Election of military officers

[Red Commissar]

I remember reading that in its early times the Red Army in the Soviet Union attempted to have popularly elected officers. I think this was also attempted with POUM and Anarchist militias in the Spanish Civil War. I think I even recall this was attempted with some Union forces in the American Civil War, though haven't seen much beyond that but a mention.

What I would like to know is what groups attempted this, what was their success and failures, and what was the drive to work back towards a more traditional hierarchy? Some articles or book selections would be nice.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ancient Athens elected their military officers as an exception to random selection.

[southernmissfan]

I don't have any sources but you are correct that there was experiments of electing officers in Union forces during the American Civil War. I'm not really sure of the success of the policy. My professor for the American Civil War and Reconstruction course I took last semester implied it didn't work very well, with troops electing people who would "go easy on them" and let them get away with a lot. Then again, he taught the course from a fairly pro-Confederate standpoint so take that opinion with a grain of salt.

One of the biggest weaknesses of the Union, at least in the early part of the war, was the poor quality of generals. Of course, these weren't elected.

[CornetJoyce]

In the USA, militia officers were commonly elected.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/h?ammem/rbpebib:@field%[email protected]%28rbpe+15102000%29%2 9
Abe Lincoln famously won the captaincy of his militia company by wrestling his opponent.

[Aurorus Ruber]

What I would like to know is what groups attempted this, what was their success and failures, and what was the drive to work back towards a more traditional hierarchy?

Simple, traditional military hierarchies facilitate control of the armed forces by a centralized state. Apart from anything else, the USSR and Union both wanted to consolidate power and that means an armed force they can easily control from the top.

[Red Bayonet]

War is too important to be entrusted to idiots. The only people with the knowledge and right to command are senior NCOs and life-long students of war. Anyone else will only get people needlessly butchered.

[NecroCommie]

Discipline can arise from other factors than authoritarianism. It is not a question of effectiveness, but morality. The regular soldiers are the ones who WILL take the responsibility over the decisions, so it only follows that they should have some power too. That, or an army of volunteers.

[Red_Struggle]

The Albanian army used to have elected military officials. It was also without rank.

"Pickaxe and Rifle" by William Ash and "New Albania" are good examples of this being documented.

[Jose Gracchus]

I know some in the pre-Freikorps SPD suggested that the soldiers' councils have some kind of vetting and review over officers' placement and advancement. This could be even more extensive over NCO ranks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Source?

[Luís Henrique]

War is essentially anti-democratic, why would democratic methods work well in the conduction of war?

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

War is essentially anti-democratic...
An interesting assertion. Care to elaborate, at all?

[Luís Henrique]

An interesting assertion. Care to elaborate, at all?

I find it difficult, to be honest. The anti-democratic nature of war seems obvious; you can't have war without extreme discipline and very quick decision making, which seem both contradictory with the open debate involved in the democratic method.

Luís Henrique

[tbasherizer]

I agree with Luis Henrique. Furthermore, the arbitrary nature of one state putting itself at war with another is anti-democratic. The animosity it builds between people is also non-conducive to their cooperation in a democratic society. The reasons for war's harmful effects on democracy should instantly spring to mind.

[Tim Finnegan]

I find it difficult, to be honest. The anti-democratic nature of war seems obvious; you can't have war without extreme discipline and very quick decision making, which seem both contradictory with the open debate involved in the democratic method.

Luís Henrique
I see your point, but could one not make the same argument in regards to, say, a surgical team in an emergency, or a team of rescue workers during a fire? Sometimes, it is necessary that individuals submit themselves to some sort of authority for the purposes of effective coordination ; what is important is that this authority is properly justified within an overall democratic framework, rather than existing outside of it. That, I think, is the failure of capitalist institutions, military or otherwise: contemporary "democracy" exists as a limited mechanism within an undemocratic system, allowing many state institutions, especially the military, to exist outside of truly meaningful democratic control.

[Luís Henrique]

I see your point, but could one not make the same argument in regards to, say, a surgical team in an emergency, or a team of rescue workers during a fire?

Sure. No democracy there, and rightly so.

The differences are:

1. that the surgical emergency or the fire last a few hours at most; after that it should be commonplace to openly and democratically discuss what happened during the emergency. Including if the people in charge should be kept in charge during the next emergency. War on the other hand usually lasts for several days at least. An "easy war" like the conquer of Poland by Nazi German lasted for two weeks of earnest military operations, plus another two weeks of "cleaning".

2. that, in principle, no one in the emergency team is going to be executed in place due to disobedience. In war this is unavoidable; deserters must be killed immediately, with no trial, lest demoralisation spreads to the whole army.

These differences make your conclusion,


what is important is that this authority is properly justified within an overall democratic framework, rather than existing outside of it.

much harder to apply in case of war.

Luís Henrique

[Tim Finnegan]

Fair points. Something for me to mull over, I think.

In the mean time, it does prompt a question: with your above comments in mind, is it possible to draw a fundamental distinction between regular armies and workers' militias, such as those mobilised by the unions and parties in 1936 in reaction to Franco's insurrection, which have been shown to be capable of engaging in some level of democratic organisation? Or is the latter merely an essentially undemocratic institution with limited democratic elements crowbarred in?

[Omi]

Interesting topic and something that I've been pondering over as well.

Following the logic that Luis has put forth, could we not come to the conclusion that the same principle applies for the military institution as well? Wars do usually have some times of relative peace/not any huge bloodshed going on. It should be possible to re-elect new hierarchies based on direct democratic decision making. Due to the nature of military command and the rapidity orders are passed down from top to bottom, it's very easy to replace chief staff and immediately revoke orders that are utterly destructive for the campaign if the majority of the people in the bottom of the hierarchy think so.

This democratisation of the military will also make it possible for the people to disintegrate the military institution when we no longer need it. It's very difficult to get rid of deeply embedded institutions such as the military, but very necessary if we are to have a communist society. Democratisation is a weapon amongst others to abolish unnecessary institutions which have a tendency to linger on and try to prioritise it's own funding and start inventing reasons to exist, such as war. An example of this are the many secret service agencies in the west who exaggerate the 'terrorist threat' to justify it's spending and state funding, in the aftermath of the collapse of the 'global communist threat'.

[William Howe]

I think voting can be flawed. I'd rather have an extremely unpopular, but incredible skilled, general leading my army than a general with an astounding amount of charisma, but with the tactical abilities of a rock.

[Omi]

Sure voting can be flawed, but direct democracy is more than just voting 51% against 49% kinda democracy. And if we are to do away with class society, is it not also a necessity to do away with the hierarchy's in the existing military institutions as they will most likely resemble the class composition of the society from which it is born?

[Tim Finnegan]

I think voting can be flawed. I'd rather have an extremely unpopular, but incredible skilled, general leading my army than a general with an astounding amount of charisma, but with the tactical abilities of a rock.
Well, firstly, I assume that a democratic military would be more thoroughly democratic than merely electing a single executive officer to whom all power is deferred.
Secondly, doesn't that same logic extend to civilian life, as well? If you're argument is "proles are stupid- they can't be trusted to vote for the right guy", then you may as well toss your socialism out of the window.

[Red Commissar]

The Albanian army used to have elected military officials. It was also without rank.

"Pickaxe and Rifle" by William Ash and "New Albania" are good examples of this being documented.


I know some in the pre-Freikorps SPD suggested that the soldiers' councils have some kind of vetting and review over officers' placement and advancement. This could be even more extensive over NCO ranks.

I would be interested in you two possibly providing a short selection from a book or article. I see that Red Struggle suggested some books but these aren't available in my local library, my city library, or the university library, and I don't really want to purchase the books solely for this.

[Luís Henrique]

The point is, we need to get rid of military institutions.

We should strive for revolution without war; of course this might be impossible, and fighting a revolutionary war may be unavoidable. Delusions of a "democratic military" are harmful, though, and will probably conduce to military defeats. In engaging in war, no such experiences should be made - a top-down hierarchy works better in ensuring discipline and attaining military victory.

This is a problem, evidently, especially if war is long and protracted, in which case the counter-revolutionary nature of the "revolutionary" army will manifest itself more and more overwhelmingly. It is part of the more general problem of a "State to put end to all States".

Luís Henrique

[Red Bayonet]

War is always an authoritarian endeavor, where one side imposes its will over the other, or tries to compel the other to give up its purpose. Therefore:
There is no such thing as an anti-authoritarian way to fight a war.
There is no such thing as a 'good' war, or a 'nice' war, or a 'nice' way to fight a war.
(What was it Mao said about war not being a case of 'painting a picture', or 'writing a poem'?).War is always deadly serious,dirty business. This is obvious to revolutionary workers everywhere.
Therefore:
All petit bourgeois inspired nonsense about 'electing' officers, or about electoral politicking in militaries being as 'easy' and 'convenient' as electing union stewards, should be tossed out the window.
Again. War is too important to be entrusted to imbeciles.