Pigs and Running Dogs

[ind_com]

Pigs and Running Dogs

In some sectors of the mainstream left at the centres of capitalism there seems to be a bizarre fixation on the military and the police as possible sites for organization and agitation. Indeed, my recent post about "running dogs" encouraged a surprisingly significant population of self-proclaimed "marxists" or "socialists" to complain in an unexpected manner––only one of whom bothered to register this complaint in my comments section. While my post was mainly concerned with what I took to be the problematic and pseudo anti-imperialist slogan of "bring the troops home", some people seemed [strangely] distressed by the fact that I did not see soldiers or cops as potential revolutionary recruits and were angry that I was dismissing the supposed necessity of incorporating them into a revolutionary movement. Hopefully, this bizarre fixation on the imagined need to politicize and recruit soldiers and cops for the revolution is a minoritarian trend amongst the left, whatever significance it possesses limited to online forums––I would assume that people who have spent years organizing with the the anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggles in the real world would have necessarily learned––through a long history of militant experience––that the pigs and running dogs are not their friends… But maybe I'm wrong!

Perhaps this entire pig and running dog love is a logical corollary of the default opportunism that hampers the left at the centres of capitalism. One day you have self-proclaimed leftists arguing that participation in bourgeois elections is tantamount to a sacred duty, and the next day these same leftists are arguing that the "special armed bodies" (in Lenin's words) that protect the bourgeois order might be our friends! After all, directly following an electoral victory supported by supposedly "pragmatic" leftists, the Obama administration unapologetically backed the Israeli offensive in Gaza… is it any wonder then, that in this context, some "leftists" on the odd internet forum were actually arguing that we needed to politicize and recruit members of the IDF? It is here that our default opportunism proves that it is ultimately liberal: the tired "why can't we all get along regardless of class struggle" refrain was oddly popular amongst people who should have known better.

In any case, what are we to make of this desire to treat the military and police as politically useful sites of organization and agitation? For when those of us who know better make anti-military and anti-police statements, others who should know better raise their hackles and dig in their heels. When we say that you should never trust a pig and that such trust is tantamount to class collaboration, these others are offended and try to articulate their offense as some sort of principled revolutionary position; it is like an entire century of anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist struggles no longer matters.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-n-Si1j2u6to/ULRvYljK-HI/AAAAAAAABDc/-0KDKMuUuOY/s1600/border-police-and-soldiers.jpeg
Look, it's our proletarian friends ready to shoot other proletarians in real proletarian style!

One of the most common––and most lazy––arguments regarding the radical potentiality of the military/police is that they are proletarian. Leaving aside the fact, as noted in the aforementioned post about running dogs, that the so-called "economic draft" only accounts for a very small percentage of the military, this argument is far from marxist. There are people in the military and police who come from a working-class background, yes, but one's background does not determine one's class: this is class essentialism––which means not a proper understanding of class as something that is made and not found as if it is a Platonic form––and is as uncritical as claiming that a capitalist who came from humble beginnings is secretly proletarian. What matters is the material position one occupies in capitalism and the police and military at the centres of global capitalism occupy a very specific position: the maintenance and expansion of the bourgeois order. Under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie the police exist to defend the persistence and reproduction of this dictatorship; under global imperialism the military of the imperialist states exist to defend the persistence and reproduction of this dictatorship's economic hegemony. Their position, function, and structural meaning does not make them proletarian because not only are they at any point of production (let alone the most exploited, the proletarian "hard core"), their labour is to reproduce bourgeois class rule.

Then there is the supposedly more sophisticated argument regarding the military/police that treats them as some sort of revolutionary necessity. If the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie can only be broken by a military offensive, this argument goes, then we need to focus on the recruitment of soldiers and police officers who have some experience in military matters. And yet why would people who are ideologically trained to serve and protect the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie––to expand its hegemony––ever be interested, while they are serving as pigs and running dogs, in what they structurally understand as "criminal" and "treasonous"? And why should we waste our organizational time trying to "convert" these people––many of whom have been trained to put down uprisings––who want to kill us? And they do want to kill us, or at least lock us up in prison, because they have only stayed soldiers and cops because they believe in the ethos of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Former soldiers and former cops are another story, but this "let's recruit from the ranks of the pigs and running dogs" discourse is not about jaded veterans and ex-police––it's about how we need to win the entire structure of the military and the police over to the anti-capitalist side! (This is similar to saying that we need to win a white supremacist organization over to the anti-racist side, so we should organize in KKK spaces, or that we need to win mens rights activists over to the feminist side, so we should organize in MRA spaces.) And we need to win them over, apparently, because we need them to make revolution.

If anything, this argument, due to its insurrectionist understanding of revolution, proves one aspect of the universality of Protracted Peoples War: without their own army, the oppressed masses have nothing. Most importantly, though, the oppressed masses need their own autonomous military movement that possesses a revolutionary class consciousness, the opposite of the police and military whose class consciousness is devoted to the bourgeoisie. Those who focus on the theory of insurrection, however, who think that after a protracted period of legal struggle the untrained proletarian forces––following a general strike––will arm themselves and defeat a very well trained capitalist military, have to bank on the possibility that large sections of this well trained military will join the revolutionary cause. This is because they are overly focused on the October Revolution where soldiers did join the Bolsheviks; they forget that the soldiers in the Russian army were performing mandatory service––that they were essentially draftees––and not at all like the soldiers who are part of a military that has been perfected by capitalism.

Karl Liebknecht predicted the rise of this properly capitalist military; he understood that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie could only secure its hegemony through a military and police force that was beholden to its class rule; he was charting this transformation from militaries that were feudal to militaries that were properly capitalist; he glimpsed the fact that properly capitalist militaries were not and could not be sympathetic to revolution. Since, according to Liebknecht, "[t]he class-conscious proletarian therefore not only frowns upon the international purpose of the army and the entire capitalist policy of expansion, he is fighting them earnestly," then the bourgeoisie cannot defend its dictatorship with a military composed of conscripts [unless, Liebknecht recognized, it was a colonial army of racist settlers] or draftees. Instead, the history of capitalist militarism is defined by a trajectory whereby the conscript army needed to be transformed into an army with a class consciousness devoted to bourgeois rule so that it could become "a weapon against the proletariat in the political struggle." In this sense, the militarized spaces of the police and standing army have "comprehended [their] chief task, that of protecting the capitalists."

Thus, the active police and soldiers in capitalist states are not proletarian, even if their background is working class, because their consciousness is intrinsically anti-proletarian; they are necessarily devoted to the rule of the bourgeois dictatorship. And though it is true that there are always exceptions––there are always refuseniks, people who will switch sides, individuals whose consciousness is not so robotically conditioned––this does not mean that the police and military institutions are defined by these exceptions. Social being defines social consciousness in the last instance; the social being of a soldier, of a cop, produce a social consciousness devoted to the rule of capitalism and imperialism. We do not organize based on exceptions; we organize primarily at the point of advanced proletarian consciousness.

Moreover, Lenin, whose party succeeded in recruiting draftees (who are not the same as professional soldiers of a standing army), did not think that the strength of the October Revolution rested on this recruitment. When he wrote State and Revolution he was clear that the police and the military were structures primarily devoted to class rule; he never treated the sites of the military or the police as possibly revolutionary; he did not conflate the overall structure with the exception of the draft. And yet those who still imagine that we have to concentrate on soldiers and cops as extremely important sites of politicization always use, as aforementioned, the October Revolution as the basis of their argument because draftees and conscripts were politicized. Liebknecht's analysis of the transformation from feudal to capitalist militarism notwithstanding, it was not as if the Bolsheviks thought that the Tsar's standing army––those men responsible for the Winter Palace massacre in 1905, for example––should be agitated amongst. That is, the ideology and class consciousness of the Tsar's standing army is the normative ideology and class consciousness of the police and armies of today.

Still, if we are not to count on police and soldiers––with all their military experience––to help us in the event of a revolutionary moment, then how is a revolutionary movement ever to attain victory? Obviously we aren't all going to rush out to Walmart, arm ourselves, and hope to defeat a military trained at putting down insurrections. And while it is true that not everyone who endorses an insurrectionary strategy thinks that we need to rely on the suddenly reproletarianized cops and soldiers in order to achieve victory, those who think we need to "convert" the police and the military tend to rely on an insurrectionist theory of revolution… But we might as well rely on philanthropist CEOs to finance the revolution for all the good this ridiculous belief in the possible politicization of running dogs and pigs will do us; in each and every attempted insurrection after the October Revolution, the police and standing army, as a whole, have crushed the revolution.

Hence Mao's argument for a revolutionary peoples army to oppose the standing army of the reactionary state; hence the reason for a theory of protracted peoples war: there needs to be a process, no matter how protracted and messy, where the people produce their own revolutionary army capable of producing the dual military power necessary for dual political power. Perhaps this army could benefit from renegade military specialists, but these people will always be those who have broken ranks with capitalism and imperialism––the jaded veterans, the exceptions to the institutional rule––but you don't find them by advertising your existence in police and military spaces, and you don't imagine that simply because they exist the entire military industrial edifice is like a factory filled with proletariats! In fact you shouldn't be trying to search them out at the expense of searching out people in actual proletarian spaces who are primed for politicization.

Again, it is worth wondering why some anti-capitalists––marxist or otherwise––are so interested in defending the need to recruit cadre from the ranks of the police and military. On one hand they will pay lip-service to the claim that the police are primarily devoted to the defense of private property and bourgeois rule, and that the imperialist military is about the expansion of imperialist hegemony; on the other hand, they will argue that these structural features do not matter because cops and soldiers come from the ranks of the working class. Since when, however, should marxists ever ignore the structural meaning of a given institution and what this means vis-a-vis class consciousness? Apparently, when cops and soldiers are involved, some marxists would have us abandon communist principles. Even worse, they try to find a communist justification for such an abandonment.

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.in/2012/11/pigs-and-running-dogs.html

[LiberationTheologist]

This is a quite well written class analysis thank you for the link. The police and soldiers have pensions at 20-25 year retirements. They are not in any way going to support a violent overthrow of the government and their economic benefits, they are bought and paid for like most teachers.

Even though that is an economic and class reality, it is important that we consistently take the opportunity to demoralize the police and soldiers for their vile actions in war - the drug war and imperialist wars. From a moral standpoint these people are susceptible to demoralization even though they are bought and paid for.

I would also petition the state the right of police and soldiers to their freedom of expression on a legal basis. This will not of course include incitation of violence.The same should be said for teachers. If this legal right were struggled for and achieved then we could have a legal shelter for the pawns of state and capitalist wars to organize to further undermine the most destructive manifestations of capitalism - war.

If this were achieved, and I know it is unlikely, then we could have a kind of informal minority vanguard morally conscientious group of people who would be able to further demoralize the ruling capitalist class from within its own institutions.

I would count LEAP ( http://www.leap.cc/ ) and Iraq Veterans against War ( http://www.ivaw.org/ )as groups who have taken a step toward this goal. Unfortunately what is lacking from these groups is an institutional formation of the groups themselves and the organization around this principle of freedom of expression in specific relation to freedom expression in relation to war.

Whenever doing protests against the drug war and US imperialist wars I mention these groups to police or soldiers I come into contact with. Don't underestimate the power of simply mentioning these groups.

[ind_com]

We will always engage in the actions you have stated, but that line of activity is secondary. The primary goal is to create a vanguard party, a mass front, and a red army from the lowest strata of the proletariat.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This article is mostly a straw-man. I don't know of any experienced revolutionary marxists or anarchists who look to the police at all for one thing. So the conflation of police and military is false right there. Liberals who are in movements and possibly in the process of radicalizing do often think we can appeal to the "humanity" of cops - this is wrong, cops can and do quit if they come to the conclusion that their job is inherently wrong.

For the military however, to agree with the above argument would mean ignoring the history of events such as the Russian Revolution and even the Egyptrian revolution (partially). The tradditional revolutionary marxist argument about this - from my understanding - is that the point is not to recruit soldiers for the purpose of "gaining tactical knowlege" but in order to neutralize or at least split the capitalist army.

Again, the article conflates "lifers" and officers with enlistees. Enlistees are much more likly to be like draftees because they are not benifiting from war or imperial conquest, their careers aren't going to be imporved for the non-officer, and on a class level, when they get out, a more powerful empire means a harder time for them at home. They enlist because they want college money, to get out of town, etc. This causes a potential conflict within the military which has repeatedly appeared in imperialist armies from WWI to now. Their "job" as a soldier is, of course, to promote the imperial aims of their ruling class, (and this job must be opposed by any means necissary that will help the class struggle - which means not dennoucing revolt in targeted countries that results in the death of soldiers, but also not closing ourselves off to those soldiers who do turn against the military) but this is not their interest nor does it benifit the non-career military people and conflicts develop over this. For the ranking officer in the military or police officer, the more power the state has, the more power and reward they get either directly or indirectly: if the state is able to create more repressive powers, then cops are given more weaponry and legal "grey area" to do whatever and be untouched. The more conflicts the US military is in, the more ranking officers get to make names for themselves, advance their career, etc. But for the soldier who leaves after his term in the military, the get a ruling class that cuts their benifits and leaves them on the street with wreaked minds and bodies.

US history in it's imperialist era has all sorts of revolts by soldiers and ex-soldiers that were in line with working class interests. I'd recommend the book "GI Revot" which argues that it was low-ranked enlistees, not draftees who were the initial thrust of opposition to the military within the military during Vietnam. This opposition ultimately helped in a subordinate way to end the war. Obviously without resistance in Vietnam, it's all moot, but even with resistance the US would have been willing to continue if it was not for instability at home and a breakdown of the miliary machine to such an extent that not only did the US have to pull-back ground forces and try "Vietnamisation" but the US ruling class was afraid of full-ground war for a generation until 9/11 made them believe they had enough popular support - even then they began to run into some trouble and couldn't meet recruitment goals.

Annecdotally we can see this too. Even on this site we have ex-military. There are several ex-marines who I know who became radicalized by their experiences and are now revolutionaries.

But the main thing is just that this is a weak-point in imperialist armies and also a vital condition for Revolution. Again the author argues that we should look to soldiers in order to recruit people with military skills - this is not the point. The point is that for a revolution to work - especially in a country with an imperialist military, the military can not be operational - especially for ground-attacks which would break our barricades, retake the factories and workplaces liberated etc. Lenin understood this as well as anyone and this is why he sought to unite the demands of the low-ranking soldiers to the worker's movement - this puts the option clearly to the low-ranking soldier: put your lot in with us and have liberation or them and fire on your relatives and neighbors to keep the same shitty order we have now.

Workers will have to create their own defense force - but this will only be sucessful against the police and fascists... if the imperialist military remains whole and untouched, then we won't even get to that point most likely. Training workers to become a working class militia in the sense put forward in the article turns workers into soldiers and takes them away from their inherent power wich is not the barrel of a gun, but control over the workplaces and streets.

[xvzc]

Jimmie, I think that you did not really read the article since the author actually does address most of your concerns.

But one quick note on the Russian Revolution -- I believe that it's not a correct position to try and mechanically apply the Bolshevik position towards the army, which was forged in their own concrete context and in a situation where there was very low morale amongst the troops, who were largely composed of draftees on the losing side of a world war, to the one in the U.S. or other imperialist countries where the army is trained ideologically for imperialist conquest and largely bought off. The two situations are simply not comparable.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmie, I think that you did not really read the article since the author actually does address most of your concerns.Well why not rebut what I wrote with quotes from the article since I did read it - not all that closely, but I read through the arguments - which as I said are full of conflations of police offiers and military officers on the one hand with non-career militar; and straw-men about some mysterious leftists who are recruiting form police (never heard of such a thing).


But one quick note on the Russian Revolution -- I believe that it's not a correct position to try and mechanically apply the Bolshevik position towards the army, which was forged in their own concrete context and in a situation where there was very low morale amongst the troops, who were largely composed of draftees on the losing side of a world war, to the one in the U.S. or other imperialist countries where the army is trained ideologically for imperialist conquest and largely bought off. The two situations are simply not comparable.I'm sure in the surge of nationalism in Russia at the start of WWI people who thought this way would have never imagined that soldiers would not only support but play an important role in the revolution. The specifics of 1917 are not going to be the same, but the basic dynamic, which has been repeated in working class uprisings before and since, remains - as the ruling class is split, splits can also open up within the military between those whose well-being is dependant on their military positions and those who are fodder for empire. In a crisis a strong worker's movement can offer a solution to the delema of the "fodder". This will also need to happen with any attack on a revolution by capitalist powers - at least demoralize, the enlistees and draftees of the opposing army, hopefully expose the contradictions of that military force and cause mutiny from within.

For any ruling class military mutiny is always around the corner. This article argues that this dynamic somehow no longer applies because imperial soldiers are "brainwashed" and that's just a completely a-materialist and impressionistic argument that ignores historical experience.

I think this perspective in the OP is rooted in an ideological argument about "people's armies" not rooted in materialism.

[Raúl Duke]

I agree for the most part when it comes to cops...
but the military is a more tricky thing and it all depends.

During the Vietnam War, while the anti-war protests were arguably not effective...anti-war agitation that seeped into the military played a role in ending the Vietnam War as the military became more 'mutinous' (no actually mutinies, although there was a case of a US naval ship refusing to deploy to Vietnam, but partly due to anti-war agitation within the military it came to a point where rank-file soldiers started fragging their officers, avoiding confrontation with "the enemy," and refusing to deploy/follow orders). It reach a point that the US military establishment wrote a report on how "ineffective" their armies have become to the point of being rendered "unable to continue fighting the war effectively and could worsen" which may have changed the mind of Washington to pull out during the Nixon (a president not considered a "dove president") administration. Of course, one thing to take into account was the draftee/conscript nature of the military at that point...now the military is mostly made of volunteers, although there's the phenomenon of "economic 'draftees.'"

Also historically, militaries have played a role in revolutions, whether as part of the reaction (i.e. the German upheaval post-WWI) or part of the revolution (Russian Revolution). The police however tended to side with the reaction since their position in society is an explicitly anti-revolutionary "maintain order in domestic society" one.


They are not in any way going to support a violent overthrow of the government and their economic benefits, they are bought and paid for like most teachers.I find it nonsensical to conflate teachers with the police and the military all because they arguably get paid well (I say arguably because mostly right-wing propaganda talks about how teachers get "paid too much and extravagant benefits"), get work benefits (like many public sector workers BTW)...
Teachers can be unionized and go on strike, one of the leaders of the teachers union in PR is a self-described socialist, they work for a wage/salary, their position in society don't place them in direct opposition to the proletariat either/or domestically or internationally.

[GoddessCleoLover]

IMO Jimmie Higgins and Raul Duke make excellent points about the military.

[Let's Get Free]

When we say that you should never trust a pig and that such trust is tantamount to class collaboration,

Didn't Mao Tse Tung advocate for class collaboration?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Didn't Mao Tse Tung advocate for class collaboration?

In his social context, he argued that since many small busniessmen were disenfranchised by imperialism and were a fading class under capitalism anyway, and since the working class only numbered 3 million people at that time he made lemonaid with lemons. Personally this is one issue that I don't agree with Mao on, but it's important to note that he ended the New Democratic phase of the revolution 7 years after the CCP gained power. Also it's important to note that no western Maoist parties advocate New Democracy in the western context.

[Let's Get Free]

In his social context, he argued that since many small busniessmen were disenfranchised by imperialism and were a fading class under capitalism anyway, and since the working class only numbered 3 million people at that time he made lemonaid with lemons. Personally this is one issue that I don't agree with Mao on, but it's important to note that he ended the New Democratic phase of the revolution 7 years after the CCP gained power. Also it's important to note that no western Maoist parties advocate New Democracy in the western context.

It's my understanding that he also advocated collaboration with the "patriotic capitalists." In fact the new democracy subordinates the working class to the bureaucracies orientation towards a bloc with the patriotic bourgeoisie.

[LiberationTheologist]

Well why not rebut what I wrote with quotes from the article since I did read it - not all that closely, but I read through the arguments - which as I said are full of conflations of police offiers and military officers on the one hand with non-career militar; and straw-men about some mysterious leftists who are recruiting form police (never heard of such a thing).

I get the feeling you think you have to write a lot to make your point and for it to be respected. I'm not saying be a one line trick like Gramsci guy but you can make your points much more succinctly. Short well thought out responses can actually take more time to formulate, which again is not to say Gramsci guy's one liners should be some kind of model.


For any ruling class military mutiny is always around the corner. This article argues that this dynamic somehow no longer applies because imperial soldiers are "brainwashed" and that's just a completely a-materialist and impressionistic argument that ignores historical experience.This is just absolutely incorrect. As long as the soldiers are paid a decent wage, and get their 20 - 25 year retirement they will murder and lock in cages just about anyone they are told to. Now if they do not receive those benefits then things are different. This is a material reality.

The article did not succinctly make the point I made above but it did at least address class essentialism. Class is also defined on a monetary basis. Just give the cretins some money, a retirement, power and a flag to wave, legal immunity and they will oppress and murder on cue.

Reread this. Bold highlighted for reference.


There are people in the military and police who come from a working-class background, yes, but one's background does not determine one's class: this is class essentialism––which means not a proper understanding of class as something that is made and not found as if it is a Platonic form––and is as uncritical as claiming that a capitalist who came from humble beginnings is secretly proletarian. What matters is the material position one occupies in capitalism and the police and military at the centres of global capitalism occupy a very specific position: the maintenance and expansion of the bourgeois order. Under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie the police exist to defend the persistence and reproduction of this dictatorship; under global imperialism the military of the imperialist states exist to defend the persistence and reproduction of this dictatorship's economic hegemony. Their position, function, and structural meaning does not make them proletarian because not only are they at any point of production (let alone the most exploited, the proletarian "hard core"), their labour is to reproduce bourgeois class rule.

Then there is the supposedly more sophisticated argument regarding the military/police that treats them as some sort of revolutionary necessity. If the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie can only be broken by a military offensive, this argument goes, then we need to focus on the recruitment of soldiers and police officers who have some experience in military matters. And yet why would people who are ideologically trained to serve and protect the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie––to expand its hegemony––ever be interested, while they are serving as pigs and running dogs, in what they structurally understand as "criminal" and "treasonous"? And why should we waste our organizational time trying to "convert" these people––many of whom have been trained to put down uprisings––who want to kill us? And they do want to kill us, or at least lock us up in prison, because they have only stayed soldiers and cops because they believe in the ethos of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Former soldiers and former cops are another story, but this "let's recruit from the ranks of the pigs and running dogs" discourse is not about jaded veterans and ex-police––it's about how we need to win the entire structure of the military and the police over to the anti-capitalist side! (This is similar to saying that we need to win a white supremacist organization over to the anti-racist side, so we should organize in KKK spaces, or that we need to win mens rights activists over to the feminist side, so we should organize in MRA spaces.) And we need to win them over, apparently, because we need them to make revolution.
I think this perspective in the OP is rooted in an ideological argument about "people's armies" not rooted in materialism.Re-read the above.

[ind_com]

During the Vietnam War, while the anti-war protests were arguably not effective...anti-war agitation that seeped into the military played a role in ending the Vietnam War as the military became more 'mutinous' (no actually mutinies, although there was a case of a US naval ship refusing to deploy to Vietnam, but partly due to anti-war agitation within the military it came to a point where rank-file soldiers started fragging their officers, avoiding confrontation with "the enemy," and refusing to deploy/follow orders). It reach a point that the US military establishment wrote a report on how "ineffective" their armies have become to the point of being rendered "unable to continue fighting the war effectively and could worsen" which may have changed the mind of Washington to pull out during the Nixon (a president not considered a "dove president") administration. Of course, one thing to take into account was the draftee/conscript nature of the military at that point...now the military is mostly made of volunteers, although there's the phenomenon of "economic 'draftees.'"

Also historically, militaries have played a role in revolutions, whether as part of the reaction (i.e. the German upheaval post-WWI) or part of the revolution (Russian Revolution). The police however tended to side with the reaction since their position in society is an explicitly anti-revolutionary "maintain order in domestic society" one.


As the article points out that more soldiers are actually from the better-off sections of the population, economic draftees are a minority. Those who prefer to kill rather than choose a job with less salary/privileges are unlikely to join a revolution. Also, only in Russia, were an army of conscripts was badly losing a war, did a mass-deflection happen. In case of both China and Vietnam, the communist side already had an independent powerful force that became the cause of deflections in the reactionary armies.

[ind_com]

It's my understanding that he also advocated collaboration with the "patriotic capitalists." In fact the new democracy subordinates the working class to the bureaucracies orientation towards a bloc with the patriotic bourgeoisie.

First of all, the model of new-democracy is applicable only to the colonies and neo-colonies. Secondly, Mao was explicit in stating that the proletariat was the leader of the revolution in China. Lastly, parts of the national-bourgeoisie of China opposed imperialism and joined the revolution, due to the concrete conditions in China. The conditions that made such an alliance possible, might vary or be absent in other neo-colonies.

[Raúl Duke]

As the article points out that more soldiers are actually from the better-off sections of the population

The article also has no source for that claim...

I'm not exactly arguing with the main premise, I don't feel the military is a site for "leftists agitation" per se as well, much less the police force.

[ind_com]

The article also has no source for that claim...


Good point.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I get the feeling you think you have to write a lot to make your point and for it to be respected.Sorry I stopped reading right there.

^Ok Just kidding. Sorry if my stream of consciousness, digression-heavy, writing style puts you off, but your passive-aggressive insults towards other posters who disagree with you puts me off.

Here's my more concise argument: the article is Maoist ideological constructions over historical experience or contemporary fact or longstanding revolutionary conclusions on the subject.


This is just absolutely incorrect. As long as the soldiers are paid a decent wage, and get their 20 - 25 year retirement they will murder and lock in cages just about anyone they are told to. Now if they do not receive those benefits then things are different. This is a material reality.What is this retirement you are talking of? Again I am making a disctinction between "professionals" and enlisted people who sell themselves for a specific term of service. In 2011, enlisted recruits by two years made $17,611/year. Lifer-officers make more like 60K/year and up - privite contractors make about the same and here in Oakland starting salary for cops is 70K/year not including benefits and they pay for your training.


The article did not succinctly make the point I made above but it did at least address class essentialism. Class is also defined on a monetary basis. Just give the cretins some money, a retirement, power and a flag to wave, legal immunity and they will oppress and murder on cue. No, class has nothing directly to do with money, it has to do with ones classification in the production process: someone's relations to capital. Pay does not equate to class - that is a completely non-marxist, mainstream academic understanding of class.

This makes soldiers soldiers, not prols, but this is beside the point because there are divisions within the military which a strong and self-possessed working class movement have and can still use to their advantage. And for enlisted recruits, they are in the military for a defined amount of time - it's like saying that a college student who comes from a working class background and goes to school to become a nurse isn't a working class person. Yeah technically for the years in college, but that's a weird way to look at it.

When the military recruits people what do they offer: job skills for later or money for college. The function of the soldier may not be "working class" but the induviduals are subject to pressure from the working class movement not because that's "what they were born into" but because that is what they will return to. Cops and officers are careerists, brutality and war are career advancement opportunities. For the enlisted soldier recruited on the basis that they can eventually get a better job on the capitalist market, war is a life-threatening existence.

You mentioned being given a free hand when it comes to brutalizing people: this too exposes a rift because while US cops are rarely ever charged with anything (aside from corruption - they are hardly ever charge for abuse or murder of people) and then are rarely given a normal punishment that non-cops would get. Conversely, the low-ranking enlistees and draftees are always thrown under the bus when inevitable systematic abuses of imperialist war happen to see the light of day. In Vietnam ex-soliders were indispensable in showing how abuse was systemic, not "bad individual soldiers".


Reread this. Bold highlighted for reference.Yes I read that and saying "this is materialist" doesn't make it so:lol:. It is correct on the role of the institutions of the police and the military, but again as I have repeatedly argued conflates this with the personnel and their relationship to that imperial project while ignoring the contradictions within the military hierarchy.

The Paris Commune, Russian/German/French armies during WWI, US (enlisted) Soldiers in Vietnam all played a huge role in breaking down the militaries of those powers. There are countless more examples. Why is discipline such a part of the military: because imperialist militaries are subject to mutainee - so much so that often such a thing is punishable by death. The imperialists take this threat seriously, revolutionaries have historically taken this possibility as necessary in neutralizing the repressive power of the state.

[LiberationTheologist]

What is this retirement you are talking of? Again I am making a disctinction between "professionals" and enlisted people who sell themselves for a specific term of service. In 2011, enlisted recruits by two years made $17,611/year. Lifer-officers make more like 60K/year and up - privite contractors make about the same and here in Oakland starting salary for cops is 70K/year not including benefits and they pay for your training. I take your point about the low pay and plenty of shitty jobs in the military but the myriad of other reasons keep soldiers in line, and in the USA lets not forget the almighty honorable discharge and soldiers first practice, called veterans preference which gives military people an advantage for getting a job over other people when they get out. I have little doubt this system is perpetuated the world over.


No, class has nothing directly to do with money, it has to do with ones classification in the production process: someone's relations to capital. Pay does not equate to class - that is a completely non-marxist, mainstream academic understanding of class.Well thanks for that but what I am saying is still absolutely correct. The soldiers and police will kill and imprison for the reasons I have stated which makes them unlikely to rebel.


This makes soldiers soldiers, not prols, Is this a mistype? You just spent a paragraph talking about my non marxist point of view then go ahead and take the same step.




When the military recruits people what do they offer: job skills for later or money for college. The function of the soldier may not be "working class" but the induviduals are subject to pressure from the working class movement not because that's "what they were born into" but because that is what they will return to. Cops and officers are careerists, brutality and war are career advancement opportunities. For the enlisted soldier recruited on the basis that they can eventually get a better job on the capitalist market, war is a life-threatening existence.Agreed they are susceptible but usually only if their families or friends or outside society pressures them to rebel. Which is why it is important to demoralize their apathetic and/or flag waving pro state family and friends.


Yes I read that and saying "this is materialist" doesn't make it so:lol:. It is correct on the role of the institutions of the police and the military, but again as I have repeatedly argued conflates this with the personnel and their relationship to that imperial project while ignoring the contradictions within the military hierarchy.When I say materialist I am talking about money, but you seem to be rejecting that based on your rigid idea of what Marx said. I do not understand this opinion.


The Paris Commune, Russian/German/French armies during WWI, US (enlisted) Soldiers in Vietnam all played a huge role in breaking down the militaries of those powers. There are countless more examples. Why is discipline such a part of the military: because imperialist militaries are subject to mutainee - so much so that often such a thing is punishable by death. The imperialists take this threat seriously, revolutionaries have historically taken this possibility as necessary in neutralizing the repressive power of the state. They are unlikely to mutiny. I don't like the use of the verb "subject" because that makes it sound like it is a probable thing when it is not. I see almost no mutiny in US history.

There is however David Fagan someone who did the right thing and DEFECTED- http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2057421757/freedom-fighter-a-new-play?ref=small_projects

[LiberationTheologist]

I find it nonsensical to conflate teachers with the police and the military all because they arguably get paid well (I say arguably because mostly right-wing propaganda talks about how teachers get "paid too much and extravagant benefits"), get work benefits (like many public sector workers BTW)...
Teachers can be unionized and go on strike, one of the leaders of the teachers union in PR is a self-described socialist, they work for a wage/salary, their position in society don't place them in direct opposition to the proletariat either/or domestically or internationally.

Yes what you say in the second paragraph is true. What is also true is that if it comes down to losing your job, and likely not being able to get another or telling the students to stand up and salute the flag, and celebrate the national holidays (mythology in most cases) and whether to call for a strike on principles, or whether or whether to oppose the pro war assemblies in school you will get silence on the matter or cheerleading by some teachers on the pro war events. Teachers are not going to risk their pensions, that is an overbearing reality. In order to make teachers more revolutionary you have to remove their pensions and make them part time workers. I've experienced it first hand. This is the material reality.

Don't count on teachers to rock the boat, they are too busy planning their next vacation and cementing the status quo, with a few exceptions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This question is important in part because it informs revolutionary strategy. As I see it broadly, we need (class militants and revolutionaries) to help build up class consciousness and confidence in independent class movements. This means helping workers to organize themselves for their own power and that inherent power of workers is in their relation to the production process. But the state keeps the capitalist relations intact through a combination of hegemony (favoring ideas about the world that confirm the current order as "natural" or beneficial and universal - or at least unavoidable) but this is only backed by the repressive arm of the state: police and military.

The police can be taken on by workers as workers through street-battles and barricades if necessary. The police are a relatively small force when compared to mass strikes and uprisings, and so on the day to day, they are a problem, but will be overwhelmed by large urban uprisings (which is why capitalists then tend to turn to the military and if that fails to fascists).

The military is a much larger force that barricades and Egyptian square-style defense will not last long against. In Egypt, the generals were afraid that calling in the military would split the military because low-ranking soldiers had been fraternizing with the protesters and actually sometimes arresting police and so on. This lead to a lot of the confusion in the movement over which side the military as a whole was. High-ranking officers who "supported" the protests only did so because they feared that they would loose authority if they tried to make their own soldiers attack something they were sympathetic to. Had there been an independent revolutionary class force with numbers and credibility in Egypt, they could have argued that illusions in the military as a populist defender are misplaced, but that the movement should make demands that are specific to low-ranking soldiers in order to win them (or at least chunks) away from the generals so if the call was made, some might switch sides and refuse orders - taking advantage of the splits already developing in the hierarchy.

In this way workers are defending their source of power, their potential labor, while disrupting the repressive force of the capitalist order. Workers will then need to organize a militia, but through getting support from rebelling rank and file soldiers, this gives workers a chance to do this while the military is disorganized by the revot - it also will potentially help workers take military hardware from bases and such.

On the other hand, the Maoist position seems to be that workers should become "counter-soldiers" and leave urban areas and their inherent productive power as workers. Then they form a permanent military apparatus, try and gain support of people and say they will fight on their behalf. IMO this strategy has nothing to do with the self-emancipation of the working class, it is progressive warlordism or a kind of national liberation struggle. It creates soldier's (probably more like General's) power, not worker's power.

[Jimmie Higgins]

My point re: soldiers are soldiers - like I said, the are "soldiers" in that role, people should resist occupying or imperialist forces. But it is a weird way to look at consciousness to say that a few years in the military mean that your interests are automatically aligned - especially when people are put into nearly unbreakable contracts when they sign up. Again, "students" are also "students" in the abstract, but on an actual individual level this doesn't tell us what their particular consciousness is like - students can come from working class backgrounds, but one that is learning to be a skilled worker is going to be influenced by working class struggle much more differently than one who is studying to become a professional or going to business school etc. Cops are going to be cops until they quit and leaving the force actually would take a break in their consciousness. GIs however, sign-up, are mentally broken down, and then sent into stressful situations. They want to avoid being shot, the officers want to get into conflicts so they can make names for themselves. And then the generals of course are just connected to the ruling class so it goes beyond mere career ambition (though obviously on an individual level this plays a part).


They are unlikely to mutiny. I don't like the use of the verb "subject" because that makes it sound like it is a probable thing when it is not. I see almost no mutiny in US history.
http://libcom.org/history/vietnam-gi-resistance

By 1970, the U.S. Army had 65,643 deserters, roughly the equivalent of four infantry divisions. In an article published in the Armed Forces Journal (June 7, 1971), Marine Colonel Robert D. Heinl Jr., a veteran combat commander with over 27 years experience in the Marines, and the author of Soldiers Of The Sea, a definitive history of the Marine Corps, wrote: “By every conceivable indicator, our army that remains in Vietnam is in a state approaching collapse, with individual units avoiding or having refused combat, murdering their officers and non-commissioned officers, drug-ridden, and dispirited where not near mutinous. Elsewhere than Vietnam, the situation is nearly as serious… Sedition, coupled with disaffection from within the ranks, and externally fomented with an audacity and intensity previously inconceivable, infest the Armed Services...”
Heinl cited a New York Times article which quoted an enlisted man saying, “The American garrisons on the larger bases are virtually disarmed. The lifers have taken our weapons away...there have also been quite a few frag incidents in the battalion.” [the pentagon estimated that there was at least one murder of an officer by GIs a week by the early 70s]

...
By 1972 roughly 300 anti-war and anti-military newspapers, with names like Harass the Brass, All Hands Abandon Ship and Star Spangled Bummer had been put out by enlisted people. Many hundreds of GIs created these papers, but their influence was far wider, with thousands more who helped distribute them, and tens of thousands of readers. Riots and anti-war demonstrations took place on bases in Asia, Europe and in the United States.
The important thing to note for modern purposes is that a lot of these rebellions were not started by draftees but by enlisted men. Anti-war draftees made up a much bigger part of the dodging and AWOL, but enlisted soldiers who went to war convinced, only to then realize that the war was not in their interests and that their real enemy was the officers and generals, led the protests and rebellions for the most part.

The US military has obessed over how to prevent such a thing from happening and they call it "the Vietnam Syndrome" and for this reason they have tried to minimize infantry and ground forces in general (except after 9/11, but they quickly had to alter their approach because they began to run into some of the same problems in Iraq) and try to use "domestic" ground forces whenever possible. But this limits the US and as an imperial power at some point they will be challenged and actually need a ground force and again, these problems will reappear - this dynamic is exponentially more explosive if there was a rebellion at home that needed to be put down by force.

[Raúl Duke]

Yes what you say in the second paragraph is true. What is also true is that if it comes down to losing your job, and likely not being able to get another or telling the students to stand up and salute the flag, and celebrate the national holidays (mythology in most cases) and whether to call for a strike on principles, or whether or whether to oppose the pro war assemblies in school you will get silence on the matter or cheerleading by some teachers on the pro war events. Teachers are not going to risk their pensions, that is an overbearing reality. In order to make teachers more revolutionary you have to remove their pensions and make them part time workers. I've experienced it first hand. This is the material reality.

Don't count on teachers to rock the boat, they are too busy planning their next vacation and cementing the status quo, with a few exceptions.

If you think that one's pay rate and work benefits make one non-prole than a lot of other people would fall into a non-prole status. Like, private sector unionized workers (GM workers for example).

That kind of frame of thinking, of considering one's pay rate/benefits, as to whether they're prole or not (which is a non-marxian way of viewing class BTW and a view rejected by nearly most radicals) instead of their actual position in relation to the economy (i.e. are they paid a wage/salary for what they make or what services, commodities, they provide?) could only lead to a slippery-slope if you take it to the extreme conclusions: 1st worlders are not prole, they're paid better than 3rd world proles.

Also, depending on what you mean by principles, the Chicago strike was mostly about bettering conditions in the classroom (which would improve the quality of education for students and make the work easier for teachers) and such stuff and less about pay/benefits.

Advocating removing their pensions and reducing them to part-time hours...I bet workers who work full-time and/or get pensions will be so eager to hear about or follow your revolutionary ideas after that. :rolleyes:


I've experienced it first hand. This is the material reality. Personal anecdotes don't make something a prevalent conclusive "material reality."

[LiberationTheologist]

If you think that one's pay rate and work benefits make one non-prole than a lot of other people would fall into a non-prole status. Like, private sector unionized workers (GM workers for example).

That kind of frame of thinking, of considering one's pay rate/benefits, as to whether they're prole or not (which is a non-marxian way of viewing class BTW and a view rejected by nearly most radicals) instead of their actual position in relation to the economy (i.e. are they paid a wage/salary for what they make or what services, commodities, they provide?) could only lead to a slippery-slope if you take it to the extreme conclusions: 1st worlders are not prole, they're paid better than 3rd world proles.

The point is well taken. Yes being paid a decent salary does not mean you agree with the state of things or the ruling class but you should also concede my point - a decent salary and benefits protect their money and benefits above all else.



Also, depending on what you mean by principles, the Chicago strike was mostly about bettering conditions in the classroom (which would improve the quality of education for students and make the work easier for teachers) and such stuff and less about pay/benefits.

Advocating removing their pensions and reducing them to part-time hours...I bet workers who work full-time and/or get pensions will be so eager to hear about or follow your revolutionary ideas after that. :rolleyes:What workers? The immobilized well enough paid teachers who will not rock the boat at the risk of losing their job and pension? No, I'm sure you are right on that account, not when you have people who want more money more than anything else.



Personal anecdotes don't make something a prevalent conclusive "material reality." That is correct, they don't but my point is still valid. This is not complex stuff, it is however a basic reality which is difficult to swallow because it means that the capitalist machine has quite thoroughly immobilized and bought off teachers, soldiers, police and most unions. So where then are are we to turn to? How to mobilize opposition to capitalism and war?

[Raúl Duke]

So where then are are we to turn to? How to mobilize opposition to capitalismI will concede a bit.

While I find it very distasteful of leftists to tell workers or advocate for workers to "get paid less, lose benefits" (it's not our job, that's what the bourgeois class elite argues for as a necessity via their media, talking heads, and politicians all day recently: the whole austerity deal)...

I view capitalism as a system with particular processes.

Some Orthodox Marxists have argued that eventually the "system" will reach a point where it would be "unable" or, more accurately, unwilling to support decent salaries, benefits, and the welfare system. They mentioned stuff like the "the tendency for falling rates of profit" (written somewhere in Capital) or some such that occurs when it becomes harder for capitalism to find new markets/new things to capitalize on (dot-com bubble, housing mortgage bubble, etc) and that this (and/or plus some other factors) will lead capitalism to crisis.

So, arguably, a decline in wages, salaries, benefits, and cuts or even repeals of elements of the welfare system, according to this idea, are "inevitable." But in reducing the prior quality of life and replacing it with a lower one, the potential for unrest, upheaval, and perhaps even revolution become more likely.

I agree with the spirit of your argument only in one sense: as long as segments (particularly the so-called "middle class") of the proletariat feel that their needs are met, that "climbing the social ladder" or "moving up in a career" is possible for them or at least their children, and so on than there's no incentive for the most part for them to view revolution as a preferred option. This is true. After all, revolutions are a mostly "unknown" factor, people aren't sure were or what it may actually really lead to; despite whatever we may say about communism, anarchism, or whatever new society.

The system needs to reach a point where it's perceived by the proletariat not to be "working anymore." Although, technically it is (and will be) working as intended (to the sole interests of the bourgeoisie), what I mean is that it stops "accommodating" the proletariat and most importantly that the proletariat views it as such degree that it has reached a level where revolution becomes an option to be considered.

However, despite that for now I may 'believe' that orthodox marxist somewhat determinist idea, I'm open that I may be wrong and/or that there are other factors (like false consciousness an whatever) at play. When it comes to thinking what may cause a revolution, etc I don't claim to know for certain

It's hard to predict how, when, exactly why a revolution occurs. What I suggest is that the left tries to agitate to increase the militancy of the working class in seeking its own interests. If Marx, et.al were right, than revolution will occur when the material interests of the working class, while they seek it through labor militancy, etc, cannot seemingly be met or accommodated anymore by capitalism and thus potentially leading to revolution.

[Let's Get Free]

First of all, the model of new-democracy is applicable only to the colonies and neo-colonies. Secondly, Mao was explicit in stating that the proletariat was the leader of the revolution in China. Lastly, parts of the national-bourgeoisie of China opposed imperialism and joined the revolution, due to the concrete conditions in China. The conditions that made such an alliance possible, might vary or be absent in other neo-colonies.

Which is exactly why I think, despite the propaganda to the contrary, the Chinese revolution was not a revolution on behalf of the working class. Maoism is, in essence a variety of "revolutionary nationalism", a method of freeing the neo-colony from foreign domination, fought in the interests of the national petty bourgeoisie allied with the workers and the peasants.

[ind_com]

Which is exactly why I think, despite the propaganda to the contrary, the Chinese revolution was not a revolution on behalf of the working class. Maoism is, in essence a variety of "revolutionary nationalism", a method of freeing the neo-colony from foreign domination, fought in the interests of the national petty bourgeoisie allied with the workers and the peasants.

New-democracy is only a fraction of Maoism. Also, if it had not been in the interests of the working-class and poor-peasantry, it wouldn't have had programmes like land-redistribution, nationalization of industries or the formation of communes.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

the Chinese revolution was not a revolution on behalf of the working class.

In 1948 the life expectancy of the adverage Chinese was 34 years

In 1974 it was 68 years.

In 1918 there were 3 million industrial workers in China

In 1976 there were 25 million industrial workers and over 600,000 state owned enterprises.

In China, unlike the Soviet Union, People's communes were explicitly owned and managed by the peasantry, unlike in the Soviet Union where they were owned by the state on the behalf of the working class.

I rest my case

[Let's Get Free]

In 1948 the life expectancy of the adverage Chinese was 34 years

In 1974 it was 68 years.

In 1918 there were 3 million industrial workers in China

In 1976 there were 25 million industrial workers and over 600,000 state owned enterprises.

In China, unlike the Soviet Union, People's communes were explicitly owned and managed by the peasantry, unlike in the Soviet Union where they were owned by the state on the behalf of the working class.

I rest my case

You don't judge the relationship between the workers and the means of production in society by that societies life expectancy. That is idealist and un-Marxist.

And these "peoples communes," where they formed voluntarily by the peasants themselves, or were they imposed from above?
This was written by a guy named Mah-ki, who supported the communes.

“The commune movement as a whole was largely compulsory in character. Though the CCP agrees in words with the principle of voluntary consent by the peasants, it has not complied with it in deeds. The people’s communes started as an experiment in April, 1958, but the documents concerning them were first published in August, 1958. Then in a period of not more than two months 99% of the rural population was organized into the communes. In such a short period, the superiority of the communes could not be proved by an increase in production and by an improvement in the standard of living of the people. Also there was insufficient time for discussion among the masses on how to form the communes .... All was decided simply by decree in this hastily organized movement.” (“The People’s Communes,” by Mah-ki, pp. 17-18.)

[ind_com]

You don't judge the relationship between the workers and the means of production in society by that societies life expectancy. That is idealist and un-Marxist.

The workers' relationship to the means of production results in material gains for the workers. Life-expectancy, literacy-rates etc. are some indicators for that.


And these "peoples communes," where they formed voluntarily by the peasants themselves, or were they imposed from above?
This was written by a guy named Mah-ki, who supported the communes.

“The commune movement as a whole was largely compulsory in character. Though the CCP agrees in words with the principle of voluntary consent by the peasants, it has not complied with it in deeds. The people’s communes started as an experiment in April, 1958, but the documents concerning them were first published in August, 1958. Then in a period of not more than two months 99% of the rural population was organized into the communes. In such a short period, the superiority of the communes could not be proved by an increase in production and by an improvement in the standard of living of the people. Also there was insufficient time for discussion among the masses on how to form the communes .... All was decided simply by decree in this hastily organized movement.” (“The People’s Communes,” by Mah-ki, pp. 17-18.)

Who was this Mah-Ki and what were his political affiliations? In what way did he contribute to the Chinese Revolution?

Anyways, notice that this example too highlights material gains as a parameter of progress. As for the accusation that the people's communes were compulsory in nature, I must say that I haven't seen much evidence of at least a large number of them being forcefully imposed from above.

[Let's Get Free]

The workers' relationship to the means of production results in material gains for the workers. Life-expectancy, literacy-rates etc. are some indicators for that.

Life expectancy in the U.S. has improved drastically over the decades. Does that make the U.S. socialist? Does that make the social democracies in Europe socialist?




Who was this Mah-Ki and what were his political affiliations? In what way did he contribute to the Chinese Revolution?

Anyways, notice that this example too highlights material gains as a parameter of progress. As for the accusation that the people's communes were compulsory in nature, I must say that I haven't seen much evidence of at least a large number of them being forcefully imposed from above.

About 99% of the rural population, or 500 million people were organized into the 'Peoples Communes' from September 1958 to December 1958. I find it somewhat hard to believe that in such a short period of time that many people, on their own volition and not under compulsion, would join the communes.

[ind_com]

Life expectancy in the U.S. has improved drastically over the decades. Does that make the U.S. socialist? Does that make the social democracies in Europe socialist?

These improvements in the centers of imperialism have taken place at the cost of the third world. If you want to compare them with China, take into account their neo-colonies as well. China didn't export any of its problems or crises to the rest of the third-world.


About 99% of the rural population, or 500 million people were organized into the 'Peoples Communes' from September 1958 to December 1958. I find it somewhat hard to believe that in such a short period of time that many people, on their own volition and not under compulsion, would join the communes.

That is not an argument at all. Some in India also find it difficult to believe that in most of the villages 99% of the population joins Maoist struggles overnight voluntarily.

[Let's Get Free]

These improvements in the centers of imperialism have taken place at the cost of the third world. If you want to compare them with China, take into account their neo-colonies as well. China didn't export any of its problems or crises to the rest of the third-world.
Alright, what about India? The life expectancy in India was has nearly doubled since 1950, though, I don't think either of us will say that India's ever been socialist.



That is not an argument at all. Some in India also find it difficult to believe that in most of the villages 99% of the population joins Maoist struggles overnight voluntarily.

It just seems inconceivable to me that that many people would collectivize in such a short amount of time, voluntarily. This means the lessons to be drawn from the experience in collectivizing agriculture in Russia (forty years) and the East European countries (ten years) become meaningless. The only conclusion we can draw is that the Chinese peasants are completely different from those in the rest of the world; they are “born communists” or are “especially inclined to collectivization."

[Os Cangaceiros]

With regards to Vietnam, I'm just going to repost something S.Artesian posted in a similar thread:


Ahh......not really. None of the underground press in the Navy ever resulted in a mission not being fulfilled.

And fragging was not endemic. It occurred, certainly. Occurred, too, in WW2 from what I've been told. Didn't happen that much.

The "class conscious" US soldiers did not end that war. Their consciousness really never reached what would be called class consciousness. Certainly, there was a breakdown in discipline. Certainly there was resistance to "apparently" pointless missions [like the famous Hamburger Hill], but again these things occurred because the US lost control of the battlefield. Losing control of the battlefield did not occur because of class-conscious actions by the enlisted/conscripted troops.

I honestly can't think of many instances at all in which there were seriously worrying developments in the US armed forces over economic circumstances. Closest I can think of is the Bonus Army, and maybe the railroad general strike in 1877.

[Jimmie Higgins]

With regards to Vietnam, I'm just going to repost something S.Artesian posted in a similar thread:

I honestly can't think of many instances at all in which there were seriously worrying developments in the US armed forces over economic circumstances. Closest I can think of is the Bonus Army, and maybe the railroad general strike in 1877.

This is irrelevant to my argument. I never argued that they had become "class conscious" - had there been a class conscious movement domestically, or had they been fighting against a class conscious workers revolution rather than a national struggle fought in rural areas then the way ideas around the demoralization and protests developed may have gone a different way. In addition class consciousness does not mean consciousness or struggle over specific economic issues. A lot of the early rebellions in the US military were from black soldiers over issues of racism within the military - had this developed further it would have been class consciousness developed out of an understanding of how oppression fits into the overall system.

What the soldiers did develop a sense of was that the real enemy was their commanders and the military "machine". They produced anti-officer newspapers and generally just rebelled from everything from just slacking on duty and drinking or smoking pot instead to fragging and refusing orders. A Network news-crew even filmed a bunch of GIs getting together, talking over their orders and deciding to refuse and confronting their superior.

And to say that the US army was not phased by this doesn't make sense. The Vietnamese forces pushed back and so without that everything is moot. But the refusals and breakdown in the military helped make it increasingly difficult for the US to continue the war. The shadow left by this in US military policies since then, exposes the impact: the draft was ended; there was a hesitancy to even use ground forces basically until the USSR fell and the US invaded Iraq the first time; reliance on proxy forces more; etc.

A breakdown in the military in Vietnam isn't just a breakdown in Vietnam, it's a worldwide breakdown giving a green-light to all other national struggles as well as imperial rivals. The retreat of the US alone signaled this, but for the US a retreat is the lesser evil to breakdown and a more open mutiny in the military.

Hell, the Vietnamese resistance knew that internal military disorder for the US was possible and often played on that dynamic in their propaganda and tried to make messages to US GIs that their fight was with their officers. Every imperialist army knows that it's possible to drive a wedge into conventional armies - the difference in a liberation struggle is that in a worker's uprising workers could not only split open that wedge, but actually appeal to an alternative and break chunks of GIs away while demoralizing larger sections and causing the machine to break down.

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/race_vietnam02.jpg
http://www.psywarrior.com/AmericanArmyMenx2.jpg

[Os Cangaceiros]

The soldiers in the US military in Vietnam revolted (sometimes) because of the grueling conditions they found themselves in. I'm not a Maoist, but to me that signifies that a military will only fracture when they've been getting pounded...such as the Portuguese military getting pounded in it's African colonies and eventually revolting, or the Argentinian military being broken over the Falklands, or the Greek junta falling after the confrontation with the Turks, etc.

I think the insubordination in Vietnam is overstated. The large majority of actions in Vietnam went exactly according to plan (regardless of whether the plan was stupid or not). A revolt from within the US military for any sort of progressive outcome (on a significant scale) remains strictly theoretical.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think the insubordination in Vietnam is overstated. The large majority of actions in Vietnam went exactly according to plan (regardless of whether the plan was stupid or not). A revolt from within the US military for any sort of progressive outcome (on a significant scale) remains strictly theoretical.

Having to end the ground war as well as the draft and then decades of hesitancy about committing to permanent ground invasion is not going "accoding to plan" IMO. Armed resitance, protests domestically, and a breakdown within the military all had an accumulative effect - obviously this was limited in effect as there was no revolution and US imperialism could gain some recovery space and work out new strategies and rebuild.

But any urban working class rebellion I can think of involved the military splitting to some degree; conditions were different in Paris where workers were made the city defense and then those workers organized their own power than in Spain or Russia or Egypt but the fundamental fissure in forces of these kinds existed in each case. There does seem to be a connection with lossing a war, but countries also loose without rebellion and just demoralization, so I think it may have something to do with that loss generating more potential for GIs to question why their ruling class is sending them to slaughter in a loosing situation.

So, considering this history, what, aside from lower general class consiousness and struggle is the fundamental difference between the US military and all other imperialist militaries that makes it immune from these tendencies?

[ind_com]

Alright, what about India? The life expectancy in India was has nearly doubled since 1950, though, I don't think either of us will say that India's ever been socialist.

What was the increase in life-expectancy in India in the period 1949-1976? Even now India is far behind China in terms of life-expectancy, infant mortality rate, literacy rate and other indicators of quality of life. Hell, they still hunt down and execute couples over here for marrying on their own!


It just seems inconceivable to me that that many people would collectivize in such a short amount of time, voluntarily. This means the lessons to be drawn from the experience in collectivizing agriculture in Russia (forty years) and the East European countries (ten years) become meaningless. The only conclusion we can draw is that the Chinese peasants are completely different from those in the rest of the world; they are “born communists” or are “especially inclined to collectivization."

The Chinese peasantry had been involved in a revolutionary movement for more than two decades, and it is not very illogical to assume that their consciousness, while not in the level of rebelling against revisionism, was certainly good enough for a speedy collectivization.