the readiness, capableness and general demeanor changes from unit to unit, even squad to squad. The US army is certainly not full of mindless robots.


Just because I do not excuse the imperial foot soldiers does not mean I am not interested in discussion bro.

What are you suggesting that we think they should be excused from? At no time in my life have I ever made excuses for the role I have played for the ruling class in the subjegation of Iraqi workers.

The issue here, is that we are taking the communist position of advocating education/agitation/organization, and you're off in hardman wonderland playing hard.

[red cat]

Soldiers are working class too. But surely communists fighters should not let that make any difference in the battlefield.

The working class origins of most soldiers can be utilized only while propagandizing within them or re-educating them after capture.

[Andropov]

What are you suggesting that we think they should be excused from?At no time in my life have I ever made excuses for the role I have played for the ruling class in the subjegation of Iraqi workers.
From their culpability in an occupation and excused from their choice not to serve in that occupation.

The issue here, is that we are taking the communist position of advocating education/agitation/organization,
Constructively tackle the points I raised with what you see as a viable alternative or where you saw the faults in my arguement.

and you're off in hardman wonderland playing hard.
Nobodys playing hard here apart from yourself throwing at personal abuse and slander.
So I suggest you tackle my points in a constructive manner so we can move this debate forward and away from your own attempted insults and coy remarks which are utterly irrelevant to the points at hand.

[Palingenisis]

Soldiers are working class too. But surely communists fighters should not let that make any difference in the battlefield.

The working class origins of most soldiers can be utilized only while propagandizing within them or re-educating them after capture.

Do you consider police men working class too? Most of them come from working class backgrounds aswell. Of course it depends on the situation. Conscript armies are very different from mercenary ones. If people want to take a soft line on Imperialist soldiers than they should take a softer line on the police.

[red cat]

Do you consider police men working class too? Most of them come from working class backgrounds aswell. Of course it depends on the situation. Conscript armies are very different from mercenary ones. If people want to take a soft line on Imperialist soldiers than they should take a softer line on the police.

Yes, police men are working class too.

Did you read my post properly ? Are you sure that what I advocate is a soft line ? :lol:

[The Douche]

From their culpability in an occupation and excused from their choice not to serve in that occupation.

And nobody here is saying that what they did is ok. I went to Iraq, you can find posts from me on this board about it. I have never tried to whitewash it nor do I think I should be "excused" for what I've done. (what does that even mean, really?)


Constructively tackle the points I raised with what you see as a viable alternative or where you saw the faults in my arguement.

I'm sorry, what is your arguement? All I've been able to deduce is that you think all soldiers are the "enemy" and that they ought to be put up against the wall? What exactly is your position on soldiers? We should ignore them? Attack them? What?

My position is that we must organize 1)around preventing people from joining the military 2)help those within the military in their efforts to get out 3)help those within the military to resist (whether that is refusing deployments, organizing soldiers committes, distributing underground literature etc) 4)connect with veterans who have become/are becoming politically/class conscious and support them in their efforts to undermine imperialism/state & capital.


Do you consider police men working class too? Most of them come from working class backgrounds aswell. Of course it depends on the situation. Conscript armies are very different from mercenary ones. If people want to take a soft line on Imperialist soldiers than they should take a softer line on the police.

Police departments are not the same as the military, for most, policing is a career (and for those who it's not, they usually are some of the most intelligent and vocal opponenets of the police). Most people who join the military serve a minimum enlistment of 2-6 years, and then get out, they do it because of their economic station in life and the military provides a wage/housing/food/education/training. The police do not fill the same role the army does for those who join.

[Palingenisis]

Police departments are not the same as the military, for most, policing is a career (and for those who it's not, they usually are some of the most intelligent and vocal opponenets of the police). Most people who join the military serve a minimum enlistment of 2-6 years, and then get out, they do it because of their economic station in life and the military provides a wage/housing/food/education/training. The police do not fill the same role the army does for those who join.

Someone could make the same arguments about heroin dealers or pimps. Many people join the police force because they geniunely are seeking to serve their communities and actually do to some extent. All that I have heard of Imperialist soldiers tells a pretty different...They took particular pleasure in their job on the streets of Derry and West Belfast aswell as in the flieds and lanes of South Armagh...you know feeling up kids at check points, abusing women, terrifying childern, torturing men...Cant imagine they are doing any different in Iraq and Afghanistan (infact they are probably worse there because their victims have darker skin).

All Cops Are Bastards= No.

All Squaddies Are Bastards=Yes.

[Andropov]

And nobody here is saying that what they did is ok. I went to Iraq, you can find posts from me on this board about it. I have never tried to whitewash it nor do I think I should be "excused" for what I've done. (what does that even mean, really?)
I think Miles's post here perfectly summarises the whitewashing of squadies culpability.

Most of them signed up because it was either that or flipping burgers (if they were lucky). They got shipped halfway around the world and dropped into a situation they have little or no control over. They'd rather be anywhere else but there.


I'm sorry, what is your arguement? All I've been able to deduce is that you think all soldiers are the "enemy" and that they ought to be put up against the wall? What exactly is your position on soldiers? We should ignore them? Attack them? What?
A deliberate distortion of my whole arguement, never the less I shall copy and paste my points here for you to re-read and no doubt attempt to misrepresent again....

It depends on a given context which soldiers find themselves in whether they are progressive or forces of reaction.
In such a situation where the Brits are in Iraq or Afghanistan or Ireland or any occupation they are of course forces of reaction there to crush the working class of these nations in order for their masters in Europe to pillage resources or what ever socio-political advantage it gives the National Bourgeois of these countrys.
To have a sweeping statement where all Squadies are really working class in uniform is just pure Western Chauvanism, believe me when you see these squadies operate in occupations they are not forces of progression.
But then it is of course not fitting to have a sweeping statement saying they are all just degenerates because in their own national contexts they are often very progressive but when used as pawns in the Bourgeois's power plans their position with regaurds the working class changes drastically.
I'll make no bones about it, the more squadies that die in Afghanistan and Iraq the better because in those given contexts the only way to remove those forces of Imperialism is to kill enough of them to crush public opinion for those respective wars and make them untenable.
And dont give me that old bullshit of "their only working class lads that need the money". When in an occupation they are not progressive and that empty hollow justification for joining a marauding army is no more valid than the same justification for scabs, mecenarys and peelers etc.

My position is that we must organize 1)around preventing people from joining the military 2)help those within the military in their efforts to get out 3)help those within the military to resist (whether that is refusing deployments, organizing soldiers committes, distributing underground literature etc) 4)connect with veterans who have become/are becoming politically/class conscious and support them in their efforts to undermine imperialism/state & capital.
My position on what to do in given occupations I posted earlier and will re-post again since you seem to find some difficulty reading my previous posts.

I clearly stated that the moment between when they serve their officers whims begrudgingly and when they actually turn their guns on their officers is the line between when they are a progressive force and the line when the are still fulfilling a repressive role.
Now of course it isnt easy, but obviously you see it easier to humiliate, torture, murder, intimidate, rape and pillage a foreign people than become an outsider in the imperial army.
And in regaurds to your solution to the occupations...

This would all be progressive but that is years away from even starting to develop.
In the mean time the working class of Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be subjugated by the squadies of the American and British imperial marauders and so in the meantime the only viable resistance to this imperialism does not come from within the Army Corps but from within the Iraqi and Afghani working class's and this resistance must be fully supported by all socialists.
Now perhaps you could actually constructively engage with my points instead of inane misrepresentations of my arguement.

[Comrade B]

A person's profession does not determine who they are, it is how they behave in it.
The second a person becomes a CEO it doesn't make them a dick, it is just that to get to that position they probably did a lot of bad shit, and as a CEO they will probably do a lot of bad shit.

A person who joins the police force may intend on doing it to reduce violent crime in impoverished neighborhoods, or because they think that they could do a better job than a lot of cops out there. It just happens though that a lot of cops are looking for power rather than the opportunity to help people.

There are definitely a lot of ass holes that join the military out of bourgeois propaganda and brainwashing, but I would say a large chunk of the military is just people looking for an opportunity for a better life. My buddy that just got off on medical discharge joined in the hope of getting citizenship and being able to get financial aid for college next year. My grandfather joined the military to escape from the savage poverty of rural America and get some training he could use for a job. Another friend got a full ride scholarship to the Air Force Academy. She wouldn't have been able to afford any other school.

[Scary Monster]

Just remember that as I said the lads on the ground are not at fault. The politicans who sent us to a God forsaken hellhole are.

How condescending. The only reason its a "hellhole" is because its been fucked over economically and physically (by bombing and invasion) by the west for the past 50 years or so.

[Martin Blank]

Link to where I stated I rejected this?

OK. Right here:


This would all be progressive but that is years away from even starting to develop.

Yeah, so is the workers' revolution. I guess we should put that aside, too, and just concentrate on achieving peace with the enemy class and a few piecemeal reforms.


Link to where I stated I threw my support behind "disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism and reactionary so-called "anti-imperialists".


Link to where I stated I adopt the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally"?

OK. Right here:


and so in the meantime the only viable resistance to this imperialism does not come from within the Army Corps but from within the Iraqi and Afghani working class's and this resistance must be fully supported by all socialists.

First of all, the "resistance" you think we should all support is not a working-class resistance, even though some workers participate in it. In Iraq, the "resistance" is either Ba'athist-led or Islamist-led. In Afghanistan, the "resistance" is almost exclusively Islamist-led. In both countries, in all instances, these "resistance" elements are former employees of imperialism who are mad that their checks from Washington stopped coming, and are now crying about "imperialism" and "western domination" now that it is convenient and conducive to their attempts to return to power.

To put it another way, these so-called "anti-imperialists" are fighting with their former employers over the reduction in their slice of the pie. By supporting these dispossessed elements of the exploiting and oppressing classes, who are (unfortunately) dragging sections of the working class into their internal squabble, you are reinforcing the belief that victory for the working class comes from one or another faction of capitalism. This is wholly in line with the social-democratic method and the "principle" of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally". Moreover, you also reinforce the social-democratic view that the "class struggle" is little more than a throw-down over how much of a slice of the pie the exploited and oppressed receive.


A nice mix of strawmen, lies and deliberate distortions of my arguement there. Now when your ready to actually debate me like a Marxist please constructively argue with the posts I stated instead of running away and throwing snivelling slander and slurs. Pathetic.

One does not need to distort a convoluted argument. One does not need to lie about an argument based on lies. And does not need to erect strawmen in relation to an argument made of a similarly flimsy material.

Now it's your turn. The argument has been made. Let's see who runs away.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Do you believe, they all are baby killing bastards and do you believe in times, where they killed innocent people, they have gotten their orders mix up or they did it on purpose?

It's never correct to say that such a huge group of people are all anything, but I certainly have no respect for people in the army. No matter what that person's role is, no matter how nicely the army presents their job in propaganda videos, the military's purpose is war and war results in the deaths of innocent people and children.

People join the army for all kinds of reasons, some 'better' than others. I know it's been mentioned that people join because they have no money and no other options, but I definitely haven't seen that to be true with the people I know. For example, one person who was in the navy said she was proud to serve her country (very misguided, but it doesn't make her bad at all), whilst a different guy was a racist who liked the idea of ''bayoneting people'' - his words, not mine. So it depends. I do think a lot of it is patriotism and a sense of duty, though.

It's different for the higher-ranking people. I have nothing but contempt for those who write up plans and strategies and send their troops off to get killed while they're relatively safe and comfortable (see Bob Dylan song ''masters of war'').

I think that a lot of times solidiers have got their orders mixed up or done something they didn't mean to do. In other cases, the soliders did it just because they could get away with it and because they liked the power.

[Andropov]

OK. Right here:
As you can see that is clearly not a rejection.
So please link me to where I rejected it?

Yeah, so is the workers' revolution. I guess we should put that aside, too, and just concentrate on achieving peace with the enemy class and a few piecemeal reforms.
Absolutely ridiculous post.
Of course we should always strive for more and more concessions from the state to improve the lives and material conditions of the working class.
Of course we should strive to get food in every mouth in the world and alleviate poverty while building to the Revolution because I have genuine concern for working class people.
To fob off concessions and minor gains for the working class which improves their material conditions is just pure western chauvanism.
This is all in the short term of course with us building in the long term to a Revolution.
It is not simply "Revolution or Concessions", we can gain concessions while building to Revolution.
Lets not forget that the slogan of the Bolsheviks was "Peace, Land and Bread".
To only strive for long term objectives makes you irrelevant to the working class who need and want tangible change here and now while building ever closer to the Revolution.

OK. Right here:
Ill ask you again where did I state I threw my support behind "disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism and reactionary so-called "anti-imperialists"?
Because what you provided stated...

and so in the meantime the only viable resistance to this imperialism does not come from within the Army Corps but from within the Iraqi and Afghani working class's and this resistance must be fully supported by all socialists.

First of all, the "resistance" you think we should all support is not a working-class resistance, even though some workers participate in it. In Iraq, the "resistance" is either Ba'athist-led or Islamist-led.
Evidence?

In Afghanistan, the "resistance" is almost exclusively Islamist-led.
Evidence?

In both countries, in all instances, these "resistance" elements are former employees of imperialism who are mad that their checks from Washington stopped coming, and are now crying about "imperialism" and "western domination" now that it is convenient and conducive to their attempts to return to power.
What absolute western chauvanism.
The reason why these western imperialists are getting butchered in these countries is because the working class in these countries utterly despises the subjugation they face at the boots of the Imperialists.
Without this working class swell of overwhelming opposition to the Imperialists then these wars of National Liberation would not be able to continue so effectively.
Its got fuck all to do with "former employees of imperialism" and alot more to do with people resisting against those who seek to exploit them.
To fob off the malcontent of both the Afgani and Iraqi working class to these occupations on being "mad that their checks from Washington stopped coming" just again shows up your utter western chauvanism.

To put it another way, these so-called "anti-imperialists" are fighting with their former employers over the reduction in their slice of the pie.
Some probably are but to say the whole resistance to these occupations is led by Washingtons former employees then you obviously have access to some facts, figures and documentation that I dont.

By supporting these dispossessed elements of the exploiting and oppressing classes, who are (unfortunately) dragging sections of the working class into their internal squabble, you are reinforcing the belief that victory for the working class comes from one or another faction of capitalism.
This shows a complete lack of Marxist Theory when it comes to National Liberation questions.
In a hypothetical world where say the whole anti-imperialist forces are being led by bourgeois forces it is still infinitely more progressive than the continuation of an occupation.
It is why Marx and Engels wrote so much on the Fenians who were led by domestic bourgeois in many cases.
If you want I can copy and paste some of Marx and Engels works on National Liberation and whether a country free of Imperialism and under domestic bourgeois forces is more progressive than a country under foreign led bourgeois imperialism.

This is wholly in line with the social-democratic method and the "principle" of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally".
I dont adopt that principle so your attempt to assosciate me with Social-Democracy fails again.

Moreover, you also reinforce the social-democratic view that the "class struggle" is little more than a throw-down over how much of a slice of the pie the exploited and oppressed receive.
Not at all, all my opinions and arguement is firmly based in Marx and Engels writings on the National Liberation question.
My arguements are firmly based in Marxism while yours is a thinly veiled attempt to cover up good old fashioned Western Chauvanism and Jingoism.

One does not need to distort a convoluted argument. One does not need to lie about an argument based on lies. And does not need to erect strawmen in relation to an argument made of a similarly flimsy material.
As documented above you have yet to provide me links to your claims that....

It's even worse than that. He rejects an independent working-class solution because it's hard;
Now the link you provided is...

This would all be progressive but that is years away from even starting to develop.
As we can see from the quote of me it is clear that I never rejected an independant working class solution, indeed I even refered to it as progressive.
But my point still stands that it is still years from developing hence why we must support the Afghani and Iraqi working class resistance to this foreign imperialism in the short term so that the suffering of these people can be put an end to sooner rather than later because I have genuine concern for the working class.

Then your claim that...

it's much easier for him to throw his support behind disgruntled ex-employees of imperialism and reactionary so-called "anti-imperialists".
and...

Hence, this "Marxist-Leninist" adopts the social-democratic principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally",
you provided me only with the one quote which was this....

and so in the meantime the only viable resistance to this imperialism does not come from within the Army Corps but from within the Iraqi and Afghani working class's and this resistance must be fully supported by all socialists.
From this quote it clearly states that I support the Afghani and Iraqi working class resistance to imperialism now maybe Miles's grip of Marxism is a little hazy but most Marxists would not consider the Iraqi and Afghani working class as "reactionarys" nor would we consider the Iraqi and Afghani working class as "the enemy". But then again most marxists dont display such blatant western chauvanism.

Now it's your turn. The argument has been made. Let's see who runs away.
Indeed.

[Palingenisis]

. In Afghanistan, the "resistance" is almost exclusively Islamist-led. In both countries, in all instances, these "resistance" elements are former employees of imperialism who are mad that their checks from Washington stopped coming, and are now crying about "imperialism" and "western domination" now that it is convenient and conducive to their attempts to return to power.
.

You are forgetting the Afghan Liberation Organization.

Would groups such as the Worker Communist Party of Iraq and the Maoists there be former employees of Imperialism? What about the anarchists and other proletarian elements that are fighting the occupation?

Maybe try turning off Fox News...

[The Douche]

Someone could make the same arguments about heroin dealers or pimps. Many people join the police force because they geniunely are seeking to serve their communities and actually do to some extent. All that I have heard of Imperialist soldiers tells a pretty different...They took particular pleasure in their job on the streets of Derry and West Belfast aswell as in the flieds and lanes of South Armagh...you know feeling up kids at check points, abusing women, terrifying childern, torturing men...Cant imagine they are doing any different in Iraq and Afghanistan (infact they are probably worse there because their victims have darker skin).

Dealers? Yes, a similar arguement could be made. Pimps no, because pimps are bosses. The rest of your post is full of blanket assumptions, I am a soldier, none of that describes me, nor did I see anybody from my unit do anything of the sort to any Iraqis while I was deployed. (though obviously they do happen, like at Abu Gahrib)


I think Miles's post here perfectly summarises the whitewashing of squadies culpability.

Miles does not say in that post that imperialist soldiers aren't the enforcing arm of the imperialist power, he's just explaining that they have no control over what happens to them after they enlist. (and we are the ones who need to be preventing them from signing up)


never the less I shall copy and paste my points here for you to re-read and no doubt attempt to misrepresent again....


Thank you.


In such a situation where the Brits are in Iraq or Afghanistan or Ireland or any occupation they are of course forces of reaction there to crush the working class of these nations in order for their masters in Europe to pillage resources or what ever socio-political advantage it gives the National Bourgeois of these countrys.

No disagreement here.


To have a sweeping statement where all Squadies are really working class in uniform is just pure Western Chauvanism, believe me when you see these squadies operate in occupations they are not forces of progression.

How are they not working class? Of course while they are deployed, they cease to be working class because of their actions/relationship to the state, but they are working class otherwise, and certainly when they get out of the military. And nobody has called them a force for progress.


I'll make no bones about it, the more squadies that die in Afghanistan and Iraq the better because in those given contexts the only way to remove those forces of Imperialism is to kill enough of them to crush public opinion for those respective wars and make them untenable.


I literally made the same post, while sitting in Iraq.


And dont give me that old bullshit of "their only working class lads that need the money". When in an occupation they are not progressive and that empty hollow justification for joining a marauding army is no more valid than the same justification for scabs, mecenarys and peelers etc.

And what about when they come home and they're not serving in the occupation? Or when they get out of the military? Or when they are demoralized and still enlisted?


I clearly stated that the moment between when they serve their officers whims begrudgingly and when they actually turn their guns on their officers is the line between when they are a progressive force and the line when the are still fulfilling a repressive role.
Now of course it isnt easy, but obviously you see it easier to humiliate, torture, murder, intimidate, rape and pillage a foreign people than become an outsider in the imperial army.

Do you think that can just happen randomly? It obviously needs organization/education/agitation. It isn't easy, and its harder when other communists are persisting with alienating stereotypes and caricatures. When you refer to soldiers in the manner which you do, it pushes them farther into their isolated little communities and farther away from the left.


This would all be progressive but that is years away from even starting to develop.
In the mean time the working class of Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be subjugated by the squadies of the American and British imperial marauders and so in the meantime the only viable resistance to this imperialism does not come from within the Army Corps but from within the Iraqi and Afghani working class's and this resistance must be fully supported by all socialists.

I will always, and in all cases support the defeat of imperialist armies. I won't support Islamist organizations like the Maadi army, but the defeat of imperialist nations is a victory for the working class internationally. This defeat can be furtherd by weakening the imperialist armed forces from within, you seem to be opposed to that. And if not opposed, you do everything possible with your language (and I assume your actions as well) to prevent it.

[Devrim]

Would groups such as the Worker Communist Party of Iraq and the Maoists there be former employees of Imperialism? What about the anarchists and other proletarian elements that are fighting the occupation?

The Worker Communists are against the resistance. The Maoists in Iraq are tiny if they exist at all. I have never heard of anarchists in Iraq.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

The Worker Communists are against the resistance. The Maoists in Iraq are tiny if they exist at all. I have never heard of anarchists in Iraq.

Devrim

Are you sure?

They had a division recently didnt they?

[The Douche]

You are forgetting the Afghan Liberation Organization.

Would groups such as the Worker Communist Party of Iraq and the Maoists there be former employees of Imperialism? What about the anarchists and other proletarian elements that are fighting the occupation?

Maybe try turning off Fox News...

I worked in a prison, of the thousands of files I looked at on the computer (which list what the prisoner's affiliation was) I found one person that had ever been locked up there from any leftist organization, he was in the PKK. Coincedentally he was in my compound and he spoke very good english so I talked to him a lot. He was a really nice guy, and we talked about socialism a lot, and I game him some Antonio Negri to read.

Some of the high ranking officers from Sadam's army were familiar with communism, they killed plenty of them.

[Palingenisis]

I worked in a prison, of the thousands of files I looked at on the computer (which list what the prisoner's affiliation was) I found one person that had ever been locked up there from any leftist organization, he was in the PKK. Coincedentally he was in my compound and he spoke very good english so I talked to him a lot. He was a really nice guy, and we talked about socialism a lot, and I game him some Antonio Negri to read.

Some of the high ranking officers from Sadam's army were familiar with communism, they killed plenty of them.

The first Iraqi war was basically stopped by a working class insurrection which led the US to unite with the Baathists against the Kurdish and Iraqi working class.

http://gci-icg.org/english/communism7.htm#journey_iraq

I had a long argument with an ex-Squaddie in Cardiff who inisisted that the Provisional movement was Trotskyite because that was the "intelligence" information he had recieved from his officers...So Im not going to go along with the resistance are all religious fanatics or disgruntled Baathists just because you looked at some files.

The Internationalist Communist Group which is in touch with comrades in the middle east produced some excellent material on the current resistance in Iraq but I cant find it now.

[Andropov]

Miles does not say in that post that imperialist soldiers aren't the enforcing arm of the imperialist power, he's just explaining that they have no control over what happens to them after they enlist. (and we are the ones who need to be preventing them from signing up)
But thats not what you asked, what you asked was this....

And nobody here is saying that what they did is ok. I went to Iraq, you can find posts from me on this board about it. I have never tried to whitewash it nor do I think I should be "excused" for what I've done. (what does that even mean, really?)
So I provided an example of Miles excusing their membership of the imperialist armys...

Most of them signed up because it was either that or flipping burgers (if they were lucky). They got shipped halfway around the world and dropped into a situation they have little or no control over. They'd rather be anywhere else but there.

Thank you.
No problem.

No disagreement here.
Good.

How are they not working class? Of course while they are deployed, they cease to be working class because of their actions/relationship to the state, but they are working class otherwise, and certainly when they get out of the military. And nobody has called them a force for progress.
When in an occupation and actively par-taking in the occupation they are not working class, they are forces of reaction.
But of course when they are out of the military and even within their own domestic contexts they are progressive forces.

I literally made the same post, while sitting in Iraq.
Good.

And what about when they come home and they're not serving in the occupation? Or when they get out of the military?
Like I said within their own domestic contexts soldiers and armys are largely forces for progression.

Or when they are demoralized and still enlisted?
Could expand a bit on this please?

Do you think that can just happen randomly? It obviously needs organization/education/agitation.
Now this is an interesting question.
One im not sure of the answer.
TBH I think that the greatest force for change within an Imperial Army comes from within the Imperial Army itself, as in dissent from within not external forces attempting to influence it through propaganda. The reason why I say this is when looking at Vietnam the greatest force for change was actually the ever plummeting moral and disaffection with the war even though there were some external forces which had an influence.
Thats why I think that the more squadies that die and the more casulaties stack up for the Imperialist Armys in Occupations the more radical they will become because of the blatant contradicitons within the occupation itself.
But im open to be proven wrong since that is just me brainstorming there.

It isn't easy, and its harder when other communists are persisting with alienating stereotypes and caricatures.
Ive tried to stay away from caricatures and the like and stayed to a Marxist interpretation of the context.

When you refer to soldiers in the manner which you do, it pushes them farther into their isolated little communities and farther away from the left.
What way is that exactly?

I will always, and in all cases support the defeat of imperialist armies. I won't support Islamist organizations like the Maadi army, but the defeat of imperialist nations is a victory for the working class internationally.
Absolutely.

This defeat can be furtherd by weakening the imperialist armed forces from within, you seem to be opposed to that.
Ive never stated I was opposed to that.

And if not opposed, you do everything possible with your language (and I assume your actions as well) to prevent it.
Thats not true at all.
The ironic thing is that we seem to hold much the same views on this subject just we have gotten the wrong end of the stick is all.

[Devrim]

Are you sure?

They had a division recently didnt they?

Yes, 100% sure. It is one of the things that define them as a current. All of the various factions are agreed on this.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Yes, 100% sure. It is one of the things that define them as a current. All of the various factions are agreed on this.

Devrim

They are against the occupation though which makes them different from the Communist Party of Iraq...Im surprised than that they dont support the resistance to it.

[Devrim]

They are against the occupation though which makes them different from the Communist Party of Iraq...Im surprised than that they dont support the resistance to it.

Yes, they are against the occupation, but they talk about a 'third camp against the two poles of international terrorism, the US state, and political Islam'. Basically they see the resistance movement as being anti-working class and reactionary.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The first Iraqi war was basically stopped by a working class insurrection which led the US to unite with the Baathists against the Kurdish and Iraqi working class.

That is one way to put it. Another would be to say that nationalist/sectarian uprisings followed the military defeat.

Devrim

[Palingenisis]

Basically they see the resistance movement as being anti-working class and reactionary.

Devrim








Why though...Is it because they share the same line as the ICC on guerrilla tactics?

[The Douche]

So I provided an example of Miles excusing their membership of the imperialist armys...


I think membership can be understood, which is what Miles is doing, making an attempt to understand why working class kids join the military. He's not saying its not wrong, just pointing out why it happens.


When in an occupation and actively par-taking in the occupation they are not working class, they are forces of reaction.
But of course when they are out of the military and even within their own domestic contexts they are progressive forces.


Right, but we can't abandon them when they are ordered off to another country, we have to be constantly working with them, just as we work with the working class at large.


Could expand a bit on this please?


You seem to think soldiers are quite pleased to go to war and be seperated/put in danger for 18 months at a time. That isn't true, most soldiers do not like getting deployed. And we need to organize around that fact and get out there and do actual work, not play into the hands of the ruling class by calling them "babykillers" or whatever.

Though the situation is different for you, I don't presume to know how one would organize within an army which occupies your country. Certainly there are historical examples of enemy forces negotiating amongst themselves (the christmas ceasefire in ww1).


Now this is an interesting question.
One im not sure of the answer.
TBH I think that the greatest force for change within an Imperial Army comes from within the Imperial Army itself, as in dissent from within not external forces attempting to influence it through propaganda. The reason why I say this is when looking at Vietnam the greatest force for change was actually the ever plummeting moral and disaffection with the war even though there were some external forces which had an influence.
Thats why I think that the more squadies that die and the more casulaties stack up for the Imperialist Armys in Occupations the more radical they will become because of the blatant contradicitons within the occupation itself.
But im open to be proven wrong since that is just me brainstorming there.

The left is painted as "hating the military", not just opposing war or whatever. Most soldiers think the left actually hates them on an individual basis. We have got to break that down and begin to organize within the ranks of the military and aid military resisters whenever possible. Just as we support shops attempting to organize and workers on strike.


Ive tried to stay away from caricatures and the like and stayed to a Marxist interpretation of the context.

You said:


but obviously you see it easier to humiliate, torture, murder, intimidate, rape and pillage a foreign people than become an outsider in the imperial army.

That is a caricature and an assumption. Its also personally insulting because I have done none of those things, and neither did anybody I served with, to my knowledge, and when communists say those kinds of things it puts up walls instead of building a bridge.


What way is that exactly?

Soldiers are essentially taught that civilians can't undersatand what they go through, and that anybody who gives anything but unwaivering support to the war is acutally against each and every single individual soldier. So when a communist spouts off about rape/torture/murder, the soldier says to himself "man, I never did that, those fucking liberals are out there spreading lies about me, I'm just defending their freedom, civilians really don't get it, at least the conservatives support the army". When radicals should be engaging with the soldiers, helping them find solutions to their problems and letting them know there are alternatives, and there is support for them.


The ironic thing is that we seem to hold much the same views on this subject just we have gotten the wrong end of the stick is all.

Agreed, it is also a tough discussion to have because you live in a country which endures and occupation, and I serve in an occupying military, tensions can be understandably high.

[danyboy27]

How condescending. The only reason its a "hellhole" is because its been fucked over economically and physically (by bombing and invasion) by the west for the past 50 years or so.
i dont think he said that beccause of the place itself, but beccause of the hell soldier have to endure on a daily basis.

i dont think the geographic location really matter when you are under constant threat of suicide bombing, sniper, and incompetent chain of command.

[Martin Blank]

As you can see that is clearly not a rejection.
So please link me to where I rejected it?

It was a mealy-mouthed dismissal of the concept in favor of a more convenient (i.e., something that can be done with little to no effort) course of "action". Given the unequivocal language used in rejecting organization of soldiers "at this time", your moralistic denunciations of them, and your seemingly uncritical support for the so-called "resistance", even a blind person can see that you don't support doing it at all.


Absolutely ridiculous post.
Of course we should always strive for more and more concessions from the state to improve the lives and material conditions of the working class.
Of course we should strive to get food in every mouth in the world and alleviate poverty while building to the Revolution because I have genuine concern for working class people.
To fob off concessions and minor gains for the working class which improves their material conditions is just pure western chauvinism.
This is all in the short term of course with us building in the long term to a Revolution.
It is not simply "Revolution or Concessions", we can gain concessions while building to Revolution.
Lets not forget that the slogan of the Bolsheviks was "Peace, Land and Bread".
To only strive for long term objectives makes you irrelevant to the working class who need and want tangible change here and now while building ever closer to the Revolution.

The problem is that your method is concessions without revolution -- i.e., reformism. Rather than attempt to organize working-class people whose choices were join the military or starve, you'd rather scream at them (like you're screaming at me now) and take a moralistic approach rather than deal with it like a communist should. You can scream "western chauvinist" from your home in western Europe all you want, but it doesn't negate the fact that you're the one expecting bourgeois and petty-bourgeois forces to do the work that only the proletariat can accomplish.


Evidence?

I think there's been enough evidence presented on this forum over the years to prove my argument. I would suggest taking a little time and doing the research for yourself.


What absolute western chauvinism.
The reason why these western imperialists are getting butchered in these countries is because the working class in these countries utterly despises the subjugation they face at the boots of the Imperialists.
Without this working class swell of overwhelming opposition to the Imperialists then these wars of National Liberation would not be able to continue so effectively.
Its got fuck all to do with "former employees of imperialism" and a lot more to do with people resisting against those who seek to exploit them.
To fob off the malcontent of both the Afghani and Iraqi working class to these occupations on being "mad that their checks from Washington stopped coming" just again shows up your utter western chauvinism.

There is little doubt that workers in Iraq and Afghanistan oppose the occupations, and that this opposition does make it easier for the so-called "resistance" to do its work. But there is no basis for drawing a direct connection between the two. The composition of these groups in the "resistance" has been discussed repeatedly on here; aside from a handful of "resistance" groups that claim a Marxist program, all of which together don't even add up to 100 people, the bulk of that movement is composed of dispossessed Ba'athists and converts to the Islamist frankenstein that Washington created.


Some probably are but to say the whole resistance to these occupations is led by Washington's former employees then you obviously have access to some facts, figures and documentation that I dont.

You have come in at what is currently the tail end of a years-long conversation. Much of that conversation is archived on this forum. I suggest you show a little intellectual curiosity and do the research before we continue.


This shows a complete lack of Marxist Theory when it comes to National Liberation questions.
In a hypothetical world where say the whole anti-imperialist forces are being led by bourgeois forces it is still infinitely more progressive than the continuation of an occupation.
It is why Marx and Engels wrote so much on the Fenians who were led by domestic bourgeois in many cases.
If you want I can copy and paste some of Marx and Engels works on National Liberation and whether a country free of Imperialism and under domestic bourgeois forces is more progressive than a country under foreign led bourgeois imperialism.

Here we see the failure of the mechanical method of ripping writings out of their historical context and attempting to graft them anywhere.

The Fenians were actually led by peasants and petty-bourgeois elements, not the domestic bourgeoisie, with strong connections to the growing Irish population in the U.S., who adopted the bourgeois-democratic ideals of the First American Republic as their own and "exported" them back to Ireland in the form of various secret societies. In the mid-19th century, in the context of Britain and Ireland, it would have been principled to lend support to the Fenians in their struggle for Irish independence. But this is not the mid-19th century, and the so-called "resistance" movements in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the Fenians.

Did the Fenians serve as loyal agents of the British for decades before being unceremoniously dumped? Would the Fenians have taken bribes from London and the Orangemen as part of a deal to stop attacking them and start attacking other Irish independence movements? Would the Fenians have been willing to make an alliance with the Orangemen in a "national unity" government that was still under the dominance of the British? The organizations in the "resistance" movements in Iraq and Afghanistan did all these things.

Marx and Engels supported independence for colonial countries as long as the movement was on a socially-progressive basis. Hence, they supported the Fenians in their struggle against Britain. But the same cannot be said for situations where the rebellions against British colonial rule were organized on the basis of socially-reactionary class rule, such as in India, Persia and China at the same time. Indeed, Marx wrote these movements off as either bound to fail or destined to make a deal with the imperial powers. If there is an analogy that can be drawn between what Marx and Engels wrote, and what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, this is it.


I don't adopt that principle so your attempt to associate me with Social-Democracy fails again.

I don't see you advocating the independent organization of the working class for its own liberation from imperial occupation and capitalist exploitation. I see you advocating a choice between two socially reactionary forces, casting one as a "lesser evil" over the other because you see it as being "objectively anti-imperialist". That is the essence of the "enemy of my enemy is my ally" principle. You might not want to accept that this is what you're doing, but it is.


Not at all, all my opinions and argument is firmly based in Marx and Engels writings on the National Liberation question.
My arguments are firmly based in Marxism while yours is a thinly veiled attempt to cover up good old fashioned Western Chauvinism and Jingoism.

See above for the demolition of this argument.


As we can see from the quote of me it is clear that I never rejected an independent working class solution, indeed I even referred to it as progressive.
But my point still stands that it is still years from developing hence why we must support the Afghani and Iraqi working class resistance to this foreign imperialism in the short term so that the suffering of these people can be put an end to sooner rather than later because I have genuine concern for the working class.

Your position amounts to: "It's all good in theory, but it will never work today." It's the same argument that all those attached to the bourgeois order -- from social democrats to reactionaries -- use to dismiss communist theory and practice.

And as for "ending the suffering" of the workers of Iraq and Afghanistan, I have to admit that I am awestruck by the complete ignorance you are showing toward the workers of those countries. Are you honestly arguing that workers did not suffer at the hands of the Ba'athists and Islamists in these countries? Perhaps before you claim to speak for the workers of Iraq and Afghanistan, you should try listening to them first.

Just because workers in these countries see the imperialist occupations as being just as bad, or even worse, than what existed before does not mean they want the old order back. It is only the gaggle of "middle class" leftists in western centers that can advocate such a nightmare for the workers or Iraq and Afghanistan and feel good about it -- because that's all it's about: they're ability to have a "feel-good" moment, just like they get when they hold a meaningless protest that has no effect on what the target of that demonstration does.


From this quote it clearly states that I support the Afghani and Iraqi working class resistance to imperialism now maybe Miles's grip of Marxism is a little hazy but most Marxists would not consider the Iraqi and Afghani working class as "reactionaries" nor would we consider the Iraqi and Afghani working class as "the enemy". But then again most marxists don't display such blatant western chauvinism.

And if there was an equal sign between the workers or Iraq and Afghanistan, on one side of the equation, and the so-called "resistance", on the other side, you might have a point. But there isn't, so you don't. We stand with the workers of Iraq and Afghanistan, always and at all times. Ours is proletarian internationalism, not the phony and reactionary "internationalism of fools" that we see so commonly played out in the left today.

You can keep repeating to yourself the lie that the working class and the "resistance" are one in the same, but it doesn't bring it one inch closer to being the truth. When the Iraqi "resistance" attacks the oil workers, teachers or electricity workers, we stand with the latter against the former. Where do you stand? Which side are you on? I think I already know the answer.


You are forgetting the Afghan Liberation Organization.

The ALO has about 100 or so people in Afghanistan -- its armed wing being considerably smaller. It is, quite literally, a drop in the "resistance" bucket.


Would groups such as the Worker Communist Party of Iraq and the Maoists there be former employees of Imperialism? What about the anarchists and other proletarian elements that are fighting the occupation?

The WCPIraq does not consider itself to be a part of the "resistance". The Maoists, anarchists and such that are foolishly participating in the "resistance" are not enough to alter the movement's overall character.


Maybe try turning off Fox News...

Don't watch Fox. I read. You know what reading is, right?


Miles does not say in that post that imperialist soldiers aren't the enforcing arm of the imperialist power, he's just explaining that they have no control over what happens to them after they enlist. (and we are the ones who need to be preventing them from signing up)

Exactly. One can understand why something happens without excusing it or justifying it. That's the case here. I, too, agree that the presence of British or American soldiers in Iraq are "forces of reaction, there to crush the working class of these nations, in order for their masters in Europe [and America] to pillage resources or what ever socio-political advantage it gives the national bourgeois of these countries". That is their social role at that moment. But I can also understand that most did not ask to fulfill that role and were compelled by economic and social reasons to place themselves in a position whereby they become those "forces of reaction", often against their better judgment.


I will always, and in all cases, support the defeat of imperialist armies. I won't support Islamist organizations like the Maadi Army, but the defeat of imperialist nations is a victory for the working class internationally. This defeat can be furtherd by weakening the imperialist armed forces from within, you seem to be opposed to that. And if not opposed, you do everything possible with your language (and I assume your actions as well) to prevent it.

Again, exactly. As communists, our strategy is to transform capitalist war into class war, through intensified class struggle on the "home front" (organizing of strikes, secondary boycotts and mass political action) and class organizing within the ranks of the military (organizing of soldiers' unions, etc.). Anything less is really just liberalism without the largess.

[Devrim]

Why though...Is it because they share the same line as the ICC on guerrilla tactics?

No, it is not at all. One of the groups the Worker Communists originated from was the Kurdish armed group 'Komala'. I think they still have armed militants in Iranian Kurdistan. For us, we see that these sort of tactics have nothing to do with working class struggle. They don't see it like that. The problem for them is the resistance is Islamicist, and reactionary.

Devrim

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

My mate and I were chatting today and he made a really good point. He said that while the majority of us aren't dicks who will abuse our positions as soldiers, there are a few (and he said this was especially true in Northern Ireland). I apologise on behalf of all of us who are serving or who have served. For the behaviour of a select few of us who are arseholes I apologise. I am sorry Andropov we're not all the same please judge on a person to person basis.

[ZeroNowhere]

How condescending. The only reason its a "hellhole" is because its been fucked over economically and physically (by bombing and invasion) by the west for the past 50 years or so.
So it's condescending to refer to it as a hellhole... Because it is a hellhole?

[Fullmetal Anarchist]

So it's condescending to refer to it as a hellhole... Because it is a hellhole?

Yeah watching mates get hurt or die on a day to day basis can make somewhere a hellhole. It's not fun to be a soldier when you don't quite know why your supposed to be there.

[Scary Monster]

So it's condescending to refer to it as a hellhole... Because it is a hellhole?


Yeah watching mates get hurt or die on a day to day basis can make somewhere a hellhole. It's not fun to be a soldier when you don't quite know why your supposed to be there.

Well of course having people die over there is horrible. But the point im tryin to make is that thats the whole reason its a hellhole in the first place- our governments sending soldiers over there and bombing everything, which caused its infrastructure to become destroyed. I just had the same reaction to "hellhole" the same way when i hear someone say "we should just nuke their shit country", even though the west are directly responsible for the reason parts of the middle east are in ruins and in violent conflict in the first place.

[danyboy27]

Well of course having people die over there is horrible. But the point im tryin to make is that thats the whole reason its a hellhole in the first place- our governments sending soldiers over there and bombing everything, which caused its infrastructure to become destroyed. I just had the same reaction to "hellhole" the same way when i hear someone say "we should just nuke their shit country", even though the west are directly responsible for the reason parts of the middle east are in ruins and in violent conflict in the first place.

a place where your best friend die in an horrible way is a hellhole, no matter who responsable of its creation.