Militia and standing army

[Comrade_Stalin]

Karl Marx point out in us works that we need a citzens Milita to defend agaisnt the Standing army of the bourgeoisie. But this does not make seens to me. First off most milita are paramilitay groups, which are normally a sign of being a PMC. In fact they use the word paramilitary group in Colombia of illegally armed right wing groups. Second the milita of the United States have been use time and time again to attack workers and their Unions. The second problem I have is with the stanidng army. Most of the people who make it up are proletariats, with bourgeoisie commanders. So why would Marx be against the standing army and for the milita? Did the meaning of the words change over time?

[Rss]

Karl Marx point out in us works that we need a citzens Milita to defend agaisnt the Standing army of the bourgeoisie. But this does not make seens to me. First off most milita are paramilitay groups, which are normally a sign of being a PMC. In fact they use the word paramilitary group in Colombia of illegally armed right wing groups. Second the milita of the United States have been use time and time again to attack workers and their Unions. The second problem I have is with the stanidng army. Most of the people who make it up are proletariats, with bourgeoisie commanders. So why would Marx be against the standing army and for the milita? Did the meaning of the words change over time?

Yes, words do change their meaning over time. Word "militia" has different meaning in different countries. For example, beer-bellied rednecks wearing camo and waving guns around might call themselves "militia", while russian protestors get beaten up by their "militia". They are essentially bourgeois police force with inherited and disgraced name.

As you said, standing armies are mostly composed of proletariat led by bourgeois officers. Marx meant to oppose this by forming working class militia to defend the gains of revolution. This could, or could not lead to standing army of working class, though there are pros and cons to discuss. In any case, defending the revolution is crucial.

[Bethechange]

Militia simply means a body of armed citizens that are not professional soldiers. Often this means volunteers, though service in a militia at times has been a compulsory part of citizenship. Standing armies have been used to maintain a ruling class historically and presently. In many cases militias have turned on the ruling class, for instance Britain once relied on calling up and arming civilians in arms to keep order. This had to be abandoned in the early 1800s with revolts in the countryside, as to arm civilians then would only aid the rebels.

The structure of standing armies themselves serves a ruling class, as they rely on rote obedience to officers, in a hierarchical fashion, whereas in for instance the Spanish Revolution workers' militias elected leaders and war councils. Much like the Russian Revolution, though with professional soldiers who mutinied against their officers, electing councils (soviets). The "people in arms," upholding their own cause, are not as likely to obey ruling dictates than soldiers trained in doing so. Hence anarchists' support of this. Marx even said it would serve to repel the reaction (probably his Paris Commune phase). In practice though Marxists have gone for regular armies. Trotsky abolished soldiers' soviets in spring 1918, reinstituting special forms of address, saluting, officers' quarters and privileges, along with the death penalty for desertion under fire.

[Rss]

The "people in arms," upholding their own cause, are not as likely obey ruling dictates than soldiers trained in doing so. Hence Marx and others' support of this.

This is why I support keeping conscription army in here. If majority of male population have been "in the same shit", it is less likely for bourgeois military to act violently in the event of uprising. Professional armies are more alienated from rest of the society.

[Impulse97]

Would this be in any way similar to forming a Red Guard?:hammersickle::che::hammersickle:

[Comrade_Stalin]

Yes, words do change their meaning over time. Word "militia" has different meaning in different countries. For example, beer-bellied rednecks wearing camo and waving guns around might call themselves "militia", while russian protestors get beaten up by their "militia". They are essentially bourgeois police force with inherited and disgraced name.

As you said, standing armies are mostly composed of proletariat led by bourgeois officers. Marx meant to oppose this by forming working class militia to defend the gains of revolution. This could, or could not lead to standing army of working class, though there are pros and cons to discuss. In any case, defending the revolution is crucial.

I agree with the need to defend the revolution. But how we are going about it neededs to be answerd. First which do we need, a revolution "militia" or a revolution standing army. Then we need to answe how this is an different form the "militia" we have today or the standing armies for that matter.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Militia simply means a body of armed citizens that are not professional soldiers. Often this means volunteers, though service in a militia at times has been a compulsory part of citizenship. Standing armies have been used to maintain a ruling class historically and presently. In many cases militias have turned on the ruling class, for instance Britain once relied calling up and arming civilians in arms to keep order. This had to be abandoned in the early 1800s with revolts in the countryside, as to arm civilians then would only aid the rebels.

The structure of standing armies themselves serves a ruling class, as they rely on rote obedience to officers, in a hierarchical fashion, whereas in for instance the Spanish Revolution workers' militias elected leaders and war councils. Much like the Russian Revolution, though with professional soldiers who mutinied against their officers, electing councils (soviets). The "people in arms," upholding their own cause, are not as likely obey ruling dictates than soldiers trained in doing so. Hence Marx and others' support of this.

So form your point of view how would we know if we had a citizen milita. Many of the Milita I have seen are right wing. What are the signs, and how do you now that you are not just adding a PMC with a milita name, or a right wing milita for that matter. Would you call the army of Soviet Union a milita, what about the red guard or red army? How would you train non-professional soldiers? YOu can't just give them guns any hope they can win.

[Bethechange]

So form your point of view how would we know if we had a citizen milita. Many of the Milita I have seen are right wing. What are the signs, and how do you now that you are not just adding a PMC with a milita name, or a right wing milita for that matter. Would you call the army of Soviet Union a milita, what about the red guard or red army? How would you train non-professional soldiers? YOu can't just give them guns any hope they can win.

Well, a militia or citizen's army exists when they are not professional soldiers. This can be of any political view. Obviously it would be a clear sign if they were fighting to further revolutionary aims or not. In my view a revolutionary militia would be structured differently, as in war councils, electing officers, equal pay, no special privileges, as occurred with the workers' militias that fought in the Spanish Revolution.

I'm not sure about the Red Guard, though the Red Army as I said started with all these features. They were mutineers in mid-1917 that overthrew or shot their officers and set up soldiers' soviets. Many non-coms were promoted from the ranks, with the ex-Tsarist officers demoted to sergeants and so on. The same thing happened with the Kronstadt sailors, which is why they called it "Red Kronstadt"... until the Kronstadt Rebellion in 1921. A famous naval mutiny also happened in the 1905 revolution. They had Soviets (councils) of Workers, Soldiers and Sailors that formed with both 1905 and the February Revolution of 1917.

In this case they were previously trained of course. As to militias, this was done with Spanish workers' militias that I mentioned above. I am really not well versed in that aspect, though I'm sure there's information available. However I do know the workers' militias fought like tigers against Franco's troops, and would done even better if they had good weapons. Obviously belief in your cause is the fire that spurs you on, but you need the means to fulfill it.