Military models in the left ideologies.

[UltraWright]

What are the different "models" for armies in the left ideologies? For example, how would an anarchist "state" manage to defend itself against neighbouring states? What would it do if the neighbouring states had nuclear weapons (something that armed workers wouldn't be able to manage on their own)? What about Marxists?

I would be more than thankful if you could provide me with references that discuss military solutions different than those of capitalism and fascism.

[CesareBorgia]

What are the different "models" for armies in the left ideologies? For example, how would an anarchist "state" manage to defend itself against neighbouring states? What would it do if the neighbouring states had nuclear weapons (something that armed workers wouldn't be able to manage on their own)? What about Marxists?

I would be more than thankful if you could provide me with references that discuss military solutions different than those of capitalism and fascism.

War is war. There is no special 'Marxist' way of waging war.

[Jose Gracchus]

Democratic workers' militias whereever possible. To the extent one has to further capitulation to professional 'standing' militaries is the extent to which the revolution will degenerate.

[LewisQ]

I think it's generally accepted that the more centralised, regular-army model espoused by communist forces in the Spanish Civil War worked better than the workers' militia model of the anarchists. However, that may have had a lot to do with extraneous factors (training, equipment, tactics etc.) Of course, war seldom strikes at a convenient moment, and the appropriate model for a revolutionary war may not suit a defensive war.

[Psy]

Democratic workers' militias whereever possible. To the extent one has to further capitulation to professional 'standing' militaries is the extent to which the revolution will degenerate.
The problem is two fold, one is democratic battle planning being a leak of intel to the enemy. The next is delays of democratic battle planning, ie having to vote to retreat from the battlefield from a overwhelming force compared to a commanding officer yelling at troops to pull back. Then you have imperfect knowledge, thus troops might not know their recon has spotted overwhelming force is coming right at them and it would take too long to explain.

[The Douche]

War is war. There is no special 'Marxist' way of waging war.

Wrong.

The struggle for communism is not the same as a war of imperialist agression, and communists, just as we cannot lay hold of the bourgeois state, cannot lay hold of the bourgeois army and use it for our own purposes.

Hell, even to the ruling class its not as simple as "war is war". This statement reflects almost as much naivete as the resident wannabe armchair general Psy.

Who reflects his own ignorance in this statement:


The problem is two fold, one is democratic battle planning being a leak of intel to the enemy. The next is delays of democratic battle planning, ie having to vote to retreat from the battlefield from a overwhelming force compared to a commanding officer yelling at troops to pull back. Then you have imperfect knowledge, thus troops might not know their recon has spotted overwhelming force is coming right at them and it would take too long to explain.

Of course, despite Psy thinking he is a brilliant military genius, the reality is that even the anarchist militias used orders for tactical situations, and democracy for strategic situations.

Also, the laughable idea that the simple conversation of:

"the OP saw an overwhelming force headed for us, we need to go"
"run"

Couldn't occur without some sort of 2 hour long consensus involving spokes-council.

:laugh:

[Tim Finnegan]

Has anybody read Adam Robert's New Model Army? I've been meaning to get to it, but apparently it's about an army that uses advanced communications technology to organise in a highly democratic, adhocratic fashion- command-by-wiki, I think somebody described it- which, while obviously in the realms of science fiction (for now...), sounds like an interesting investigation into the concept of "democratic warfare" operating at a deeper level than historical examples allow.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What are the different "models" for armies in the left ideologies? For example, how would an anarchist "state" manage to defend itself against neighbouring states? What would it do if the neighbouring states had nuclear weapons (something that armed workers wouldn't be able to manage on their own)? What about Marxists?

I would be more than thankful if you could provide me with references that discuss military solutions different than those of capitalism and fascism.


Democratic workers' militias whereever possible. To the extent one has to further capitulation to professional 'standing' militaries is the extent to which the revolution will degenerate.

Any immediate commanding officers should be democratically (s)elected and not appointed, but there should still be an unambiguous chain of command, "standing" operations over nuclear weapons, naval forces, combat aircraft, etc., and, parallel to the democratically (s)elected commanding officers, an apparatus of political officers and security surveillance over the armed forces.

[Sasha]

I think it's generally accepted that the more centralised, regular-army model espoused by communist forces in the Spanish Civil War worked better than the workers' militia model of the anarchists. However, that may have had a lot to do with extraneous factors (training, equipment, tactics etc.) Of course, war seldom strikes at a convenient moment, and the appropriate model for a revolutionary war may not suit a defensive war.

i think that is indeed more related to extraneous factors, as one could say that the anarchist ukranian "black army" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Insurrectionary_Army_of_Ukraine) was at least on par with the bolshevik redarmy and often proven superior.

[Psy]

Wrong.

The struggle for communism is not the same as a war of imperialist agression, and communists, just as we cannot lay hold of the bourgeois state, cannot lay hold of the bourgeois army and use it for our own purposes.

Yet can lay hold elements of the bourgeois that defects as a revolutionary army.





Of course, despite Psy thinking he is a brilliant military genius, the reality is that even the anarchist militias used orders for tactical situations, and democracy for strategic situations.

That would be a problem of projecting our intentions to the bourgeoisie making it harder to surprise bourgeoisie armed forces.



Also, the laughable idea that the simple conversation of:

"the OP saw an overwhelming force headed for us, we need to go"
"run"

Couldn't occur without some sort of 2 hour long consensus involving spokes-council.

:laugh:
So you are saying that it would be simple for anarchist militias to abandon a city full of workers to enemy forces so they don't get overwhelmed even if that is their home?

[Pretty Flaco]

I think that you could have army officers, generals, etc. voted on in a republican fashion so that they're at least democratic to an extent. It should work as a meritocracy as well. You should have to prove yourself to be an able. I think the army hierarchy specifically is much different than the social one because where someone is raised, the family they're born into, and what type of job they have has no effect on how they capable they are militarily.

[Psy]

I think that you could have army officers, generals, etc. voted on in a republican fashion so that they're at least democratic to an extent. It should work as a meritocracy as well. You should have to prove yourself to be an able. I think the army hierarchy specifically is much different than the social one because where someone is raised, the family they're born into, and what type of job they have has no effect on how they capable they are militarily.
That is pretty much my view of how a revolutionary army will be organized.

[Kamos]

I think that you could have army officers, generals, etc. voted on in a republican fashion so that they're at least democratic to an extent. It should work as a meritocracy as well. You should have to prove yourself to be an able. I think the army hierarchy specifically is much different than the social one because where someone is raised, the family they're born into, and what type of job they have has no effect on how they capable they are militarily.

I agree with all of that myself. However, on the topic of centralised army vs. (semi-)democratic workers' militias - I would say that the former, as a structure, is preferable to the latter in a situation where the capitalist opposition still poses a threat after a general revolutionary uprising all around the world. (Which is the most likely option - it is unlikely that the revolution can be staged in an overwhelming part of the world any time soon.) The trick is not to give the army itself too much power - meaning positions in other parts of the government or any freedom in its own actions outside of what they have been allowed to do by consensus. As long as that's done, IMO we don't need to fear that the army's structure would degenerate the revolution. After all, if we can overthrow a police state where the army is armed to the teeth to combat communists, then surely we can deal with any problems wherein the army goes out of control in any way.

[Tim Finnegan]

War is war. There is no special 'Marxist' way of waging war.
Actually, I thought about this, and I'm not so sure: why isn't there a proletarian (rather than "Marxist", as such) way of waging war? There was certainly distinct aristocratic and bourgeois ways of waging war, perhaps most famously illustrated during the English Civil War in the contrast between the feudal hirelings of the Royalist faction and the state-employees of Cromwell's (later) Parliamentarians, the former aristocratic retainers paid with the revenue generated by feudal wealth-extraction and with an officer corps ranging from professional to amateur comprised of the hiring lord and his pals, the latter (essentially) wage-workers paid by property and commercial taxes levied by a bourgeois state and with a professional officer corps organised in a hierarchy stemming from a state-appointed commander-in-chief (i.e. Cromwell himself). Without getting into "russet-coated captains" and all that, I think it's fair to say that we see in that, if not a fundamental overhaul of every mechanical aspect of warfare, then a significant revision in how forces are constituted, organised, and directed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I look to a mixture of the French Revolutionary Wars, the Russian Civil War with earlier formation of the Cheka's foreign espionage arm (which would've prevented the Soviet-Polish disaster), and the Great Patriotic War with more "hawkish" direction (Soviets occupying Finland, pressing further past the 38th parallel in 1945 to maintain forces in the entire Korean peninsula, attacking Japan earlier to secure at least northern Japan, maintaining permanently the Soviet zone within Austria, etc.) - coupled with taking full advantage of the war economy to actually support the Greek Communists militarily and to support Third World anti-colonial movements militarily earlier - as pointing to such a model.

[Zanthorus]

War is war. There is no special 'Marxist' way of waging war.

Perhaps you should tell that to Engels, who was a prolific commentator on military affairs, having been trained by the Prussian military at one point, and even participated in military action during the 1848 revolutions to ensure that no-one could say that the Communists had not played their part in military affairs. His enthusiasm for military affairs earned him the nickname of 'the General' from the Marx family. Several historians of military thought have noted that Engels was probably the only 19th century military tactician to have predicted the First World War. And he definitely thought there was a special 'Marxist' way of waging war - a militia comprised of the armed populace as opposed to the traditional standing army.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Engels predicted the Second World War?


a militia comprised of the armed populace as opposed to the traditional standing army

What do you think of the tens of millions of men and women in uniform for the Red Army and repelling the German fascists during the Great Patriotic War? That's quite an "armed populace."

[Zanthorus]

^^^ Engels predicted the Second World War?

Claim retracted since I can't seem to find a source even though I'm certain I read it somewhere.


What do you think of the tens of millions of men and women in uniform for the Red Army and repelling the German fascists during the Great Patriotic War?

I think you already know what I think about the Second World War (Lord knows why you are repeating the GPW phrase from Stalinist propaganda. Or perhaps he does, for that matter).

[MarxSchmarx]

Has anybody read Adam Robert's New Model Army? I've been meaning to get to it, but apparently it's about an army that uses advanced communications technology to organise in a highly democratic, adhocratic fashion- command-by-wiki, I think somebody described it- which, while obviously in the realms of science fiction (for now...), sounds like an interesting investigation into the concept of "democratic warfare" operating at a deeper level than historical examples allow.

That sounds a lot like a decentralized guerrilla group, which is a historically well documented mode of military organization dating back centuries.

[Ilyich]

What are the different "models" for armies in the left ideologies? For example, how would an anarchist "state" manage to defend itself against neighbouring states? What would it do if the neighbouring states had nuclear weapons (something that armed workers wouldn't be able to manage on their own)? What about Marxists?

I would be more than thankful if you could provide me with references that discuss military solutions different than those of capitalism and fascism.
This is why socialism in one country will never work. If a socialist country exists in a capitalist-imperialist world, then it will soon cease to exist either as socialist or a country. The capitalist-imperialist countries will send their armies to crush the socialist one. The socialist country will then either be destroyed or it will be forced to create a standing military (the structure of almost all militaries is fascist) and wage a war that is not class war; against fellow proletarians thus it will lose its socialist identity. World communism can only succeed after a mass revolutionary wave across the globe.

[Nolan]

It depends. The military of Albania during Hoxha had no ranks after 1967. Then again it never had to do much, was small, and pretty unorganized.

The plan in case of an invasion was for the standing army and everyone else who could to pick up a rifle and head to the famed bunkers to stage an insurgency. Albania had little in the way of an air force or navy.

It was basically a People's War strategy, with infrastructure (i.e. bunkers) ready in place.

But to not be a pushover on the world stage, a proletarian society needs a strong standing military and a state. Let's see Makhno's Black Army or the Albanian army fight the Wehrmacht or the US military on their terms.

[Rusty Shackleford]

War is not democracy. It is an act of authority.

Two bourgeois states declare war, one seeks to assert its authority over the other.

A bourgeois state declares war on a socialist state, one seeks to assert its authority over the other.

Class war, the proletariat seeks supreme authority, a class dictatorship. One that the bourgeoisie won in the late 18th and early 19th century.

The structure of a military is also one of authority. Im not saying whip cracking, im saying one body leads another. It is centralized. The officers corps in the bourgeois state military is simply a reflection of class stratification. Bourgeois and feudal militaries rewarded the ruling class children with positions of leadership for prestige and without them having to risk their lives so bluntly as a pikeman or a rifleman.

There can be officers without class stratification. No priveliges in terms of socio-economic status. No lionizing. No glorifying. The child of a worker can lead just as well, if not better than the pampered child of a capitalist. A friend of mine told me that an officer who was previously enlisted and has seen combat actually leads better. They develop a real understanding. Those who went to west point just do things by the book and have no understanding.

officers are simply people who operate as the nerves of the fighting force. Those who act as the brain of the military body. Without a general, there is no unified plan. Without a unified plan, a fight is lost. Whose interests the general serves is a different matter.

But, you could do away with rank all together just as easily and give people those same positions based on skill and understanding. but isnt that just a reincarnation of an officer with a different name?

This doesnt mean the enlisted soldier should go without say though! They are the ones doing all the work, whose lives are at constant risk and those who take others lives. Without them justifying the existence of their leaders, there is no leaders. Soldiers have every right to mutiny. It is their lives that are on the line. If they have no confidence in their leadership, then why would they fight for them?

In all the only real difference with the left and the military is that the military is something that isnt the go to group when dealing with all problems. Soldiers right should be respected. Their concerns should be heard and acted upon when necessary.




The defense of the revolutionary government shall be organized on the basis of the armed, organized working class.in closing ill admit this: yes i have thought about this. It may come from me being lover of strategy games and airsoft but i dont consider myself being capable of actually coming up with some amazing new military model or anything close. Ultimately, the state and its repressive institutions will be done away with. I have tried to speak in generalities because i have no military experience and i dont think of myself as a credible source when it comes to military thought. these were just some thoughts, rip it to shreds if you must.

[Jose Gracchus]

Nice that your first resort to explaining "socialist warfare" is to use the case of bourgeois nationalist war.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Nice that your first resort to explaining "socialist warfare" is to use the case of bourgeois nationalist war.
it is the most common form of warfare today.

[bcbm]

But to not be a pushover on the world stage, a proletarian society needs a strong standing military and a state. Let's see Makhno's Black Army or the Albanian army fight the Wehrmacht or the US military on their terms.

why would communists want to fight on their terms? the power of the proletariat has nothing to do with military strength

[Psy]

why would communists want to fight on their terms? the power of the proletariat has nothing to do with military strength
Because the bourgeoisie probably won't give us a choice and no one is saying that our road to victory is through to battlefield, no our road to survival in on the battlefield in keeping the bourgeoisie armed forces at bay, our road to victory is in the workplaces.

[bcbm]

force is not the only way to defeat an army

[Psy]

force is not the only way to defeat an army

But it is the only way to defend against a advancing army.

[Tim Finnegan]

That sounds a lot like a decentralized guerrilla group, which is a historically well documented mode of military organization dating back centuries.
I think the idea is that it reconciles the decentralised formation of a guerilla force with the large-scale yet (relatively) fast organisational capabilities of a conventional army, and all within a democratic framework. As I said, I haven't yet read it, so I can't give too many details, but it's an intriguing concept.

[bcbm]

But it is the only way to defend against a advancing army.

not necessarily and certainly engaging in a traditional military conflict isn't

[Psy]

not necessarily and certainly engaging in a traditional military conflict isn't

Here is the problem, the workers that the means of production, the bourgeoisie sends in its armed bodies to take it back, without a counteracting force the bourgeoisie will just reassert ownership of the means of production through force.

[The Man]

In my honest opinion, I will have to agree on Psy with this one. We must abolish all of these military models and replace them with ForkLifts. :thumbup1:


But yeah, People's Army FTW.