Dismantling the Intelligence Services

[Morgenstern]

I was talking with a friend today about intelligence services such as the FBI, CIA, KGB, Mossad, etc. I came to the conclusion that the services tend to have influence in the state and they want to keep this level of influence. So you have to dismantle the intelligence rings before you dismantle a state. But, in order to dismantle any intelligence service worth anything you have to have an intelligence service to combat them. So essentially are you stuck in a circle? Without dismantling the intelligence community you can't prevent an unfair control over things.

Also, even if you dismantle a formal state's intelligence agency there will be black market intelligence brokers with thugs. How do you combat that?

I know I must be missing something so I figured I'd ask you guys.

[Jose Gracchus]

There's plenty that intelligence services do that isn't explicitly reactionary. The real question is what substitute is there for covert HUMINT services, especially provided by organizations analogous to the National Clandestine Service. I think the NCS and the like IS reactionary. But as long as there are hostile states, hard to do without some security services.

[RedSquare]

It depends on the ethos which guides these services. All wings of the government (Army, Police, Judiciary, etc.) are all limited by the prevailing ethos of the class which rules it (in this case, ruthless capitalist reactionaries).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Security Forces in the DOTP? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/security-forces-dotpi-t146182/index.html)

[RED DAVE]

Two points:

(1) The intelligence agencies, even in their most mundane activities, are among the most reactionary and violent and will certainly be playing major roles in combatting any revolution and in any possible counter-revolution. They have to be dismantled entirely.

(2) The presence of any "independent intelligence agency" in the revolutionary period is extremely dangerous. History shows us that such are prime breeding grounds for the stalinist mentality and all kinds of abuses.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Security Forces in the DOTP? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/security-forces-dotpi-t146182/index.html)Get rid of them all and replace them with workers committees. Geez are you a social democrat.

RED DAVE

[Morgenstern]

Maybe I've missed something but I haven't seen any answer to my question besides Die Neue Zeit's post. That post, if I'm not mistaken, supports some sort of police?

[Psy]

A strong revolutionary army can deal with the remains of intelligence services after a workers state is established. Without support from the bourgeoisie state intelligence services would be reduced to nothing more then a terrorist group.

[Blackscare]

Get rid of them all and replace them with workers committees. Geez are you a social democrat.

RED DAVE

So if a Socialist state were to emerge, or several Socialist states, you would say that they shouldn't have an intelligence/security apparatus? You don't think that infiltrating and subverting things like worker's councils is the sort of thing that hostile security/intelligence agencies thrive on?

[Sensible Socialist]

So if a Socialist state were to emerge, or several Socialist states, you would say that they shouldn't have an intelligence/security apparatus? You don't think that infiltrating and subverting things like worker's councils is the sort of thing that hostile security/intelligence agencies thrive on?
The problem is with the term apparatus. A group specifically designed to locate subversive elements within workers groups is, as Red Dave said, a breeding group for abuses. Everyone in workers groups should be on the look out for counter-revolutionary elements and forces. Giving the responsibility and power to a sub-section of a revolutionary force (regardless of size or make-up) is a dangerous gift.

[Morgenstern]

It's nice to say a People's Army can root out people who attempt to rule via subterfuge. But, anyone worth his salt in espionage wouldn't be taken out by rabble. The reason why this question came up was because I've been reading the book "Dune" (in fact I just finished it). All of the behind the scenes espionage made me realize how prominent it is and what a problem it can be.

[Princess Luna]

A Communist government should always be accountable to the people , however a Intelligence service such as the CIA,KGB, etc..... due to its very nature can not be held accountable for its actions , there for a Intelligence service is incompatable with Communism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Get rid of them all and replace them with workers committees. Geez are you a social democrat.

It takes bureaucracies to coordinate and train investigative units (like detective work).

It takes bureaucracies to conduct foreign intelligence and domestic counter-intelligence.

It takes bureaucracies to put the armed forces, not to mention the civil service, under surveillance.

It takes bureaucracies to enforce prison security.

DOTP /= Communism


Maybe I've missed something but I haven't seen any answer to my question besides Die Neue Zeit's post. That post, if I'm not mistaken, supports some sort of police?

The DOTP needs a standing security apparatus. What it does NOT need, however, is the security apparatus from the previously existing regime.


So if a Socialist state were to emerge, or several Socialist states, you would say that they shouldn't have an intelligence/security apparatus? You don't think that infiltrating and subverting things like worker's councils is the sort of thing that hostile security/intelligence agencies thrive on?


The problem is with the term apparatus. A group specifically designed to locate subversive elements within workers groups is, as Red Dave said, a breeding group for abuses. Everyone in workers groups should be on the look out for counter-revolutionary elements and forces. Giving the responsibility and power to a sub-section of a revolutionary force (regardless of size or make-up) is a dangerous gift.

Ahem, the bourgeois media still refer to the Committees for the Defense of the Revolution in Cuba as a secret police apparatus.

[Psy]

It's nice to say a People's Army can root out people who attempt to rule via subterfuge. But, anyone worth his salt in espionage wouldn't be taken out by rabble. The reason why this question came up was because I've been reading the book "Dune" (in fact I just finished it). All of the behind the scenes espionage made me realize how prominent it is and what a problem it can be.

The revolutionary army can deal with intelligence agencies by knocking out their legalistic backbone for example if even the CIA would have difficulty if their offices have been converted to military bases for the revolutionary army as it would mean they would be cut off from resources and the revolutionary army would have access to their personal files.

Revolutionary armies are also not rabble especially after they have defeated the bourgeoisie, since there has been militant elements in armies, navies and air forces thus it is possible for a revolutionary army to inherit the expertise of the militant elements of bourgeoisie military that defects into it. Meaning it is very possible for a revolutionary army to find itself with far better espionage capabilities then what is left of the intelligence agencies. Basically you could easily run into the scenario where the revolutionary army has unmanned drones, spy satellites and listening devices that they inherited from the bourgeoisie military while the intelligence agencies have to learn how to operate with cheap low tech equipment quickly due to losing their funding.

[Morgenstern]

The revolutionary army can deal with intelligence agencies by knocking out their legalistic backbone for example if even the CIA would have difficulty if their offices have been converted to military bases for the revolutionary army as it would mean they would be cut off from resources and the revolutionary army would have access to their personal files.

Revolutionary armies are also not rabble especially after they have defeated the bourgeoisie, since there has been militant elements in armies, navies and air forces thus it is possible for a revolutionary army to inherit the expertise of the militant elements of bourgeoisie military that defects into it. Meaning it is very possible for a revolutionary army to find itself with far better espionage capabilities then what is left of the intelligence agencies. Basically you could easily run into the scenario where the revolutionary army has unmanned drones, spy satellites and listening devices that they inherited from the bourgeoisie military while the intelligence agencies have to learn how to operate with cheap low tech equipment quickly due to losing their funding.

So, with such a powerful Army who controls it? Sure, a committee of workers? But are there officers? What if the officers decide to try to seize power from the workers?

[Psy]

So, with such a powerful Army who controls it? Sure, a committee of workers? But are there officers? What if the officers decide to try to seize power from the workers?
The officers would first have to seize power from the troops, we are talking about a revolutionary army thus the troops would have a say in their missions and the revolutionary army would most likely have in ranks troops that shot their previous officers when they in the bourgeoisie militarily.

[scarletghoul]

With not force behind them they can't do a lot ..

Also the government, at least in the UK, is terrible with computers, so i imagine they would suffer a lot due to hacking if a revolutionary movement emerges. Just check out how scared the government is even with this low level of resistance http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12371056
The government is primarily old or middle aged men, who know next to nothing about computers and hacking. If there is a mass youth rebellion their intelligence agencies wouldnt stand a chance, considering most hackers are quite young

[Morgenstern]

The officers would first have to seize power from the troops, we are talking about a revolutionary army thus the troops would have a say in their missions and the revolutionary army would most likely have in ranks troops that shot their previous officers when they in the bourgeoisie militarily.

What happens when it has been decades since the revolution and all these heroes are retired? Also, while soldiers would shoot their officers without hesitation in untrained armies (1917 Russia) for a revolution I can't see American soldiers for instance being so ready. They'd probably kill an officer to prevent killing civilians or such; not to help rally a revolution. After all, how many Communists do you see in the military?

[Psy]

What happens when it has been decades since the revolution and all these heroes are retired?

Would the revolutionary army still exist at that point? Remember we are talking about after a successful revolution in a major industrial nation, so how many years do you think it take for the revolution to spread to the rest of the world after that point?

After that the revolutionary army would mostly be just guarding all the nasty stuff we don't want to get in the wrong hands, like defending nuclear facilities and not really a revolutionary army anymore. They would be more a defense force with doctrines and training geared towards defense and relief/rescue efforts, and I doubt the bourgeoisie resistance would survive that long thus they would probably be reducing their arms and size simply with the lack of a need for the kind of the same kind of fire power justified when there was a threat of bourgeoisie armed forces.

Basically by the time the revolutionary veterans retire from the revolutionary army, the revolutionary army should have started to wither away as the need for the revolutionary army would have passed as there would no longer be any bourgeoisie power still a significant threat to communist world if there are still any bourgeoisie powers left on Earth.



Also, while soldiers would shoot their officers without hesitation in untrained armies (1917 Russia) for a revolution I can't see American soldiers for instance being so ready. They'd probably kill an officer to prevent killing civilians or such; not to help rally a revolution. After all, how many Communists do you see in the military?

US troops in Vietnam did shoot their officers, also the British armed forces stationed in Asia after WWII had around fifty thousand British troops on strike that they didn't want to fight to restore the British empire.

[RED DAVE]

So if a Socialist state were to emerge, or several Socialist states, you would say that they shouldn't have an intelligence/security apparatus? You don't think that infiltrating and subverting things like worker's councils is the sort of thing that hostile security/intelligence agencies thrive on?I believe that the political consciousness of the workers is the greatest bulwark against infiltration and subversion. I am much more concerned with workers exerting power than with an efficient secret police.

Let's worry about the former, our real task, rather than the latter, a peripheral element at best.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Guess what? One of the last acts of the Paris Commune was to form a Committee for Public Safety!

[RED DAVE]

It takes [organization] to coordinate and train investigative units (like detective work).

It takes [organization] to conduct foreign intelligence and domestic counter-intelligence.

It takes [organization] to put the armed forces, not to mention the civil service, under surveillance.

It takes [organization] to enforce prison security.fify


DOTP /= CommunismMaybe not, but it's the first step.


The DOTP needs a standing security [organization].fify


[What it does NOT need, however, is the security apparatus from the previously existing regime.Then it doesn't need a bureaucracy. An organization or some sort, yes. There is, comrade, a difference between an organization and a bureaucracy. But being a kautskyite, I wouldn't expect you to know that.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's a difference between ad hoc organization and institutionalization. Bureaucracy leans toward the latter.

[RED DAVE]

There's a difference between ad hoc organization and institutionalization.Right. But the solution is revolutionary, democratic organization.


Bureaucracy leans toward the latter.And we don't need it. Unless, we're stalinists, maoists or social democrats, in which case we love it.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Institutionalization isn't a bad thing. It stresses the need for permanent or semi-permanent organizations.

[RED DAVE]

Institutionalization isn't a bad thing. It stresses the need for permanent or semi-permanent organizations.How lame can you get? You really have the bureaucratic sensibility of a die-hard social democrat.

RED DAVE

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't think workers with pen, paper, and new offices, assembled ad hoc by soviets or whatever, will be able to substitute for the long-term institutions built - police, military, etc.

They didn't in Russia, and that's why the Bolsheviks had to increasingly cut deals and bring them in to get anything done.

[ckaihatsu]

---





I don't think workers with pen, paper, and new offices, assembled ad hoc by soviets or whatever, will be able to substitute for the long-term institutions built - police, military, etc.





[...]

5:30pm: "Ambiguous" statement from military confirms its “commitment and responsibility to safeguard the people and to protect the interests of the nation, and its duty to protect the riches and assets of the people and of Egypt”. Mentioned the demands of the people are “lawful and legitimate”. Understood the military council met separately from Mubarak.

[...]




Mentioned the demands of the people are “lawful and legitimate”.

[Jose Gracchus]

That's a world apart from being able to trust a modern military machine under the control of a bourgeois state's officer bureaucracy.

[ckaihatsu]

That's a world apart from being able to trust a modern military machine under the control of a bourgeois state's officer bureaucracy.


Yeah, absolutely.

I used the juxtaposition to (hopefully) illustrate that struggle from below can force the hand of the state and its military, as we're currently seeing in Egypt. In the short term such institutions of state can potentially be bent towards the will of the people, into a dual power situation, but until actual workers' power consolidates to the point of *displacing* bourgeois instruments altogether there will always be the threat of counter-revolution.

[Red Bayonet]

The Underground is the poor man's CIA. The Guerilla Force is the poor man's army. War is the result of the coexistence of incompatibles. So long as incompatibles coexist, there will be the need for precise and accurate intelligence.

[Psy]

The Underground is the poor man's CIA. The Guerilla Force is the poor man's army. War is the result of the coexistence of incompatibles. So long as incompatibles coexist, there will be the need for precise and accurate intelligence.
Not really, for example if a revolutionary city defending from counter-attack it would be better for the revolutionary defenders of the city to be prepared for what ever tactics the bourgeoisie generals might decide on (and react to actions of the bourgeoisie armed forces) rather then waste energy trying to get find out what the bourgeoisie forces is actually planning.