Conscription?

[tir1944]

Do you support an obligatory conscription system (in *currently* capitalist states most of us live in)?

[OHumanista]

No because it means possibly being forced to serve imperialist interests(I have just "escaped" conscription myself)
In a socialist state yes as that would be something else entirely.

[Susurrus]

Only when at war with Nazis.

[Rooster]

Of course not. Why would anyone?

[Princess Luna]

By conscription to you mean forced service in the military, or forcing people to do some kind of community service when they hit 18 (like work at a home for the elderly). I am opposed to the first one both under capitalism and socialism, however I support the second.

[Lanky Wanker]

If there was a good enough reason to actually go and fight (defending democracy/freedom bla bla bla) then I assume people would do it without being forced to.

[DarkPast]

I'll always oppose conscription in a capitalist society - I've no wish to become cannon fodder for bourgeois interests.

In a communist society it's a different matter. Like it or not, as long as there's bourgeois states out there, we will need a military to defend ourselves. So I'd rather have a "conscripted" militia force with elected commanders than a professional army. Modern professional troops are basically life-time mercenaries who serve the ruling class because its in their interest to do so - just like cops.

[tir1944]

By conscription to you mean forced service in the military
Yes.

[Tim Cornelis]

Never.

[Ballyfornia]

Why the hell would you ask this on a website for the revolutionary left?

[tir1944]

Why the hell would you ask this on a website for the revolutionary left? Is there something wrong with my question?
If i broke some rule you can PM so i can delete my thread.
Anyway,i posted this as to see what fellow RLefists think about the issue...

[Rooster]

Is there something wrong with my question?

Because supporting conscription supports imperialist wars and as such a Marxists wouldn't support it? It would be like asking "Do you support capitalism?".

[tir1944]

Because supporting conscription supports imperialist wars and as such a Marxists wouldn't support it?
That's an OK attitude,however what's wrong with me asking questions about the issue?

[robbo203]

As someone who was conscripted into the South African army a while back and forced to waste 9 months of my life in the Namib desert doing sod all of any any use to myself or anyone else, I can say emphatically no. The whole brutalising experience did , however, help to politicise and radicalise me in a way that might not otherwise have happened , I guess. It certainly left me with an inveterate of authoritarianism in whatever guise it comes

[Queercommie Girl]

One thing with conscription though is that it often seems to be a sexist system.

[Queercommie Girl]

By conscription to you mean forced service in the military, or forcing people to do some kind of community service when they hit 18 (like work at a home for the elderly). I am opposed to the first one both under capitalism and socialism, however I support the second.

Forcing people to do good often doesn't work. Also shouldn't communists be against state coercion of any kind?

[ВАЛТЕР]

I support it as long as a need for a military exists and as long as capitalist imperialists are around. I believe all citizens of a progressive Socialist state should be trained in basic military tactics and jobs. Simply because if history has shown us anything, it is as long as Capitalist states exist they will attempt to force their will on those who are not prepared to fight back, and fight back effectively.

So yes for conscription in a Progressive, Socialist state.

No for a capitalist state.

A simple solution would be get an ICBM and nuclear warheads. And presto! You don't need an army anymore, just a guy who you can call to push a button. Deterrence for the win.

I would fight to the death to defend something I love, but would desert on day one if I was sent to be an aggressor on another nation.

[aristos]

I'm ambiguous about this.
On the one hand you have the incredible mind-numbing waste of time that is conscription.
On the other hand there is a much higher chance the conscripts will mutiny come the revolution, as opposed to professional mercenaries.

[Queercommie Girl]

In a communist society it's a different matter. Like it or not, as long as there's bourgeois states out there, we will need a military to defend ourselves.


What about after the whole world becomes socialist? In fact, the idea in Trotskyism is that you can't have "socialism in one country" for long without degeneration anyway.



So I'd rather have a "conscripted" militia force with elected commanders than a professional army. Modern professional troops are basically life-time mercenaries who serve the ruling class because its in their interest to do so - just like cops.


But surely in a socialist state the nature of the "professional army" would be very different as well? Since under socialism workers of every other professions would have democratic self-rule, I don't see why the "military profession" would be the odd one out.

[Comrade_Stalin]

Do you support an obligatory conscription system (in *currently* capitalist states most of us live in)?

If you look at it for a minute , the only thing the capitalsit are doing with conscription, is putting weapons in the hand of the mass and our supporter. This is why capitalsit nations like the US, and other nations of NATO have a mercenary volunteer system, instead on conscription.

[aristos]

One thing with conscription though is that it often seems to be a sexist system.

Statements like this are really perplexing. You find conscription sexist (as per excluding women), yet at the same time wish everyone boycotts joining the army. Doesn't it then follow according to your ideology, that it's good women are barred from entering, thus are actually spared the moral anguish and as well reducing the potential size of the army in half?

[robbo203]

I support it as long as a need for a military exists and as long as capitalist imperialists are around. I believe all citizens of a progressive Socialist state should be trained in basic military tactics and jobs. Simply because if history has shown us anything, it is as long as Capitalist states exist they will attempt to force their will on those who are not prepared to fight back, and fight back effectively.

So yes for conscription in a Progressive, Socialist state.

No for a capitalist state.

A simple solution would be get an ICBM and nuclear warheads. And presto! You don't need an army anymore, just a guy who you can call to push a button. Deterrence for the win.

I would fight to the death to defend something I love, but would desert on day one if I was sent to be an aggressor on another nation.

A "socialist" state can only mean a state capitalist state. So "no" to that as well!

[Comrade_Stalin]

On the other hand there is a much higher chance the conscripts will mutiny come the revolution, as opposed to professional mercenaries.

Agreed, conscription of the mass, means that the Capitalist are only training the people who will kill them someday.

[Queercommie Girl]

Statements like this are really perplexing. You find conscription sexist (as per excluding women), yet at the same time wish everyone boycotts joining the army. Doesn't it then follow according to your ideology, that it's good women are barred from entering, thus are actually spared the moral anguish and as well reducing the potential size of the army in half?


Firstly, I didn't make an explicit remark about whether or not conscription is categorically "good" or "bad" in the contemporary world, since there are various arguments including strategic ones that are associated with this, with the exception that I don't think anything like conscription is required in a world that is completely communist.

Secondly, all I said was that in many cases the current conscription system is sexist, that's all. You could interpret it either as "it is sexist because women are not conscripted" or "it is sexist because men are forcefully conscripted into the army" (Many men would rather not waste several years of their lives joining the army and perhaps their actual lives too and it's sexist to force them to do this simply because they are men). This statement is independent of the consideration of whether or not conscription is good.

I see no perplexity here at all.

[aristos]

OK, sorry I jumped to conclusions (since most arguments of this nature do seem to come from the direction I was implying)

[Kamos]

See this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chile-call-57-t162890/index.html?p=2268617#post2268617) (and my input, in particular) if the answer you give to this question isn't a resounding NO!.

[hatzel]

I oppose any system which obligated people to support the military. This includes conscription, and the funding of the military through compulsary taxation. If the army is to exist, it ought to be manned by volunteers and funded by donations.

Though the former seems a realistic goal (even if people are still paid for their service, so it's not perfect), the latter is real pie-in-the-sky thinking...

[ВАЛТЕР]

How are we gonna have enough people to have kick-ass victory day parades worldwide then? huh?! Someone tell me that?! Because I don't wan to live in a world where we don't have victory day parades...

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00626/RedSquare_626883f.jpg

[DarkPast]

What about after the whole world becomes socialist? In fact, the idea in Trotskyism is that you can't have "socialism in one country" for long without degeneration anyway.

Well yeah, but you can't expect the entire world to simultaneously switch over to communism either. There has to be a transitory phase - and that was exactly what I was referring to. And you can bet that most members of the ruling class (those in still-capitalist countries and those who have fled the newly-created socialist states) will do their utmost to stop the revolution.

After capitalism has been eliminated... who knows? We shouldn't go too far in making "blueprints" for society after all - I guess the issue would be decided by vote.


But surely in a socialist state the nature of the "professional army" would be very different as well? Since under socialism workers of every other professions would have democratic self-rule, I don't see why the "military profession" would be the odd one out.Ok, fair point, I wasn't clear enough - I meant to say I'm against the idea of an exclusively professional army. The problem with the "military profession" is that it can easily evolve into a ruling class through holding a monopoly on violence. In other words, I think that it's a good idea - at least as long as there's reactionary forces about - to enable each person to have access to weapons and the proper training to use them. How exactly would gun ownership work (should guns be personal property or kept in communal storage until it is voted that the people need to be armed) is another matter.

On the other hand, I do think having some professionals would be necessary, as I don't see militia(wo)men filling roles such as fighter pilots, submarine crew etc. That is, as long as capitalism is around. After its gone, what would you use a professional army for, anyway? There'd be no private ownership of resources, or of the means of production, after all. (I believe that all wars - and I mean major military engagements, not brawls or blood feuds or whatever - are ultimately initiated by social elites, for economic reasons).

[eyeheartlenin]

Fear of, and opposition to, conscripting the sons of prosperous or middle-class families greatly strengthened the anti-war movement of the 1960's. Now that there is no conscription, the anti-war movement of this decade is greatly weakened.

That said, my position (for what it's worth) is: To hell with conscription! Not one man, not one penny, for imperialist war! It's involuntary servitude and should be vigorously opposed by leftists.

I have no idea what a truly liberated society, without compulsion, would look like, and, in addition, I do not care to speculate about conscription under socialism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Since I have no idea what a truly liberated society, without compulsion, would look like, I do not care to speculate about conscription under socialism.


Conscription implies some kind of compulsion, even if it's implicit.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Fuck no.

[Catma]

There's nothing wrong with asking the question, it's just that it should be obvious there would be an overwhelming response of "Fuck no!" And therefore, it seems like a question that doesn't need asking. But I guess everybody has to ask it once.

The only possible reason for supporting conscription might be something along the lines of "when conditions get worse, people rebel." But supporting steps backwards in order to go forwards makes little sense.

[Robocommie]

There are benefits to conscription. Countries with compulsory military service are less likely to have a self-selected force of jingoists and social conservatives who are the people most likely to volunteer for the military. But then, it doesn't much matter how progressive you personally are if your bourgeois government sends you to war.

I think there's pros and cons to it either way.

[Princess Luna]

Forcing people to do good often doesn't work. Also shouldn't communists be against state coercion of any kind?
Since under socialism all social services including collage education would be free, I don't see a problem with a system that encourages youth to give something back to the community.

[Le Socialiste]

Conscription forces an individual into service for something he/she may not personally support or consider morally justifiable. Regardless of any government's declared ideological line, conscription is just another way of binding the working-class to the needs and demands of the state. No, I do not support it, in any way, shape, or form.

[Geiseric]

We're not going to be conscripting for a bourgeois imperialist army, we're going to be organising a fighting force to defend and spread the revolution. This will need to be composed of the most class consious people who wish to fight. When the time comes for the revolution, I don't think that finding soldiers will be too hard. The Red Army was filled with Czarist deserters and mutineers. The mentality the revolutionary army needs is that they're fighting for complete social justice around the world, not that they're fighting for their idea of a "nation". People voulanteer for wars they don't even support, so I don't see a reason why the same people wouldn't voulanteer for a war they actually do support. But we won't be able to do shit if the Government is shooting at us with drones. That very reason is why we need a disciplined, organised army that operates like any other office of government. That army will probably be composed of much of what we Leninists/Trotskyists see as the "vanguard." however, a revolution has a way of making people romanticists. Some people will have no other option to join if they are stuck between jail in a bourgeois system or unemployment.

We might not even need an army though. Especially in 1st world countries, a general strike has a better chance of winning a revolution than an army campaign which Maoists love to do.

[Yazman]

Just a note: If you don't like the topic or the subject, you don't need to make a post. It's not breaking any rules and it's in the right board. Discussion over whether it's appropriate or not should end immediately as it's not your duty to do the moderation around here.

[not your usual suspect]

This is the sort of stupid thread that makes me never want to come back to this website ever again. How could any leftist support conscription in capitalism? How can anyone supportive of human freedom ever support conscription ever?

[S.Artesian]

Of course not. Why would anyone?

Because it's the best way to introduce class struggle into the military. Better than having a force of mercenaries; better than having a force of "volunteers" separate from the general population.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There's Trotsky's Military Transitional Program. Under the right circumstances it can be good that the working class receive military training.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1940/mpa1.htm

An interesting concept which can be open to huge amount of debate.

[X5N]

I tend to think conscription, whether civil or military, is a form of forced labor, which is, of course, bad.

[Psy]

A "socialist" state can only mean a state capitalist state. So "no" to that as well!
Not necessarily, there is no reason why a massive workers state can't cut itself off from global trade thus global capitalism and produce for utility.

[∞]

Conscription is wrong in any society.

[Le Socialiste]

Didn't Trotsky give the go-ahead to take conscript's families hostage in order to ensure the soldier's loyalty during the Civil War?

[Grenzer]

Conscription as enforced in capitalist countries today is terrible, but I think that in a socialist state at least, it is excusable under extenuating circumstances.

I'd also agree that conscription, as it exists in countries today, is sexist. From what I understand there have been some countries that will conscript women, but use them only in support roles.

[rundontwalk]

I'm opposed to conscription no matter if it's for socialism or not. That's a fucking dangerous idea. Even under socialism you're going to have demagogues who would gladly use a ready supply of soldiers to go to war for no reason.

[∞]

"CONSCRIPSHUN IN CAPITALISM IS BAAAD."

"BUT IN SOCIALISM ES GOOD CUZ EVERYTHING PERFECT AND WORKERS"

You guys have no idea how stupid you sound right now.

[Psy]

"CONSCRIPSHUN IN CAPITALISM IS BAAAD."

"BUT IN SOCIALISM ES GOOD CUZ EVERYTHING PERFECT AND WORKERS"

You guys have no idea how stupid you sound right now.

In a workers state you could justify it in theory over the consequences of losing a revolutionary war (the rise of fascism), thus the ends would justify any means (that actually work) for the revolution's survival.

Take Augusto Pinochet's coup, if a revolutionary army existed to repel the coup yet the US responded with a full scale military invasion of Chile, then it would be perfectly logical for the revolutionary army to sure up its numbers through conscription as the revolution failing at that point could be much worse then the revolutionary army forcing workers of Chile into military service to defend the revolution.

[Искра]

I oppose conscription in any form. Conscription in “socialist” – state capitalist, regime is same as in capitalist. Forced discipline in army, brainwashing cult of martyrs and honour can pretty much fucked up people’s minds. In state capitalist regimes conscription was a form of ideological indoctrination as it is in capitalist regimes.

Also, you can end up in pretty fucked up situations, like Albanian, Croatian, Slovenian or Bosnian conscripts in Yugoslav National Army in 90’s who were send as cannon meat on Vukovar. Only idiots are dreaming of mighty “socialist army” as something good, positive or heroic. When you experience a war – that will break all your illusions. I was fucking pup in 90’s, but still I know the “feeling” – if you get me.

Regarding capitalist society, most of the western states do not have conscripts but only professional army. Even trough, many people go to professional army because they have no other solutions in life. Take an USA army for example.

[∞]

A conscripted army would not have been able to fight a CIA-backed coupe carried by a general.

[S.Artesian]

A conscripted army would not have been able to fight a CIA-backed coupe carried by a general.


Really? The conscript army in Russia was able defend Petrograd during 1917 and oppose the various plans of the ProvGov and officers to roll back the revolution.

It's very clear why the bourgeois order has moved away from conscription-- after WW2 and the reluctance of soldiers to restore the colonial regimes in Asia; after Vietnam given the breakdown in discipline, the hostility towards officers.

Conscription is essential to fighting, and winning, a civil war, and if anyone thinks power will be taken, and held, without a civil war, well........I wish he or she well, but it's not going to happen that way.

[Искра]

Conscription is essential to defend the state, workers militas to defend the revolution.

[∞]

That is a successful to Leninist maybe. But I was never against overthrowing the provgov all at once. Its either carried out willfully by the people or isn't a revolution.

[Psy]

A conscripted army would not have been able to fight a CIA-backed coupe carried by a general.
Who said anything about a 100% conscripted army? Conscription frees up volunteer forces from rear line duties for example sentry duty, logistics and damage control from attacks.

For example why is morally wrong for a workers state at war to draft all doctors and deploy them to treat wounded through the command structure of the revolutionary army?

[∞]

If they're risking their lives, yes.

[Psy]

If they're risking their lives, yes.
I asked why not if. I don't see it as a moral wrong as the needs of the many would outweigh their individual rights.

[danyboy27]

Forcing an individual to undergoe a military training and become a soldier either for a state or a community of people strike me has extremely wrong and fucked up in so many way.

People who want to defend a community of some sort should be free to do so and never have any strings attached to their contributions.

Even the way volunteer army work these day is messed up, you have to fill a contract forcing you to stay in the army for x amount of time.

[ВАЛТЕР]

The people need to be trained and well versed in basic military strategies and technologies.

In times of war, fighting troops are needed on the front lines, many times without the benefit of proper training.
Keeping the population trained and capable of fighting is necessary. No other way to do this but conscription. In order to defend the workers state the front lines need to be reenforced in times of war. Anybody avoiding a fight to chase off an aggressor is counterrevolutionary and a traitor to the people of the workers state.

[Искра]

War can only happen between capitalist/imperialist countries.

[rundontwalk]

War can only happen between capitalist/imperialist countries.
Uh, no.

See: history of humanity for first few hundred thousand years, and tribal warfare that still occurs to this day, among other things.

[X5N]

Regarding conscription being sexist, it's not just sexist towards women, at least with the U.S. Selective Service. If you happen to have been born with a penis, you can be denied things like financial aid unless you sign up. At least that's what the letter from the feds said.

And, I don't get why conscription is okay in socialism but not capitalism. Isn't it still forced labor, either way?

[∞]

I asked why not if. I don't see it as a moral wrong as the needs of the many would outweigh their individual rights.

This is whats wrong with leftism today. The majority rights only exist if they effect the entire majority which is why we should have democratic means of production. The majority however, cannot take away rights of people whos actions don't directly affect the majority.

If people will argue from that perspective then Prop 8 (California law that bans homosexual marriage) is justified. No society should have system where two wolves and a sheep decide what to have for dinner.

EDIT: And if I were to ever become a doctor, I'd never join an army, even as a medic. Call it what you want, but I refuse to risk my life on someone else's command.

[Psy]

This is whats wrong with leftism today. The majority rights only exist if they effect the entire majority which is why we should have democratic means of production. The majority however, cannot take away rights of people whos actions don't directly affect the majority.

If people will argue from that perspective then Prop 8 (California law that bans homosexual marriage) is justified. No society should have system where two wolves and a sheep decide what to have for dinner.

Yet in war the entire population is effected, and the outcome of the war will effect no only the population there but the entire population of Earth. For example imagine how differently it would be if the leftists didn't lose in Germany in the 1920's and was able to secure the German state.

What would it would be worth for such a decisive victory for the global proletariat? What would it be worth to defend it if WWII happened anyway with a communist Germany against the imperialist world.

[∞]

I am one person. I do what I as a person want to do.

[Psy]

I am one person. I do what I as a person want to do.
Yet you are only one person, while the workers state is focused on dealing with the needs of the workers society.

[∞]

If the workers are telling me when I should and shouldn't risk my life for their sake, then fuck them.

I can only accept socialism as long as I can have liberty.

[Zav]

I'm an Anarchist. Need I really further spell out my opinion on this matter?

In my current country there is thankfully no forced conscription. When I lived in the U.S., its government never came after me about refusing to sign up for the draft, but if it did, I would have given their representatives a good lecture on the nature of the State, and refused on the grounds of not recognizing its authority. If they pushed me further, I would have pointed out that I have no gender, and as the U.S. government does not officially note the difference between sex and gender, I am not male, ergo I could not be forced to register. If they came with guns, I'd take the fine and prison term. That would have been an excellent opportunity for agitation.

[∞]

Yet you are only one person, while the workers state is focused on dealing with the needs of the workers society.

Socialism is a choice, not an obligation.

[Искра]

Uh, no.

See: history of humanity for first few hundred thousand years, and tribal warfare that still occurs to this day, among other things.
I don't believe that there was capitalism in stone age, smartass.

Therfore, my comment was related to present situation.

[Psy]

If the workers are telling me when I should and shouldn't risk my life for their sake, then fuck them.

I can only accept socialism as long as I can have liberty.
Yet it is not for their sake it is for societies sake which you are part of. If you are refusing to risk you life why should the workers state give you any access to what is being produced? If the revolutionary army fails you are going to have noose around your neck as the imperialist occupation force will still see you as a leftist rebel.

Failure of world revolution is not an acceptable outcome thus when world revolution comes the revolutionary army must defend the revolution by any means, what ever steeps are necessary to prevent the imperialists from crushing the revolutionary militarily has to be taken.

[∞]

Yet it is not for their sake it is for societies sake which you are part of. If you are refusing to risk you life why should the workers state give you any access to what is being produced? If the revolutionary army fails you are going to have noose around your neck as the imperialist occupation force will still see you as a leftist rebel.

Fuck society. I refuse to risk my life for anybody. I can help the workers through other ways but I will not put myself in danger. If there is revolutionary army warring against imperialism I wouldn't be there in the first place. But if I was there and theres a war going on, I would leave.


Failure of world revolution is not an acceptable outcome thus when world revolution comes the revolutionary army must defend the revolution by any means, what ever steeps are necessary to prevent the imperialists from crushing the revolutionary militarily has to be taken.

Its not a revolution if I am being told I have to die for someone.

[Le Rouge]

How are we gonna have enough people to have kick-ass victory day parades worldwide then? huh?! Someone tell me that?! Because I don't wan to live in a world where we don't have victory day parades...

http://www.thehindu.com/multimedia/dynamic/00626/RedSquare_626883f.jpg

How about a revolution victory parade? We don't need war and conscription to make parade.

[Psy]

Fuck society. I refuse to risk my life for anybody. I can help the workers through other ways but I will not put myself in danger. If there is revolutionary army warring against imperialism I wouldn't be there in the first place. But if I was there and theres a war going on, I would leave.

And what if you can't leave? What if the imperialists prevent getting out of the workers state due to their hostile army also being hostile towards unarmed civilians?

What if the revolutionary army was the only security in the region for leftists? What if the entire world is engulfed in a revolutionary world war and where you go on Earth there is revolutionary armies fighting imperialist armies? What if the entire world become polarized into communists and fascists and both sides conscript (meaning you can either be drafted for the fascists or for the communists)?






Its not a revolution if I am being told I have to die for someone.
Read up on the definition of revolution, it is a change in organizational structures meaning the Bolsheviks were the head of a revolution by definition.

[∞]

And what if you can't leave? What if the imperialists prevent getting out of the workers state due to their hostile army also being hostile towards unarmed civilians?

What if the revolutionary army was the only security in the region for leftists? What if the entire world is engulfed in a revolutionary world war and where you go on Earth there is revolutionary armies fighting imperialist armies? What if the entire world become polarized into communists and fascists and both sides conscript (meaning you can either be drafted for the fascists or for the communists)?

In that situation you don't have to tell me to fight, it'd be a matter of self-defense. Rendering conscription unnecessary.




Read up on the definition of revolution, it is a change in organizational structures meaning the Bolsheviks were the head of a revolution by definition.

rev·o·lu·tion   [rev-uh-loo-shuhn]
noun

an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.

[∞]

In conclusion, in situations were the working class are in direct danger, they would fight voluntarily.

Whether they win or not is a matter of material circumstances.

[X5N]

In conclusion, in situations were the working class are in direct danger, they would fight voluntarily.

Whether they win or not is a matter of material circumstances.

Indeed.

If a state, community, or some other political entity truly has the support of the population, then surely a sizable number of people would come to it's defense if it -- and thus the lives and interests of the people living within it -- truly were in danger.

This justification, that conscription is okay within socialism, reminds me of the idea among a lot of usually-capitalist progressives, that conscription is "okay" in a democracy, but not in a dictatorship. I really do not see why that it is so.

How is it more justified to be forced into labor when it's your supposed comrade rather than capitalist elite, or when it's by the supposed will of the people rather than by the will of a few? Aside from how in most cases democracy is often rule by a few, though through the supposed consent of the people.

[GatesofLenin]

Only under extreme situations. If a system responds violently to any mass protest, I say yes.

[Psy]

In that situation you don't have to tell me to fight, it'd be a matter of self-defense. Rendering conscription unnecessary.

The problem is if some skilled petite-bourgeoisie have sympathy to the bourgeoisie invasion i.e doctors thus the state makes the point moot by forcing them to work for the revolutionary army regardless if they are counter-revolutionary or not.

[Psy]

How is it more justified to be forced into labor when it's your supposed comrade rather than capitalist elite, or when it's by the supposed will of the people rather than by the will of a few? Aside from how in most cases democracy is often rule by a few, though through the supposed consent of the people.

It is justified by the ends, for example if a conscript revolutionary army was able to seize the Weimar Republic leading to Stalinsim in the USSR to halt due to a communist Germany taking the lead of the world communist movement, then could you say "it is all well and good that communism now has a good foothold yet it was done on the back of forced military service thus we'd be better off with Stalin and Hitler"

[danyboy27]

The people need to be trained and well versed in basic military strategies and technologies.
.
People dont need to learn how to kill other people. people need food, shelter,education. learning how to kill is not necessary.




In times of war, fighting troops are needed on the front lines, many times without the benefit of proper training.
Keeping the population trained and capable of fighting is necessary. No other way to do this but conscription. In order to defend the workers state the front lines need to be reenforced in times of war. .

in time of war, communities stick together and on their own free will will act upon the threat. you dont need conscription.


. Anybody avoiding a fight to chase off an aggressor is counterrevolutionary and a traitor to the people of the workers state.

yea fuck those who are willing to give a non violent contribution to the war effort,fuck these peoples

[thefinalmarch]

shame on everyone who voted 'yes'

[Psy]

People dont need to learn how to kill other people. people need food, shelter,education. learning how to kill is not necessary.

They will need to learn how to be effective in war unless we are going to resort to attrition warfare where we don't care about the lives of those fighting for the revolution by ignoring tactics and just throwing more human bodies at the enemy then they can kill fast enough to stop being over run.



in time of war, communities stick together and on their own free will will act upon the threat. you dont need conscription.

And how will they gain the skills needed to in times if they were not forced to learn before they were needed? You expect workers fresh out of the factories to be any good against professional capitalist armies that were forced to train for war?

Also what about NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) threats? Do you think the capitalist armies will respect rules of war against a world revolution when they don't respect such rules now? How are revolutionary armies suppose to survive NBC attacks if they are not forced to perform NBC drills? What about the task of making bomb shelters also fallout shelters? Before the capitalists use NBC weapons how will the modifications be made if the masses don't believe the capitalists will use them against cities yet the revolutionary army doesn't want to take that chance and wants fallout shelters so they can reduce casualties if the capitalists targets cities with NBC weapons.

[Kamos]

They will need to learn how to be effective in war

I don't have to learn anything.


And how will they gain the skills needed to in times if they were not forced to learn before they were needed? You expect workers fresh out of the factories to be any good against professional capitalist armies that were forced to train for war?

Also what about NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) threats? Do you think the capitalist armies will respect rules of war against a world revolution when they don't respect such rules now? How are revolutionary armies suppose to survive NBC attacks if they are not forced to perform NBC drills? What about the task of making bomb shelters also fallout shelters? Before the capitalists use NBC weapons how will the modifications be made if the masses don't believe the capitalists will use them against cities yet the revolutionary army doesn't want to take that chance and wants fallout shelters so they can reduce casualties if the capitalists targets cities with NBC weapons.

Blah blah. We'll have enough volunteers to do all this and more.

[S.Artesian]

I don't know what world those who denounce conscription are living in, but it sure isn't the real world of class struggle, of modern capitalism where professional armies, outsourced mercenary forces are utilized to prevent the penetration of class into the organization of the military.

In times of war, "communities stick to together"? And what does that mean? A community sticking together without firepower; without the ability to obtain and utilize firepower will be shredded by a professional mercenary force with firepower.

There is no shame in voting "yes." Simply a comprehension of what is necessary to overthrow capitalism.

[Psy]

I don't have to learn anything.

Poor skills of troops forces a military forces to have monolithic command structures centralizing command choices higher up due to a lack of skills of those on the ground. Not only is this a inefficient way to run a military yet it make the military even more undemocratic as there can be no democracy as the military can't trust the decision making ability of the masses within in as the military forces for the most part is unprofessional due to lack of training.



Blah blah. We'll have enough volunteers to do all this and more.
The problem is when volunteers volunteer, the USSR showed that the idea of peaceful coexistence between revolution and the capitalists world is possible and this is a very dangerous idea for people to have.

The vanguard of the revolution if logical will be warning the masses that just because they captured the government doesn't mean it over and the revolution is really just getting started at that point as now the revolution has to deal with the state. I.E just because the left becomes the US government doesn't mean the US state will stop attacking the left. The calm before the inevitable shit storm has to be used to prepare for the bourgeois states coming down hard not only the revolution and workers.

Remember a half-revolution only makes dead revolutionaries, so the vanguard has to overrule the masses when their action will lead to only a half-revolution.

[khad]

I don't know what world those who denounce conscription are living in, but it sure isn't the real world of class struggle, of modern capitalism where professional armies, outsourced mercenary forces are utilized to prevent the penetration of class into the organization of the military.

In times of war, "communities stick to together"? And what does that mean? A community sticking together without firepower; without the ability to obtain and utilize firepower will be shredded by a professional mercenary force with firepower.

There is no shame in voting "yes." Simply a comprehension of what is necessary to overthrow capitalism.

An interesting passage I came upon:


Patriotic manifest destiny does not serve the soldier well. Troops can only survive if they adopt the mentality of a professional Gambler: never risk more than you can afford to lose; the Game will go on forever. Soldiers face an indifferent World; the acquisition of a medal of valor remains a cold, think blanket in the grave. Survival in Combat insists on intelligent assessment of options, not attempts to implement political dogma.

Conscription, or the process of it, instills a proper attitude in a Soldier. He knows the Process to be unfair, no matter how fair it is touted to be; others get to stay home and go about their daily occupations, while he has to endure hardship and low pay with possible physical threat to himself. This develops a paranoia in the Individual, knowing his society and government could face his demise or injury. He grasps real doubts about Command and Authority; knowing he must submit to their demands, but suspicious of those demands. He realizes Command will use him to gain their own desires, no matter the threat to his own welfare. His only allies are those like himself, who face the same danger.

This engendered paranoia works very well for the Soldier, inducing him to study the activities and behavior of his officers. Military Command must understand the Bell Curve applies to Officers; half being substandard, and relatively unqualified for Command. Paranoia in the Ranks saves many lives, with individual Unit members turning to simple survival practices when faced with poor officers.

[Kamos]

Poor skills of troops forces a military forces to have monolithic command structures centralizing command choices higher up due to a lack of skills of those on the ground. Not only is this a inefficient way to run a military yet it make the military even more undemocratic as there can be no democracy as the military can't trust the decision making ability of the masses within in as the military forces for the most part is unprofessional due to lack of training.

So the idea of conscription, being forced to risk your life, is more democratic? "Minor" contradiction here.


The problem is when volunteers volunteer, the USSR showed that the idea of peaceful coexistence between revolution and the capitalists world is possible and this is a very dangerous idea for people to have.

The vanguard of the revolution if logical will be warning the masses that just because they captured the government doesn't mean it over and the revolution is really just getting started at that point as now the revolution has to deal with the state. I.E just because the left becomes the US government doesn't mean the US state will stop attacking the left. The calm before the inevitable shit storm has to be used to prepare for the bourgeois states coming down hard not only the revolution and workers.

Remember a half-revolution only makes dead revolutionaries, so the vanguard has to overrule the masses when their action will lead to only a half-revolution.

Class war is not the same as a conventional war. It is not fought on open battlefields with guns, and in fact, isn't all about murder either. A real revolution (not a half-revolution) has to be executed in such a way that the war is over after the initial battle. History has proven that if socialism only spreads to a small part of the world (comparatively, and especially considering economic power), the capitalists win through a war of attrition.

[enoon]

I oppose conscription because conscription is slavery.

[Psy]

So the idea of conscription, being forced to risk your life, is more democratic? "Minor" contradiction here.

It allows decision making to be make at a lower level without sacrificing the effectiveness of the armed force through forced training.



Class war is not the same as a conventional war. It is not fought on open battlefields with guns, and in fact, isn't all about murder either. A real revolution (not a half-revolution) has to be executed in such a way that the war is over after the initial battle. History has proven that if socialism only spreads to a small part of the world (comparatively, and especially considering economic power), the capitalists win through a war of attrition.
The problem is bourgeois states react to successful revolutions with armed force. Also capitalists don't try to win wars through attrition but through control of strategic locations.

[∞]

The problem is if some skilled petite-bourgeoisie have sympathy to the bourgeoisie invasion i.e doctors thus the state makes the point moot by forcing them to work for the revolutionary army regardless if they are counter-revolutionary or not.

Conscription is counter-revolutionary and against democracy. If there is an armed struggle I sure as hell would hope it'd be against people like you.

[tir1944]

^^And you're basing these conclusions on what exactly?

[Magón]

Forcing someone through some sort of conscription, to pick up a gun and start killing people is idiotic and worthless, and is counter-revolutionary. If people feel strongly enough about an issue that calls for the picking up of a weapon, then they'll do so themselves. Not everyone, just because they're a certain age/gender, should be forced into some made-up raffle and then shipped off to some land for some fucked reason.

[danyboy27]

An interesting passage I came upon:

and those unwilling to put their asses on the lines for the regime will be hunted down and killed in the wood while fleeing, the other who resigned themselves to their fate will become individuals broken beyond repair sinking into alchoolism and other sort of addiction to calm down their PTSD.

I dont think paranoia is really something that is good for an human being Khad.

has capitalism demonstrated to us during all those years; what is efficient for a buisness or the state isnt necessarly good for the human being within these structutres.

[tir1944]

And what if it's some "not-fucked" reason we're talking about?

[Magón]

And what if it's some "not-fucked" reason we're talking about?

Like?

[tir1944]

Like?
I don't know...if a neighboring socialist country is under attack?
BTW you were the one who was supposed to have a similar argument.Otherwise your point doesn't stand,unless you consider pretty much everything as "fucked".Right?:confused:

[∞]

When you gather men upon a cause you believe and they don't want to fight/
You force them to ranks and files, a sinister form of might/
They shout class struggle and brandish crimson flags in their people's name/
Freedom and liberty becomes something taken in vain/

I am not your property my body and mind are mine/
I don't worship martyrs if you do thats fine/
Leave me out your bloody wars, I'm not your little whore, crawl out my asshole...Fuck Off..Fuck Off...

Conscription is the exploitation of the proletariat and free individuals. Their fighting skills are being used against for without their consent to achieve a political end.


Communism/Socialism=freedom and equality for the working class
Conscription=hoarding the working class into into war=exploitation, "war slavery"

The conscription theorem:

Communism=Free society for man
communism(Practicality constant(value of .44))+ conscription<Communism

Hence, lives lost and communism not actually realized. Fuck your cause, if I am forced, I will retort.

[Magón]

I don't know...if a neighboring socialist country is under attack?
BTW you were the one who was supposed to have a similar argument.Otherwise your point doesn't stand,unless you consider pretty much everything as "fucked".Right?:confused:

Voluntarily fighting for a cause (which I do no oppose), and being conscripted (which I oppose to the max), are two different things. If I thought that the socialist country that was under attack, could use my help, then I might just pick up a gun and help out (under my own reasoning); or I might figure out a way to help that didn't involve getting shot up on some battlefield.

Most reasons nowadays to have conscription, are fucked no matter how you look at them, and no Revolutionary Leftist should think to suggest it's a good idea in todays world, and are probably counter-revolutionary in more ways than one if they're really serious about it. Having a voluntary force is much better, than having a bunch of people who's number was pulled from some raffle because they're of a certain age/gender, not really wanting to go and fight for the cause that they're being forced to fight for.

[tir1944]

Voluntarily fighting for a cause (which I do no oppose), and being conscripted (which I oppose to the max), are two different things.
Indeed,no one ever questioned this.Right?



If I thought that the socialist country that was under attack, could use my help, then I might just pick up a gun and help out (under my own reasoning); or I might figure out a way to help that didn't involve getting shot up on some battlefield.
Yes,but,as you might assume,not everyone reasons in the same way as you do...

[Magón]

Indeed,no one ever questioned this.Right?

I think those who voted "Yes" on the poll, did.


Yes,but,as you might assume,not everyone reasons in the same way as you do...

Plenty of people have stated on here, they're against Conscription, the poll above shows it. I can't speak for anyone else's reasoning, only my own, so that's what I've been doing, is speaking from my own reasoning on conscription. I think it's bullshit, and if anyone came up to me saying, "you're such and such age, and gender, come with me we're giving you a rifle to go kill such and such," I'd probably flip my shit and tell them to fuck off. But if I heard about a conflict I felt strong enough about, to help a side, then I might just go over and help. I mean, that's what the International Brigades in Spain were all about, they weren't conscripted from their countries, they were volunteers.

[tir1944]

I mean, that's what the International Brigades in Spain were all about, they weren't conscripted from their countries, they were volunteers. Yes,but how did that war end?
Had,on the other hand,the USSR for example mobilized half a million people...

[danyboy27]

Yes,but how did that war end?
Had,on the other hand,the USSR for example mobilized half a million people...

they had to mobilize all those folks by force beccause the people didnt liked their governement, its hardly an argument in favor of conscription.

[Magón]

Yes,but how did that war end?
Had,on the other hand,the USSR for example mobilized half a million people...

Shoulda, coulda, woulda, but didn't. There were a lot more problems going on in Spain, than being able to point the finger at the International Brigades being of volunteers, not conscripted soldiers. So saying whether the USSR mobilized it's own army, is a pointless retort, and adds nothing to the discussion.

[danyboy27]

Also, nationalist spain had for more men,allies and equipement at their disposal than republican spain, even with full blown conscription they would have been crushed by the nationalist anyway

[S.Artesian]

An interesting passage I came upon:

OR


The Grunt's Prayer, circa 1969:

Dear Lord,
Protect us from our officers
And we'll figure out the rest.

[Psy]

Voluntarily fighting for a cause (which I do no oppose), and being conscripted (which I oppose to the max), are two different things. If I thought that the socialist country that was under attack, could use my help, then I might just pick up a gun and help out (under my own reasoning); or I might figure out a way to help that didn't involve getting shot up on some battlefield.

Most reasons nowadays to have conscription, are fucked no matter how you look at them, and no Revolutionary Leftist should think to suggest it's a good idea in todays world, and are probably counter-revolutionary in more ways than one if they're really serious about it. Having a voluntary force is much better, than having a bunch of people who's number was pulled from some raffle because they're of a certain age/gender, not really wanting to go and fight for the cause that they're being forced to fight for.

The reasons from conscription in a workers state is:

a) Forced training during the calm before the storm. The masses still might have naive notion that the bourgeois armed forces will just accept the victory of the revolution overthrowing bourgeoisie governments around the world. A conscription at this point is to have the masses learn skills they will need when the reaction to the world revolution escalates to a world war.

b) Balance the energetic glory hounds that actually volunteer with the conscripts just want to get through their tour of duty in one piece.

c) Force people to utilize their skills, i.e immigrant doctors that don't consider themself a doctor because the ruling class says so, with drafts the revolutionary army will tell them they are doctors and ship them off to use their skills in the war effort.

e) Forced deployment, lets be real if the ruling class uses nbc weapons against a militant city most people would want to leave not rush in to provide medical assistance to the survivors when the entire city is still highly contaminated and any puncture in their protective suits will mean they will get contaminated.

f) It would make abandoning cities easier, it would not be volunteers telling people they have abandon a city but also conscripts they just want the war to come to a quick end. So when conscripts of a revolutionary army tells your home city is lost and you have to be evacuated, you'd tend to believe them far more then a volunteer solider. As you they are workers just like you, just forced to defend the workers by the workers state, they are not bossing you around because it was career choice but because they are trying to survive conscription.

[Psy]

Also, nationalist spain had for more men,allies and equipement at their disposal than republican spain, even with full blown conscription they would have been crushed by the nationalist anyway
Why? The conscripted red army pulled victory from defeat against much worse odds.

[S.Artesian]

Why? The conscripted red army pulled victory from defeat against much worse odds.


Not true. Soviet ability to supply and resupply, build and field whole new armies greatly exceeded that of Germany.

Once the Soviets were able to absorb the lessons of the first year, develop and train the ranks and officers, bring their advantages in manpower and production to bear, the German military simply could not withstand the hammer blows of the Red Army, the overwhelming amounts of massed artillery, armor, and troops the Soviet could launch against it.

[Psy]

Not true. Soviet ability to supply and resupply, build and field whole new armies greatly exceeded that of Germany.

Once the Soviets were able to absorb the lessons of the first year, develop and train the ranks and officers, bring their advantages in manpower and production to bear, the German military simply could not withstand the hammer blows of the Red Army, the overwhelming amounts of massed artillery, armor, and troops the Soviet could launch against it.
I was talking about the civil-war

[S.Artesian]

I was talking about the civil-war

OK.

To those who regard conscription as the worst of all possible worlds......


I understand the antipathy to conscription under capitalist rule, and I understand the reluctance to embrace military organization under the best of circumstances, but historically, conscript armies are more permeable to class struggle, and conscription forces the entire society to confront what capital has wrought.

In a revolutionary society.... well, look, have the bourgeoisie refrained from invasion, occupation, assault in order to impose their policies; preserve their rule; prop up their agents?

How do you propose to organize and focus a response to such military adventures? Voluntarism? Well, I wish we could count on everyone being of such class consciousness that conscription would be pointless, but that's not how this world functions-- if everybody were at that level of consciousness, or close to that level of consciousness, there wouldn't be any need for organizations like soviets, or factory committees, or neighborhood councils-- the revolution would already have been won.

[∞]

Fuck that, I prefer living. I guess I'm not a true communist. :shrugs: IDGAF.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Only when at war with Nazis.
My thoughts exactly.

[khad]

When you gather men upon a cause you believe and they don't want to fight/
You force them to ranks and files, a sinister form of might/
They shout class struggle and brandish crimson flags in their people's name/
Freedom and liberty becomes something taken in vain/

I am not your property my body and mind are mine/
I don't worship martyrs if you do thats fine/
Leave me out your bloody wars, I'm not your little whore, crawl out my asshole...Fuck Off..Fuck Off...

Conscription is the exploitation of the proletariat and free individuals. Their fighting skills are being used against for without their consent to achieve a political end.


Communism/Socialism=freedom and equality for the working class
Conscription=hoarding the working class into into war=exploitation, "war slavery"

The conscription theorem:

Communism=Free society for man
communism(Practicality constant(value of .44))+ conscription<Communism

Hence, lives lost and communism not actually realized. Fuck your cause, if I am forced, I will retort.


Fuck society. I refuse to risk my life for anybody. I can help the workers through other ways but I will not put myself in danger. If there is revolutionary army warring against imperialism I wouldn't be there in the first place. But if I was there and theres a war going on, I would leave.

Stop bending over backwards trying to find a theoretical justification for your position. You're just afraid to fight, and you're not the only one in this thread on that boat.

Nothing to be ashamed of, but let's stop lying to ourselves.

[∞]

I wasn't lying. I am afraid to fight. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. But there is some theoretical implications I can derive from that personal feeling.

[S.Artesian]

Everybody's afraid to fight, or should be. You can get killed doing this. Only psychotics aren't afraid. And they get other people killed.

That's what training is for-- so you can do what needs to be done while afraid.

[X5N]

Stop bending over backwards trying to find a theoretical justification for your position. You're just afraid to fight, and you're not the only one in this thread on that boat.

Nothing to be ashamed of, but let's stop lying to ourselves.

While I'm not a good example, not everyone who vehemently opposes conscription is afraid to fight. And not everyone who supports conscription is not afraid to fight -- see: most politicians who support conscription.

[Psy]

Everybody's afraid to fight, or should be. You can get killed doing this. Only psychotics aren't afraid. And they get other people killed.

That's what training is for-- so you can do what needs to be done while afraid.
Well that is a bit over oversimplification as you have propaganda projecting military service as being filled with glory, nobility and honor. A revolutionary army with healthy class consciousness can't morally do this and has to come clean with its troops about the reality of military service. This of course would make recruiting a huge problem for a revolutionary army that is honest with both its troops and the public especially in a workers state were people don't have to join the revolutionary army to avoid unemployment. I can see there still being volunteer brigades within a revolutionary army yet once you strip away all the military jingoism the average grunt in a revolutionary army would be probably be a conscript.

[∞]

I don't wanna fight, leave me alone. Mind your own fucking business.

[∞]

I'm a lover not a fighter.

[Magón]

The reasons from conscription in a workers state is:

a) Forced training during the calm before the storm. The masses still might have naive notion that the bourgeois armed forces will just accept the victory of the revolution overthrowing bourgeoisie governments around the world. A conscription at this point is to have the masses learn skills they will need when the reaction to the world revolution escalates to a world war.

b) Balance the energetic glory hounds that actually volunteer with the conscripts just want to get through their tour of duty in one piece.

c) Force people to utilize their skills, i.e immigrant doctors that don't consider themself a doctor because the ruling class says so, with drafts the revolutionary army will tell them they are doctors and ship them off to use their skills in the war effort.

e) Forced deployment, lets be real if the ruling class uses nbc weapons against a militant city most people would want to leave not rush in to provide medical assistance to the survivors when the entire city is still highly contaminated and any puncture in their protective suits will mean they will get contaminated.

f) It would make abandoning cities easier, it would not be volunteers telling people they have abandon a city but also conscripts they just want the war to come to a quick end. So when conscripts of a revolutionary army tells your home city is lost and you have to be evacuated, you'd tend to believe them far more then a volunteer solider. As you they are workers just like you, just forced to defend the workers by the workers state, they are not bossing you around because it was career choice but because they are trying to survive conscription.

I don't give a fuck about your reasoning for wanting a Worker's State with conscription, it's bullshit. Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do, worker's state or not, because it's their ass on the line in the battlefield, not your own. There are more ways than one to winning a war, than forcing people who could be utilized elsewhere, and handing them a rifle or something. I'm no pacifist, or think revolution can come through pacifist thinking/actions, but forcing someone into something so dangerous is bullshit plain and simple.

I'd much rather trust a volunteer, than someone who was forced into a position they didn't want, because it shows they actually want to be there, rather than just sitting there not really caring because they're forced to do something they're not too keen on doing very well, and are probably looking for a way out of the situation themselves, seeing as they're not keen on being there and a supposed NBC attack is coming or has already struck.

[Psy]

I don't wanna fight, leave me alone. Mind your own fucking business.
Armies require more then just fighters, they require: doctors, engineers, technicians, mechanics and a logistical network that a army does want see fighting and are only armed just encase. So in a revolutionary army without conscription how will get for example truck drivers to drive the supply trucks in theaters of operations.

[rundontwalk]

Armies require more then just fighters, they require: doctors, engineers, technicians, mechanics and a logistical network that a army does want see fighting and are only armed just encase. So in a revolutionary army without conscription how will get for example truck drivers to drive the supply trucks in theaters of operations.
Truck drivers are still going to get their asses blown up somewhat often.

[Psy]

I don't give a fuck about your reasoning for wanting a Worker's State with conscription, it's bullshit. Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do, worker's state or not, because it's their ass on the line in the battlefield, not your own. There are more ways than one to winning a war, than forcing people who could be utilized elsewhere, and handing them a rifle or something. I'm no pacifist, or think revolution can come through pacifist thinking/actions, but forcing someone into something so dangerous is bullshit plain and simple.

The fact they can be utilized elsewhere is the point of conscription, else the workers state would have to go about it they other way and create very high unemployment so people only have the option to join the revolutionary army for survival. At least conscription is being honest by not hiding the fact they are being forced into service by the state they are not providing them a false choice through using central planning to coerce people into volunteering for military service.




I'd much rather trust a volunteer, than someone who was forced into a position they didn't want, because it shows they actually want to be there, rather than just sitting there not really caring because they're forced to do something they're not too keen on doing very well, and are probably looking for a way out of the situation themselves, seeing as they're not keen on being there and a supposed NBC attack is coming or has already struck.
The problem is the kind of person that likes to be in a war zone tends to mentally unbalanced meaning a 100% volunteer army would be a army bogged down with soldiers too mentally ill for duty. These are the mentally ill US troops we see open fire on people giving medical attention to the injured.

This is why it is more logical to trust the conscript, they didn't sign up to kill they are their against their free-will and thus the conscripts collective interest is for the need for conscription to end ASAP meaning a quick and decisive military victory. It is also in the interest of the revolutionary army as conscripted troops tend to become militant far more often then volunteer troops.

Conscripted soldiers will feel exploited by the workers state and they would be right, and that is far better then volunteers troops thinking they are not being exploited by the workers state. A workers state should be totally honest about military service being exploitation yet necessary exploitation to deal with the threats of bourgeois armed forces.

[Psy]

Truck drivers are still going to get their asses blown up somewhat often.
If the army follows Jomini they are not because the main forces will deny the enemy access to supply lines at any costs as followers of Jomini military theories sees logistics as the life blood of any armed force and that the enemy will cut your main forces from their supplies if you leave you supply lines exposed.

[danyboy27]

Why? The conscripted red army pulled victory from defeat against much worse odds.

the pool of people in wich they could take their menand women was largely superior than anything republican spain could have dreamed of, they had a sturdy infrastructure they could use to manifacture a ton of weapons and move troop across their land.

republican spain was outnumbered, outgunned and didnt had the infrastructure, the odd where truly against them.


Russia was unable to call the volunteer beccause russian back then they didnt liked their governement, and republican spain failed due to the lack of ressources,allies and manpower.

they where plenty of volunteer alright, but without gun or bullets how do you expect them to win against the nationalist who where fielded with the latest equipement and advisor from nazi germany?

[danyboy27]

Armies require more then just fighters, they require: doctors, engineers, technicians, mechanics and a logistical network that a army does want see fighting and are only armed just encase. So in a revolutionary army without conscription how will get for example truck drivers to drive the supply trucks in theaters of operations.

many people with the skill or willing to learn would specificaly volunteer for those jobs, no need to call the conscription to fill those.

[Kamos]

The fact they can be utilized elsewhere is the point of conscription, else the workers state would have to go about it they other way and create very high unemployment so people only have the option to join the revolutionary army for survival. At least conscription is being honest by not hiding the fact they are being forced into service by the state they are not providing them a false choice through using central planning to coerce people into volunteering for military service.

Are you willing to enter the bourgeois military right now for a 1-year training in something warfare-oriented, knowing that you risk your life doing so?


The problem is the kind of person that likes to be in a war zone tends to mentally unbalanced meaning a 100% volunteer army would be a army bogged down with soldiers too mentally ill for duty. These are the mentally ill US troops we see open fire on people giving medical attention to the injured.

Proof? That's like saying reactionaries tend to be mentally ill, or that conscripts somehow don't become mentally ill.


This is why it is more logical to trust the conscript, they didn't sign up to kill they are their against their free-will and thus the conscripts collective interest is for the need for conscription to end ASAP meaning a quick and decisive military victory. It is also in the interest of the revolutionary army as conscripted troops tend to become militant far more often then volunteer troops.

I wouldn't trust a conscript with fetching me my combat gear. More than likely he'd use the opportunity to desert. Somehow the notion that a conscript who doesn't want to be anywhere near the battlefield is more trustworthy than someone who is sincere about fighting for the cause he signed up for is absolutely baffling to me. Anyone else feel this way?


Conscripted soldiers will feel exploited by the workers state and they would be right, and that is far better then volunteers troops thinking they are not being exploited by the workers state. A workers state should be totally honest about military service being exploitation yet necessary exploitation to deal with the threats of bourgeois armed forces.

So I fight to shake off wage exploitation, only to enter into the more direct and ruthless military exploitation? What am I fighting for again? Wouldn't it make sense for a workers' state conscript to rise up in support of a counterrevolution, knowing that bourgeois democracy is likely to give him the choice of whether to serve or not?

[Psy]

Are you willing to enter the bourgeois military right now for a 1-year training in something warfare-oriented, knowing that you risk your life doing so?

I don't support the ends of any bourgeois military.




Proof? That's like saying reactionaries tend to be mentally ill, or that conscripts somehow don't become mentally ill.

Remove economic cohesion to enlist and all the military jingoism then most people would have to be crazy to volunteer. If you have the revolutionary army being up front about the truth of military service odds are most sane people would rather help the revolution in other ways as if you are sane your self-preservation instincts would be telling you to get out of harms way that would logical including leaving military service.




I wouldn't trust a conscript with fetching me my combat gear. More than likely he'd use the opportunity to desert. Somehow the notion that a conscript who doesn't want to be anywhere near the battlefield is more trustworthy than someone who is sincere about fighting for the cause he signed up for is absolutely baffling to me. Anyone else feel this way?

Because odds the conscript doesn't have a death wish or gets off on violence. To the average conscript the safety of their comrades in arms comes before the mission while with volunteer forces it is the opposite. If a commanding officers tell a conscript to go on a suicide mission the vast majority will rather frag the officer in question to go on the suicide mission while volunteers tend to be more willing to die for the mission. The end result is conscripts taking far more incentives to not get killed and taking far less stupid risks if they have the proper skills. A conscripted officer will be far more willing to call troops to pull back then a volunteer officer as a conscripted officer has far more attachment to their comrades in arms, also a conscripted officer will more likely go out of their way to avoid unnecessary combat.




So I fight to shake off wage exploitation, only to enter into the more direct and ruthless military exploitation? What am I fighting for again? Wouldn't it make sense for a workers' state conscript to rise up in support of a counterrevolution, knowing that bourgeois democracy is likely to give him the choice of whether to serve or not?
Yet the bourgeois democracy only give the solider the illusion of choice, unemployment or military service is not a real choice. Also the revolutionary army has a final end goal, while capitalist forces have no final end goal. Thus serving in the revolutionary army means if successful there would be no more military service no only for the soldiers but for future generations.

[S.Artesian]

Clearly, none of you have ever been conscripted, or served in a conscript army.

[Kamos]

Clearly, none of you have ever been conscripted, or served in a conscript army.

True, and I'd prefer it to stay that way. Your point is?


I don't support the ends of any bourgeois military.

You avoided the question in the most obvious way. I'd like to ask again if you don't mind.


Remove economic cohesion to enlist and all the military jingoism then most people would have to be crazy to volunteer. If you have the revolutionary army being up front about the truth of military service odds are most sane people would rather help the revolution in other ways as if you are sane your self-preservation instincts would be telling you to get out of harms way that would logical including leaving military service.

People are obviously willing to fight for a cause they really like. This is the reason why revolutionaries exist. I don't like your definition of "sanity" (i.e. "what I consider sane") either.


Because odds the conscript doesn't have a death wish or gets off on violence. To the average conscript the safety of their comrades in arms comes before the mission while with volunteer forces it is the opposite. If a commanding officers tell a conscript to go on a suicide mission the vast majority will rather frag the officer in question to go on the suicide mission while volunteers tend to be more willing to die for the mission. The end result is conscripts taking far more incentives to not get killed and taking far less stupid risks if they have the proper skills. A conscripted officer will be far more willing to call troops to pull back then a volunteer officer as a conscripted officer has far more attachment to their comrades in arms, also a conscripted officer will more likely go out of their way to avoid unnecessary combat.

Going by your logic, a conscripted army would desert immediately (seeking to preserve itself) and shoot anyone who even thinks about continuing a war. Your idea accomplishes the opposite of what you want, and you even admit it indirectly.


Yet the bourgeois democracy only give the solider the illusion of choice, unemployment or military service is not a real choice. Also the revolutionary army has a final end goal, while capitalist forces have no final end goal. Thus serving in the revolutionary army means if successful there would be no more military service no only for the soldiers but for future generations.

Ah, the age-old argument: sacrifice a generation or two to ensure the well-being of all future generations. The ideal way to put workers off socialism. Are you a worker, by the way? Just asking.

[S.Artesian]

True, and I'd prefer it to stay that way. Your point is?



My point is that this:




I wouldn't trust a conscript with fetching me my combat gear. More than likely he'd use the opportunity to desert. Somehow the notion that a conscript who doesn't want to be anywhere near the battlefield is more trustworthy than someone who is sincere about fighting for the cause he signed up for is absolutely baffling to me. Anyone else feel this way?



is a view based on ignorance. Once you're in, you're in. You want to, you need to stay alive, and to do that you have to keep the guy on your left and the guy on your right alive.

[Psy]

You avoided the question in the most obvious way. I'd like to ask again if you don't mind.

I would not for the reasons of that the gains of going into military service for a bourgeois force is not worth the costs.

Also joining bourgeois forces is not necessary, military theorists now have their works on the Internet along with combat manuals of many armed forces. Thus the theories of warfare is no longer the elusive knowledge of bourgeois armed forces. I wouldn't mind taking up training in a workers militia.



People are obviously willing to fight for a cause they really like. This is the reason why revolutionaries exist. I don't like your definition of "sanity" (i.e. "what I consider sane") either.

You assume class consciousness is like a switch, that all of a sudden the psyche of the average workers will shift totally as soon as the revolution gains critical mass.



Going by your logic, a conscripted army would desert immediately (seeking to preserve itself) and shoot anyone who even thinks about continuing a war. Your idea accomplishes the opposite of what you want, and you even admit it indirectly.

Failure of the army would result in reprisals of victorious capitalist armed forces. If the conscripts believe in the ends of the war then they are less likely to desert.



Ah, the age-old argument: sacrifice a generation or two to ensure the well-being of all future generations.

Basically yhea, but more importantly on the flip side that failure would not result in going back to the situation prior to the revolution but to worse exploitation as the old capitalists masters would want to discourage future uprisings.




Are you a worker, by the way? Just asking.
Yes I am a worker.

[EvilRedGuy]

Conscription forces an individual into service for something he/she may not personally support or consider morally justifiable. Regardless of any government's declared ideological line, conscription is just another way of binding the working-class to the needs and demands of the state. No, I do not support it, in any way, shape, or form.

Exactly this, i would refuse to do anything any state would tell me to do.

Fuck conscription.
feudalistic bullshit.

[Geiseric]

Conscription as enforced in capitalist countries today is terrible, but I think that in a socialist state at least, it is excusable under extenuating circumstances.

I'd also agree that conscription, as it exists in countries today, is sexist. From what I understand there have been some countries that will conscript women, but use them only in support roles.

They did that to former white or czarist officers, how hard would it be to do that for every conscript? Most of the actual fighters were communist workers.

The nature of a socialist or workers army/militia, which are more or less the same thing, is only seen in a revolutionary situation. The question isn't whether or not we need an army, any force that fights any counter revolution is an army, the question is how is it to be organised? In my opinion, the army could be democratically run, with soldiers elected deputies being representative to command, and voting on whatever way is best to copmlete a goal, however overall tasks should be assigned politically by the workers councils. The nature of a bourgeois army reflects the nature of the bourgeois state, thus the nature of a socialist army will reflect the nature of a socialist workers state.

[El Louton]

Hell no.

[Psy]

The nature of a socialist or workers army/militia, which are more or less the same thing, is only seen in a revolutionary situation. The question isn't whether or not we need an army, any force that fights any counter revolution is an army, the question is how is it to be organised? In my opinion, the army could be democratically run, with soldiers elected deputies being representative to command, and voting on whatever way is best to copmlete a goal, however overall tasks should be assigned politically by the workers councils. The nature of a bourgeois army reflects the nature of the bourgeois state, thus the nature of a socialist army will reflect the nature of a socialist workers state.
The problem is out maneuvering the enemy so a revolutionary army can follow Jomini's rules of how to win a war.

1) maneuver your forces to bring them against the enemy's logistical support.
2) maneuver your forces to bring them against only part of the enemy's forces
3) maneuver your forces to bring your forces against the decisive targets of the battlefield.
4) maneuver the full mass of your forces onto the enemy swiftly and simultaneously.

To do this the revolutionary army can't telegraphs its moves to the enemy as the point is the attack the enemy's weak underbelly rather then locking horns with the capitalists forces.

[∞]

Yo this is life not some Command and Conquer bullshit. Stop being authoritarian arse-holes.

[Psy]

Yo this is life not some Command and Conquer bullshit. Stop being authoritarian arse-holes.
Jomini is the solution to attrition warfare. What is more authoritarian sending millions to their death so we might be able to outlast the capitalists in a attrition war or instead focusing on mobility warfare that requires more centralization in command structure of forces?

[∞]

Jomini is the solution to attrition warfare. What is more authoritarian sending millions to their death so we might be able to outlast the capitalists in a attrition war or instead focusing on mobility warfare that requires more centralization in command structure of forces?

Whats Jomini is that what Michael Jackson says in his songs, like adlibs or something?

I don't even know what you are talking about with this military hoopla but it sounds like a bunch of BS underneath a veil of big words and made up scenarios.

[Psy]

Whats Jomini is that what Michael Jackson says in his songs, like adlibs or something?

I don't even know what you are talking about with this military hoopla but it sounds like a bunch of BS underneath a veil of big words and made up scenarios.
Antoine-Henri Jomini was a officer for both Napoleon's and Russian forces during Napoleon's invasion of Russia as a neutral Swiss advisor to both forces (as both sides agreed to pay him for his services). When he retired he took his experiences and created a doctrine for mobility based warfare to explain what happened in the Napoleonic wars from the standpoint of military tactics that left many military thinkers at the time confused at the time.

Jomini basically got the ball rolling in military minds thinking about outmaneuvering the enemy rather then out numbering them, that 1,000 troops at the right place at the time is worth much more then 100,000 troops at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[∞]

Antoine-Henri Jomini was a officer for both Napoleon's and Russian forces during Napoleon's invasion of Russia as a neutral Swiss advisor to both forces (as both sides agreed to pay him for his services). When he retired he took his experiences and created a doctrine for mobility based warfare to explain what happened in the Napoleonic wars from the standpoint of military tactics that left many military thinkers at the time confused at the time.

Jomini basically got the ball rolling in military minds thinking about outmaneuvering the enemy rather then out numbering them, that 1,000 troops at the right place at the time is worth much more then 100,000 troops at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Its good to know your conception of liberty stems from military officers.

[Psy]

Its good to know your conception of liberty stems from military officers.
The problem is a battlefield is not a class struggle, class struggles takes place in them but when it comes to two hostile armies fighting each other class takes a back seat.

For example if you are planning on a surprise offensive its success comes from getting the soldiers to key positions on the battlefield without the enemy figuring out what you are up to. This requires huge level of coordination that leads to centralized command structures so everything is quickly coordinated, so when the high command tells forces to fall back forces will and they don't have to tell them why thus if the enemy is ease dropping they wouldn't know that for example artillery is currently firing to level the area the friendly ground forces where told to pull back from and the enemy should be advancing to as they follow the revolutionary army pulling back, as central command wouldn't have to say that over the radio, as the revolutionary army would simply follow its orders.