Where does the Army stand in society?

[Karabin]

When it comes to the Bourgeois and Proletariat, where does the army fall? And how would it differentiate between a modern Capitalist society and a Socialist society?

I would imagine it would be different for those who are conscripted, to those who are in the armed forces for a career and those who are officers.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The army stands in a strange position in society because, much like the police, it is comprised of working class individuals, yet is a tool of the ruling bourgeoisie. The difference is largely based on tendency perspective: for instance, I know Maoists prefer a Peoples Liberation Army;under such circumstances one could say that under a soclaized system the military moves away from its reactionary function and becomes progressive.

Also depends, however, on what kind of military you are referring to: during the Spanish Civil War, for example, POUM was an all-volunteer army where soldiers could refuse orders from superiors if they thought the order was unneeded.

Personally, I support the complete, but gradual, dismantling of the armed forces and substitute it for a armed peoples militia.

[Ocean Seal]

When it comes to the Bourgeois and Proletariat, where does the army fall? And how would it differentiate between a modern Capitalist society and a Socialist society?

I would imagine it would be different for those who are conscripted, to those who are in the armed forces for a career and those who are officers.
This is the wrong way to think about it. What they are as a class is almost irrelevant. When they are doing the violent bidding of the bourgeois class they perform an almost incorrigible reactionary role. On the other hand, when they leave the army they can occupy any role from the boss to the striking worker.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Costa Rica hasn't had a standing army since 1949 and seems to have done alright.

I favour the absolute abolition of the army.

Of course, the army exists in pretty much every Capitalist country today, and in the developed ones they are organised, loyal and armed to the teeth with WMDs. They do indeed present a huge obstacle to real, extra-parliamentary change. As far as I know, no Socialist has really theorised adequately about the role of the army in revolution, their class position and how they effect, reflect or block change.

[The Idler]

Workers in uniform, if the paychecks stopped coming, they'd be on the barricades straight away.

[Geiseric]

The leadership of armies are undoubtedly bourgeois in their loyalties. The medium ranks of colonel down to major are also bourgeois. NCOs and Rank and File soldiers however are predominantly working class, and should be coerced into leaving the bourgeois army in a time of revolution, and opposing any war effort they're apart of. Most of the time people join the military because it's a job, which they don't think they can get nor go to college otherwise.

But in a revolutionary army, the leadership will have to change its loyalty to the proletariat instead of the old capitalist government. The structure and internal democracy in the army will likely be extended, i.e. if an officer gives an assanine order like what led to 6 million russian soldiers being killed in WW1, or orders you to shoot civilians or whatever, in a revolutionary army I can see the right being given by the new workers state to ignore that order and maybe to arrest that officer. Trotsky's military writings are pretty good if you're wanting to read about the theories around a proletarian army.

[jookyle]

Regardless of where to army stands now what's important is winning a good portion of the individuals over to the revolution. Let's be honest, with out a good portion of the military being on the side of revolution there is a much smaller chance of it being successful.

[Raúl Duke]

The military is a tool of the state, of the ruling class.
Used for self-defense, for imperialism, and to some extent even to protect the status-quo when all else fails (i.e. the police).

Most members of the military come from the working class. The class composition of the military and their outlook is highly variable (more so then the police; since for the most part they're careerists). Arguably, career servicemen are the most reactionary while drafted/conscripted forces are potentially the least. We also have to consider the phenomenon of "economic draft" which is when certain people enlist into the military due to economic reasons. Historically, there's been times when armed servicemen have defected to the side of revolution (also times when they have independently crushed revolutions, like the Freikorps in the end of WWI).

The military isn't exactly a branch one want to focus much activism in (unless you're doing an anti-imperialist campaign; after all part of the reason why the US pulled out of Vietnam had to do with an increasingly rebellious armed forces that at times directly disobeyed orders; allegedly ever since then the US has been skittish on the idea of the draft) however they're not as "hopeless" as the police are in supporting progressive causes (i.e. there are many "Veterans against War" and other veterans participating in activism) plus it's very very unpopular among the US masses to deride or insult servicemen and veterans than it is cops, who already elicit strong hate to dislike in some segments of the population.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But in a revolutionary army, the leadership will have to change its loyalty to the proletariat instead of the old capitalist government. The structure and internal democracy in the army will likely be extended, i.e. if an officer gives an assanine order like what led to 6 million russian soldiers being killed in WW1, or orders you to shoot civilians or whatever, in a revolutionary army I can see the right being given by the new workers state to ignore that order and maybe to arrest that officer. Trotsky's military writings are pretty good if you're wanting to read about the theories around a proletarian army.

Perhaps, but I find Mikhail Frunze's literature on military affairs to be superior to Trotsky's.

[Geiseric]

Perhaps, but I find Mikhail Frunze's literature on military affairs to be superior to Trotsky's.

I'll look those up, the red army is a subject of fascination for me at this point.