Desertion in a communist army

[Princess Luna]

Obviously if some guy deserts the modern U.S. army everybody on this site would support him (i hope), but what about Desertion in a communist army during or after a revolution, do you think it should be punished by execution or imprisonment, or do you think its a natural human reaction to be afraid during war?

[citizen of industry]

Of course it is a natural reaction, but psychologically it has been noted that it is more difficult to desert than to fight. On top of that soldiers usually don't fight for ideas. They fight for the people next to them. If all of your comrades are going forward, and you run away, how would you feel? And how would your comrades feel about having you with them after that? I don't think it would be a big problem.

In some historical cases desertion was unpunished. In the American Revolution, Washington didn't punish deserters because they would often desert to assist their families during harvesting season. If he had punished them he wouldn't have had an army.

[RedSonRising]

Execution of an unarmed person seems like a waste of human life, especially when it is simply used as punishment for weakness of constitution in the face of mortal danger.

I feel it depends on the situation (severity of conditions, nature of the military and conflict, etc.), but such harsh punishments seem unnecessary in my opinion.

[khad]

Whip them all into shape through brutal discipline and drumhead trials, take the families of the officers hostage and threaten gloves off if they ever dare to get out of line.

At least, that's what worked for Trotsky.

[Teacher]

I think it would depend on the context. In a desperate military situation obviously discipline needs to be maintained, but outside of that situation I don't see why it would require that harsh of a punishment.

[Q]

Communism wouldn't have standing armies. The Red Army Khad so charmingly refers to was not a socialist conception, Trotsky prefered workers militia's. However, the Red Army was a necessity under civil war conditions and a boken proletariat (the early Red Army consisted mainly of peasants).

Communists stand for the universal education in the use of arms and workers militia's. Such a system is already feasible under capitalism (see the Swiss example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland)) and is therefore a concrete democratic demand that empowers the working class and weakens the capitalist state.

To come back to the OP's question: Desertion is caused by alienation, why would you die for your country if your country cares so little for you? That is exactly the type of propaganda we need to be making regarding the army: Don't die for your capitalist overlords, your main enemy is at home! Under a workers' militia, the militia duty is spread out to everyone and located in your neighbourhoods, where you live, work and have friends. You wouldn't desert from protecting that, would you?

[socialistjustin]

Shoot them dead in front of everybody to prove a point!

Seriously though I would think light punishment would be alright or even just forgetting about it and letting the guy or woman go without punishment. There is no need to make a big deal out of one person leaving for personal reasons.

[Le Socialiste]

Communism wouldn't have standing armies. The Red Army Khad so charmingly refers to was not a socialist conception, Trotsky prefered workers militia's. However, the Red Army was a necessity under civil war conditions and a boken proletariat (the early Red Army consisted mainly of peasants).

Communists stand for the universal education in the use of arms and workers militia's. Such a system is already feasible under capitalism (see the Swiss example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland)) and is therefore a concrete democratic demand that empowers the working class and weakens the capitalist state.

To come back to the OP's question: Desertion is caused by alienation, why would you die for your country if your country cares so little for you? That is exactly the type of propaganda we need to be making regarding the army: Don't die for your capitalist overlords, your main enemy is at home! Under a workers' militia, the militia duty is spread out to everyone and located in your neighbourhoods, where you live, work and have friends. You wouldn't desert from protecting that, would you?

^ Mostly this. Any communist army would be made up of literally hundreds/thousands/millions (depending on the size of a nation's population) of worker-dominated militias. These militias would serve to protect the benefits of the revolution, without retaining the bourgeois military model. When you're fighting to defend the revolutionary gains of your comrades, you'll probably do so to the best of your abilities (knowing what the alternatives are). That isn't to say desertion will become nonexistent; rather it will most likely decrease in the number of those choosing to. There's a big difference between defending you and your fellow workers' interests and those of big business, parties, and governments hostile to the cause of the proletariat (which is basically all of them).

[Kamos]

Let's look at it this way: being part of a communist army is voluntary. Why shouldn't it be voluntary at all times? If this causes any administrative difficulty restrictions could be placed on the deserters' rejoining of the army.

[Q]

Let's look at it this way: being part of a communist army is voluntary. Why shouldn't it be voluntary at all times? If this causes any administrative difficulty restrictions could be placed on the deserters' rejoining of the army.

No, it shouldn't be voluntary. We should insist on its universal appliance so everyone knows how to deal with weapons. What good is it if no one knows how to defend yourself and your fellow workers against the state? Likewise, we should insist on union organisation inside the army, like is the case in the Netherlands (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFMP), and integrate these elements fully into the workers movement. Everything that tears these forces away from the state and makes the working class stronger as a class.

[Kamos]

No, it shouldn't be voluntary. We should insist on its universal appliance so everyone knows how to deal with weapons. What good is it if no one knows how to defend yourself and your fellow workers against the state? Likewise, we should insist on union organisation inside the army, like is the case in the Netherlands (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFMP), and integrate these elements fully into the workers movement. Everything that tears these forces away from the state and makes the working class stronger as a class.

I hope you don't insist on me taking a year-long break from my life to go on military drills.

[citizen of industry]

Let's look at it this way: being part of a communist army is voluntary. Why shouldn't it be voluntary at all times? If this causes any administrative difficulty restrictions could be placed on the deserters' rejoining of the army.

Well, what if there was a position that was ordered to be taken in the middle of a decisive battle, and there were 10 people in the unit assigned. And 7 of them said, "okay, no problem," and the other 3 said, "hold on, that position isn't worth it." And assuming you have some form of leadership, an officer or such says "too bad, it's an order." So the minority say, "we're voluntarily leaving the army then."

Being part of the army is voluntary, but for it to be cohesive you need some kind of discipline and leadership in the ranks. I'd be more in favor of elected officers and NCO's, and a soldier's/sailor's union.

[Kamos]

Well, what if there was a position that was ordered to be taken in the middle of a decisive battle, and there were 10 people in the unit assigned. And 7 of them said, "okay, no problem," and the other 3 said, "hold on, that position isn't worth it." And assuming you have some form of leadership, an officer or such says "too bad, it's an order." So the minority say, "we're voluntarily leaving the army then."

Being part of the army is voluntary, but for it to be cohesive you need some kind of discipline and leadership in the ranks. I'd be more in favor of elected officers and NCO's, and a soldier's/sailor's union.

To be more precise, wartime should be an exception. At any rate, I guess you've got a point there... Still, I'm not sure how much of an issue this would be. If someone applies for the army to start with, I doubt a significant number of people would reconsider.

[Red Future]

The only leftist force that had a real problem with desertion was the Armed Forces of the Peoples Republic Of Kampuchea in the 1980s ..it was so poor as to have the Vietnamese Army stay longer to combat the Khmer Rouge. as far as I know ..generally it wasn't an enormous problem for other left wing movements.

[Rss]

Depends on situation. During peacetime, going AWOL from your cadre should be punished without doubt. You just can't leave your comrades hanging. During wartime, there shouldn't be any half-measures or second-guessing. Military of working class should have better standards than military of bourgeoise.

[runequester]

Why do officers carry pistols ?

To shoot deserters. Of course, this tends not to occur much anymore and for good reason, but that was the historical reason.
We've generally figured out better ways of dealing with it nowadays.


During and immediately after a revolution, there would of course be a standing army.
Building the perfect society is worthless if you can't defend it against reaction, and reaction will come, swift and terrible.

Militia's are fine for keeping the peace to the extent its needed, hopefully they'd end up doing more useful stuff post revolution though, but militia's never won a war without an army to lean on or supply them.

[Sensible Socialist]

If someone doesn't want to be in a militia, who am I to force them? If they don't want to be there, let them go. I'm not about to advocate for forced enslavement in some sort of militia, or punishments when someone wants to do other things with their life.

[Rss]

If someone doesn't want to be in a militia, who am I to force them? If they don't want to be there, let them go. I'm not about to advocate for forced enslavement in some sort of militia, or punishments when someone wants to do other things with their life.

It was attitude like this what made Red Guard lost many vital battles during Class War of Finland in 1918. Comrade Eino Rahja was one of the red officers who fought against liberalism in ranks of the Red Guard and often took decisive action in combat.

[Q]

Militia's are fine for keeping the peace to the extent its needed, hopefully they'd end up doing more useful stuff post revolution though, but militia's never won a war without an army to lean on or supply them.

Could you give examples?

Anyways, I think you're missing the point. Wars under capitalism are not so much of army against army, like was the case under feudalism for example. No, under capitalism it's a total war in which all layers of society play a role. The reason for this is that the industrial support base of the enemy army is as much as target as the army itself. Hence bombing cities, although these days the bombing did become "smarter" as dead babies don't make good propaganda on tv, even if they are of the enemy.

Workers militia's are taking that same logic, but in reverse so to speak. While standing armies are excellent tools for capitalists, given that they're a minority within society; militia's are excellent tools for the working class, given that it arms (or teaches to use arms to) the whole proletariat.

The mightiest army on the planet can't even subdue Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries around. What are the realistic prospects of an invading army trying to subdue an entire proletariat that is well armed and is also trained to use advanced weaponry, like airforce and navy (Yes, I don't see why such advanced stuff couldn't be integrated within a militia structure)?

[Tim Cornelis]

No, it shouldn't be voluntary. We should insist on its universal appliance so everyone knows how to deal with weapons. What good is it if no one knows how to defend yourself and your fellow workers against the state? Likewise, we should insist on union organisation inside the army, like is the case in the Netherlands (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFMP), and integrate these elements fully into the workers movement. Everything that tears these forces away from the state and makes the working class stronger as a class.

If you're going to force me to fight for your ideals through conscription I'm going to punch you in the face, whether you're a capitalist, nationalist, communist or anarchist. I'll decide on my own accord whether I join you or not.

[Psy]

It is a natural human reaction but if a someone can't be trusted to at least be there for their unit in battle they would be of little use to a revolutionary army. To have a effective revolutionary army that outmaneuvers the enemies using the doctrine of Jomini you need very high will to fight among the vanguard military forces as they are going have to be mobile.

Workers militas on the hand would basically be revolutionary garrisons, here you don't have to worry as much, when they see action they would be most likely against a enemy force trying to infiltrate their city thus there wouldn't be anywhere to run to as the enemy probably also have the city under siege. It would be kinda like Stalingrad where running just make them a easy kill for enemy snipers.

[runequester]

Could you give examples?

Anyways, I think you're missing the point. Wars under capitalism are not so much of army against army, like was the case under feudalism for example. No, under capitalism it's a total war in which all layers of society play a role. The reason for this is that the industrial support base of the enemy army is as much as target as the army itself. Hence bombing cities, although these days the bombing did become "smarter" as dead babies don't make good propaganda on tv, even if they are of the enemy.

Workers militia's are taking that same logic, but in reverse so to speak. While standing armies are excellent tools for capitalists, given that they're a minority within society; militia's are excellent tools for the working class, given that it arms (or teaches to use arms to) the whole proletariat.

The mightiest army on the planet can't even subdue Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries around. What are the realistic prospects of an invading army trying to subdue an entire proletariat that is well armed and is also trained to use advanced weaponry, like airforce and navy (Yes, I don't see why such advanced stuff couldn't be integrated within a militia structure)?

A militia structure cannot support the logistical tail required for maintaining a modern airforce and navy, let alone supply a field army.

I agree that a communist society should have militia's as they serve a variety of purposes outside of defense, but the original topic was during or just after the revolution.

As far as Afghanistan, of course it is subdued. It hasn't been completely pacified, since this is almost impossible to do. But I doubt anyone thinks the taliban is legitimately in control of Afghanistan or able to impose their will.

The taliban isn't making any significant victories over the coalition. All they can do is keep dying until we give up and go home. Hardly the stuff revolutions are made of.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Communism wouldn't have standing armies. The Red Army Khad so charmingly refers to was not a socialist conception, Trotsky prefered workers militia's. However, the Red Army was a necessity under civil war conditions and a boken proletariat (the early Red Army consisted mainly of peasants).

Communists stand for the universal education in the use of arms and workers militia's. Such a system is already feasible under capitalism (see the Swiss example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Switzerland)) and is therefore a concrete democratic demand that empowers the working class and weakens the capitalist state.

To come back to the OP's question: Desertion is caused by alienation, why would you die for your country if your country cares so little for you? That is exactly the type of propaganda we need to be making regarding the army: Don't die for your capitalist overlords, your main enemy is at home! Under a workers' militia, the militia duty is spread out to everyone and located in your neighbourhoods, where you live, work and have friends. You wouldn't desert from protecting that, would you?

The sentence "such a system" is the only part where I disagree. The Swiss militia doesn't stand much of a chance against the French or German armed forces next door, if they were to invade.


What are the realistic prospects of an invading army trying to subdue an entire proletariat that is well armed and is also trained to use advanced weaponry, like airforce and navy (Yes, I don't see why such advanced stuff couldn't be integrated within a militia structure)?

Are you sure that's realistic???

[Q]

A militia structure cannot support the logistical tail required for maintaining a modern airforce and navy, let alone supply a field army.
Given that workers militia's are the proletariat itself that is armed, surely that implies very short and efficient supply lines, as it is so closely integrated within society itself? So I disagree with the point made here. In fact, militia's are exactly perfectly capable of defensive purposes. Standing armies are more geared towards offensive roles, to which I don't see any structural role for the proletariat.


I agree that a communist society should have militia's as they serve a variety of purposes outside of defense, but the original topic was during or just after the revolution.
The point I'm trying to get across is that we should work towards these goals - universal education of everyone to use arms, the unionisation of the armed forces, democratic structures within the armed forces, workers militia's - right now. We shouldn't wait until after the revolution. In fact, these goals are pretty necessary conditions for a successful revolution in the first place!


As far as Afghanistan, of course it is subdued. It hasn't been completely pacified, since this is almost impossible to do. But I doubt anyone thinks the taliban is legitimately in control of Afghanistan or able to impose their will.

The taliban isn't making any significant victories over the coalition. All they can do is keep dying until we give up and go home. Hardly the stuff revolutions are made of.
I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. No, the Taliban isn't able to control all of Afghanistan (although they do have huge swats of it under their control in the south), but so can't the allied forces. To say it is subdued, that is under allied control, is totally not understanding the situation over there.

But Afghanistan was a limited analogy, in that you can't subdue a society that easily. I very much doubt it could occupy a well developed, industrialised, highly educated society with a large proletariat that is armed to the teeth. It would be a nightmare from day one.

[runequester]

Given that workers militia's are the proletariat itself that is armed, surely that implies very short and efficient supply lines, as it is so closely integrated within society itself? So I disagree with the point made here. In fact, militia's are exactly perfectly capable of defensive purposes. Standing armies are more geared towards offensive roles, to which I don't see any structural role for the proletariat.

Historical evidence of this actually working?

The vietnamese VC were composed of large numbers of regular NVA, received arms and support from the USSR and fought to support regular army operations.
Partisans in the USSR and Yugoslavia were largely organized as military units, and obviously fought to support such.
The fabled "minute men" in America fought alongside a regular, conventional army (when they weren't running away from the British and Hessians).




The point I'm trying to get across is that we should work towards these goals - universal education of everyone to use arms, the unionisation of the armed forces, democratic structures within the armed forces, workers militia's - right now. We shouldn't wait until after the revolution. In fact, these goals are pretty necessary conditions for a successful revolution in the first place!

I agree with this, but not for the purpose of fighting the revolution against reactionary forces. Peasants with rifles don't defeat armoured battalions and they don't stop carpet bombing.
They can garrison areas, fight enemy militia and carry out harassing activity.

Once they are equipped to fight a modern war, and organized in such a way that it can be fought, guess what? We have an army. It just happens to be an army that serves the proletariat, rather than an army that serves the capitalists.




I'm sorry, but this is utter nonsense. No, the Taliban isn't able to control all of Afghanistan (although they do have huge swats of it under their control in the south), but so can't the allied forces. To say it is subdued, that is under allied control, is totally not understanding the situation over there.

Let me ask this in a different way: What are their prospects of winning? At what cost?
What are they fighting for? What prospects do they have of bringing that about?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Standing armies are more geared towards offensive roles, to which I don't see any structural role for the proletariat.

Spreading revolution to sympathetic but ill-equipped areas? Precision-bombing of enemy military and paramilitary bases to suppress attempts at suppressing sympathetic but ill-equipped workers elsewhere? Spetsnaz units for similar sabotage operations abroad? Organized cyberwarfare?

[thesadmafioso]

Spreading revolution to sympathetic but ill-equipped areas? Precision-bombing of enemy military and paramilitary bases to suppress attempts at suppressing sympathetic but ill-equipped workers elsewhere?

What the hell is this nonsense? Since when did Marx speak of a proletarian revolution sparked by a preemptive precision bombing campaign?

I feel like we are falling into the exact inverse of the capitalist cold war mentality, where we accept all of the constructs which they forwarded... except we are supporting the 'communists' as opposed to the capitalists.

[runequester]

What the hell is this nonsense? Since when did Marx speak of a proletarian revolution sparked by a preemptive precision bombing campaign?

I feel like we are falling into the exact inverse of the capitalist cold war mentality, where we accept all of the constructs which they forwarded... except we are supporting the 'communists' as opposed to the capitalists.

DNZ said nothing about "preemptive"

[thesadmafioso]

DNZ said nothing about "preemptive"

Spreading the revolution (with bombs) implies as much.

And regardless, this is displays a horribly flawed understanding of the most basic elements of Marxist theory. That isn't a counter point in the slightest, you are falsely assailing something that is not even tied directly to the brunt of my point.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What the hell is this nonsense? Since when did Marx speak of a proletarian revolution sparked by a preemptive precision bombing campaign?

I feel like we are falling into the exact inverse of the capitalist cold war mentality, where we accept all of the constructs which they forwarded... except we are supporting the 'communists' as opposed to the capitalists.

I didn't say "preemptive," though I do recognize the role of precision bombing in furthering revolutionary situations elsewhere.

[thesadmafioso]

I didn't say "preemptive," though I do recognize the role of precision bombing in furthering revolutionary situations elsewhere.

I already analyzed the connotative value of your initial remarks, but regardless this is a minor detail well beside my primary point.

Your thought on this matter is based more in the bourgeois geopolitical thinking of the cold war than it is in actual Marxist theory, wherein you seem to think that revolution can be physically created through bombs as opposed to economic conditions, workers movements and revolutionary theory.

If we just take what you are saying and replace revolutionary with democratic, you could very easily be mistaken for a White House press secretary. There is nothing even remotely based in materialist thought in your faulty assumptions on this matter.

[runequester]

Spreading the revolution (with bombs) implies as much.

And regardless, this is displays a horribly flawed understanding of the most basic elements of Marxist theory. That isn't a counter point in the slightest, you are falsely assailing something that is not even tied directly to the brunt of my point.

When reaction to the revolution comes, it will come with military force, as it has always done.

This means the revolution will be fighting a war, with the objectives a war entails.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To come back to the OP's question: Desertion is caused by alienation, why would you die for your country if your country cares so little for you? That is exactly the type of propaganda we need to be making regarding the army: Don't die for your capitalist overlords, your main enemy is at home! Under a workers' militia, the militia duty is spread out to everyone and located in your neighbourhoods, where you live, work and have friends. You wouldn't desert from protecting that, would you?

That's a cop out answer. You can't just say 'it won't happen because why would anyone do that'. That sort of answer leads to problems because desertion would then be viewed more harshly.

In any case, to answer the question, desertion is such a rare occurrence that personally i'd like it to be judged on a case-by-case basis. We can do better than becoming gung-ho army patriots.

[thesadmafioso]

When reaction to the revolution comes, it will come with military force, as it has always done.

This means the revolution will be fighting a war, with the objectives a war entails.

Such lovely militarism, good thing that it's covered with a thin facade of revolutionary bravado, because everyone knows that suddenly makes it valid.

After all, who really cares about silly concepts like class struggle and synthesis when we can just talk about how fun revolutionary warfare is going to be! Marx be damned, I want to bomb some capitalists with jet fighters!

[runequester]

Such lovely militarism, good thing that it's covered with a thin facade of revolutionary bravado, because everyone knows that suddenly makes it valid.

After all, who really cares about silly concepts like class struggle and synthesis when we can just talk about how fun revolutionary warfare is going to be! Marx be damned, I want to bomb some capitalists with jet fighters!

You betray a frightening lack of understanding of world history.

You seem to be conditioned by years of ruling class definitions, and have come to identify so strongly with them that you must define yourself purely in their terms.

Hence the concept of fighting for the revolution is anathema to you, because the ruling class has defined that "communism is militaristic".


Let's see what Lenin had to say


Armed uprising of the people! This is the slogan—advanced so resolutely by the party of the proletariat, as represent ed by the Third Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party—which the very course of events, the spontaneous process of expansion and intensification of the revolutionary movement, powerfully impels. Away, then, with all doubts and vacillations. Let it be realised by one and all, now and without delay, how absurd and discreditable are all pretexts today for evading this urgent task of the most energetic preparation of the armed uprising—how perilous it is to delay, how vital it is to unite and co-ordinate the local uprisings which are breaking out all over the country. Taken separately, these outbreaks are ineffectual. The organised force of the tsarist government can crush the insurgents group by group, if the movement continues to spread from town to town and from district to district as slowly and sporadically as it has been doing until now. But united, these outbreaks can converge into a mighty torrent of revolutionary flame, which no power on earth will be able to withstand. This unity is on the way, it is coming by a thou sand paths we do not know of or even suspect. These sporadic outbreaks and skirmishes are giving the people a lesson in revolution, and our job is never to lag behind the exigencies of the moment, but to be able always to point to the next, higher stage of the struggle, deriving experience and instruction from the past and from the present, and urging the workers and peasants on and on more boldly and more broadly to the complete victory of the people, to the complete destruction of the autocratic gang that is now fighting with the desperation of the doomed.


I appreciate the wish that everyone will come around, the capitalists will see the error of their ways, as workers take control, bread is redistributed for all, and they willingly give up their riches for the good of mankind.

Except for the part where that has never happened.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Spreading the revolution (with bombs) implies as much.

And regardless, this is displays a horribly flawed understanding of the most basic elements of Marxist theory. That isn't a counter point in the slightest, you are falsely assailing something that is not even tied directly to the brunt of my point.


Your thought on this matter is based more in the bourgeois geopolitical thinking of the cold war than it is in actual Marxist theory, wherein you seem to think that revolution can be physically created through bombs as opposed to economic conditions, workers movements and revolutionary theory.

According to the orthodox Marxist criteria for actual revolutionary periods for the working class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch06.htm), the fourth criteria is the breakdown of internal confidence within the state apparatus (army, paramilitary, police, civil bureaucracy, etc.). If the first three criteria are met (popular tensions against the state, worker-class party-movement existence, majority political support from the working class as a whole for the party-movement) but the fourth isn't, "spreading the revolution with [precision] bombs" and more conventional military tools helps.

[thesadmafioso]

You betray a frightening lack of understanding of world history.

You seem to be conditioned by years of ruling class definitions, and have come to identify so strongly with them that you must define yourself purely in their terms.

Hence the concept of fighting for the revolution is anathema to you, because the ruling class has defined that "communism is militaristic".


Let's see what Lenin had to say




I appreciate the wish that everyone will come around, the capitalists will see the error of their ways, as workers take control, bread is redistributed for all, and they willingly give up their riches for the good of mankind.

Except for the part where that has never happened.

That's sort of awkward for me then, given the fact I'm actually majoring in history and that most all of my spare time goes towards the study of it. But no, I must be ignorant of the course of world history because I don't read Marx through the lens of a bourgeois general and due to the fact that I actually view history through a material perspective.

Seriously though, don't speak down to me as if I am inferior to you for not displaying such jubilation at the thought of militarism. It is baseless and just plain insulting really.

And yes, let us look to Lenin on this matter, but let us also be sure to apply a materialist analysis to his words this time around.

Lenin was speaking to the significance of class struggle being augmented by armed soviets of the proletariat, he was not joyfully speaking to some sort of grand war against the capitalists. There is a difference between recognizing the necessity of arming the workers and of wielding that potential in a reckless fashion. It is important to not let militaristic aims obstruct the course of class struggle and dialectical advancement, as those are the underlying forces which allow for such forces to come into existence in the first place!

[thesadmafioso]

According to the orthodox Marxist criteria for actual revolutionary periods for the working class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch06.htm), the fourth criteria is the breakdown of internal confidence within the state apparatus (army, paramilitary, police, civil bureaucracy, etc.). If the first three criteria are met (popular tensions against the state, worker-class party-movement existence, majority political support from the working class as a whole for the party-movement) but the fourth isn't, "spreading the revolution with [precision] bombs" and more conventional military tools helps.

Karl Kautsky, what a shining example of an exemplary revolutionary indeed!

I digress to the point of this discussion though, standing armies should only exist in a revolutionary form designed to protect the aims and progress of the proletarian from tangible threats. These forces should not take on an offensive role, even if they would stand to have support within a population.

Organs of proletarian agitation are perfectly capable of coming to their own defense should the need arise; they do not need a glorious red army to sweep into a situation which is already revolutionary so as to quicken its pace.

Leon Trotsky on the tasks of socialism in relation to militarism


One of the basic tasks of socialism is to free mankind from militarism and from the barbarity of bloody clashes between peoples. The goal of socialism is universal disarmament, permanent peace and fraternal co-operation between all the peoples inhabiting the earth.

This goal will be achieved when power in all the strongest capitalist countries has passed into the hands of the working class, which will wrest the means of production from the exploiters and turn them over to all working people for common use, and will establish a Communist system as the unshakable foundation of the solidarity of all mankind.

At present it is in Russia alone that state power is held by the workers. In all the other countries the imperialist bourgeoisie is in power. Its policy is aimed at suppressing the communist revolution and enslaving all weak peoples. The Russian Soviet Republic, surrounded on all sides by enemies, has to create its own powerful army, under the protection of which the communist transformation of the country’s social order will be accomplished.

Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch11.htm

You will note the clear focus on defense and the necessity created by conditions seen in this excerpt. Such is a proper approach to the defense of revolution through military means, well ordered reluctance subdued by the depravity of the powers of capitalism. No a word of marching the Red Army to Berlin so as to liberate the workers there.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Karl Kautsky, what a shining example of an exemplary revolutionary indeed!

"This book, written by the most authoritative writer of the Second International, contains the most complete exposition of the tasks of our times.… This is what German Social Democracy was—or rather, promised to be. This is the Social Democracy that one could and had to respect." (Lenin)

http://communiststudents.org.uk/?p=2479

[Q]

According to the orthodox Marxist criteria for actual revolutionary periods for the working class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch06.htm), the fourth criteria is the breakdown of internal confidence within the state apparatus (army, paramilitary, police, civil bureaucracy, etc.). If the first three criteria are met (popular tensions against the state, worker-class party-movement existence, majority political support from the working class as a whole for the party-movement) but the fourth isn't, "spreading the revolution with [precision] bombs" and more conventional military tools helps.

I remain unconvinced that this could happen. It's a dangerous gamble in which you risk the breakdown of class solidarity and a rise of nationalist sentiment.

[thesadmafioso]

"This book, written by the most authoritative writer of the Second International, contains the most complete exposition of the tasks of our times.… This is what German Social Democracy was—or rather, promised to be. This is the Social Democracy that one could and had to respect." (Lenin)

http://communiststudents.org.uk/?p=2479

What a surprise, you seem to of ignored my entire response, instead choosing to quote Lenin at a horribly false reading of my introductory sentence.

Where exactly did Kautsky say that external military forces could be applied to substitute the lack of the forth state criteria? You are basically just taking something Kautsky wrote horribly out of context, and then taking Lenin's proper reading of it and his remarks on such analysis as justification for your incredibly skewered deviation.

Do I need to explain the sheer idiocy in such vulgar tactics of rhetoric?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Kautsky got it more or less right on what constituted revolutionary periods. Trotsky didn't.


I remain unconvinced that this could happen. It's a dangerous gamble in which you risk the breakdown of class solidarity and a rise of nationalist sentiment.

I'm not sure it's much of a gamble, comrade. Nationalist sentiment arose in Eastern Europe in Afghanistan because the Soviets "sent in the tanks" (or, in Trotsky's case, sent in other kinds of Red Army units). Aggressor occupation definitely gives rise to nationalist sentiment. So does carpet bombing, like what happened during the Vietnam War.

There wasn't much Iraqi nationalist sentiment after Saddam's defeat during the first Persian Gulf War, however, because there was no intention on the part of the aggressor(s) to occupy past No-Fly Zone stipulations.

Besides, I was using the poster's own words. What I generally meant was a mix of non-occupation warfare methods, ranging from precision bombing (even Tomahawk-style) to sending in spetsnaz units for military-industrial sabotage to cyberwarfare. Any mix of warfare methods that minimizes the risk of nationalist sentiment should be considered.

[thesadmafioso]

^^^ Kautsky got it more or less right on what constituted revolutionary periods. Trotsky didn't.

We are discussing the use of external military intervention in revolutionary periods, something which you seem to be having trouble following as you have yet to address any of my major points. Perhaps if you could stay on the course of this topic and actually refute the criticism which I have put forth of your faulty analyses here, this discussion would actually be somewhat productive.

But yeah, Kaustky was definitely quite the revolutionary. Who could forget his brilliant stance of international solidarity with the proletarian when he took up a defencist stance against revolutionary defeatism when WWI broke out? A brilliant revisionist he was indeed.

While Kautsky was busy faltering the revolutionary situation in Germany, Trotsky was busy seizing upon the present conditions in Russia to create a proletarian revolution. Pardon me if I can't help but ignore such a foolish understanding of history.

[Psy]

Karl Kautsky, what a shining example of an exemplary revolutionary indeed!

I digress to the point of this discussion though, standing armies should only exist in a revolutionary form designed to protect the aims and progress of the proletarian from tangible threats. These forces should not take on an offensive role, even if they would stand to have support within a population.

Organs of proletarian agitation are perfectly capable of coming to their own defense should the need arise; they do not need a glorious red army to sweep into a situation which is already revolutionary so as to quicken its pace.

Leon Trotsky on the tasks of socialism in relation to militarism



Source: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/ch11.htm

You will note the clear focus on defense and the necessity created by conditions seen in this excerpt. Such is a proper approach to the defense of revolution through military means, well ordered reluctance subdued by the depravity of the powers of capitalism. No a word of marching the Red Army to Berlin so as to liberate the workers there.

The problem is the writings of Jomini that deal with how war changed with Napoleon, in that the goal of any army at war is to win the war as quickly as possibly to avoid it becoming a war of attrition. Trotsky commanded a army that were as immobile as those Napoleons forces out maneuvered so Trotsky couldn't march to Berlin even if he wanted to without it become a war of attrition as that was all his forces where good for.

[thesadmafioso]

The problem is the writings of Jomini that deal with how war changed with Napoleon, in that the goal of any army at war is to win the war as quickly as possibly to avoid it becoming a war of attrition. Trotsky commanded a army that were as immobile as those Napoleons forces out maneuvered so Trotsky couldn't march to Berlin even if he wanted to without it become a war of attrition as that was all his forces where good for.

I am going to say this to you once, so please do make note of this.

I do not give a fucking shit about Jomni or Napoleon.

Stop trying to use military commanders and their theories on warfare to explain the material progression of historical society. It is incorrect in so many different ways that I have already tried and failed to explain to you.

Also, stop trying to defame Trotsky's character with this nonsense by associating him with your violent lust for militaristic aggression. Trotsky never wanted to march on Berlin, he hardly wanted to invade Poland during the civil war, actually. As I previously mentioned in a post accompanied with a selection of Trotsky's writing, he envisioned the Red Army as a defensive force that was brought into existence by necessity alone.

Trotsky has no idealistic images of marching throughout Europe and conquering in the name of some convoluted form of artificially born socialism, at all.

[Psy]

I am going to say this to you once, so please do make note of this.

I do not give a fucking shit about Jomni or Napoleon.

You should, from a material standpoint Napoleon found a solution to France's isolation and was able to break through the containment the other imperialist armies erected around France.



Stop trying to use military commanders and their theories on warfare to explain the material progression of historical society. It is incorrect in so many different ways that I have already tried and failed to explain to you.

There is no societies on battlefields as armies are the state abroad not society.



Also, stop trying to defame Trotsky's character with this nonsense by associating him with your violent lust for militaristic aggression. Trotsky never wanted to march on Berlin, he hardly wanted to invade Poland during the civil war, actually. As I previously mentioned in a post accompanied with a selection of Trotsky's writing, he envisioned the Red Army as a defensive force that was brought into existence by necessity alone.

As I said Trotsky couldn't go on the offensive with the Red Army if he wanted due to its lack of mobility.



Trotsky has no idealistic images of marching throughout Europe and conquering in the name of some convoluted form of artificially born socialism, at all.
That is not the point of a offensive revolution army, a revolutionary army on the offensive won't occupy land abroad yet it will strike abroad. Let me put it this way, if Trotsky was still in charge of the Army in WWII and Lenin was still in charge of the USSR do you think Trotsky would avoided taking the fight to Hitler and stayed totally on the defensive throughout the war?

You think Trotsky would have objected to Russian tanks rolling strait to the heart of Germany during WWII?

[thesadmafioso]

You should, from a material standpoint Napoleon found a solution to France's isolation and was able to break through the containment the other imperialist armies erected around France.


Imperialist armies surrounding France? I would hardly say Napoleon himself can be abstained from imperialism, given the multitude of wars fought throughout that period.


There is no societies on battlefields as armies are the state abroad not society.

I don't even know what this is suppose to mean. Coherent sentences would really help this whole process out a great deal.


As I said Trotsky couldn't go on the offensive with the Red Army if he wanted due to its lack of mobility.

This is an irrelevant point, as the Red Army didn't have a need for such measures.


That is not the point of a offensive revolution army, a revolutionary army on the offensive won't occupy land abroad yet it will strike abroad. Let me put it this way, if Trotsky was still in charge of the Army in WWII and Lenin was still in charge of the USSR do you think Trotsky would avoided taking the fight to Hitler and stayed totally on the defensive throughout the war?

You think Trotsky would have objected to Russian tanks rolling strait to the heart of Germany during WWII?

Trotsky would of supported internal measures of opposition to the rise of fascism in Germany, likely crushing it before it reached a point where it could threaten to come into power.

A communist and SDP united front against German fascism would of constituted enough of a political force to absolutely halt the chances of fascism in the region. If he also encouraged active and militant opposition to the fascists, something Stalin did not advocate for, there would not of been a Nazi Germany to invade with your glorious preemptive revolutionary tank divisions.

So why don't you try adopting an approach to history that is actually materialist in its composition for once, your infantile ramblings are impossible to deal with.

[Psy]

Imperialist armies surrounding France? I would hardly say Napoleon himself can be abstained from imperialism, given the multitude of wars fought throughout that period.

That is true but also irreverent as if France was a workers state at the time Napoleon's victories would have been a great help to ensuring the security of the revolution if the workers state could keep Napoleon on a short leash.




I don't even know what this is suppose to mean. Coherent sentences would really help this whole process out a great deal.

When armies battle each other it is not two societies meeting each other but two states. The societies behind the armies are external to the battlefield as war is nothing but a means to a end.



This is an irrelevant point, as the Red Army didn't have a need for such measures.

Being able to rip through the White Army like Napoleon ripped through central Europe would have been of great use to the Red Army.




Trotsky would of supported internal measures of opposition to the rise of fascism in Germany, likely crushing it before it reached a point where it could threaten to come into power.

A communist and SDP united front against German fascism would of constituted enough of a political force to absolutely halt the chances of fascism in the region. If he also encouraged active and militant opposition to the fascists, something Stalin did not advocate for, there would not of been a Nazi Germany to invade with your glorious preemptive revolutionary tank divisions.

So why don't you try adopting an approach to history that is actually materialist in its composition for once, your infantile ramblings are impossible to deal with.
And if that failed?

And why is it infantile ramblings to bring up Napoleonic theory of warfare? You are just acting like warfare is not a profession that the bourgeois and you think a revolution is just going to brush aside professionally armies without understanding how they work.