Revolutionary military organisation

[Queen Mab]

The army as it exists under a bourgeois state is obviously crushingly authoritarian and hierarchical. But even in a universal sense it's hard to imagine how a purely democratic or egalitarian military could be effective, when you consider the difficulties of holding a discussion of whether to go left or right when under attack. This obviously poses a difficulty for (especially anarchist) revolutionaries, who will likely have to defend themselves against an armed counter-revolution.

Is there theory that the democratic army is something that is unworkable during the DotP, or is a non-hierarchical army possible? And are there any decent sources on how forces such as the Red Ruhr Army, the defenders of the Paris Commune, the Bolshevik Red Guards etc. were organised?

[fractal-vortex]

I think that the obvious answer is democratic centralism. That means that democratically a major goal is set. Once this is set, executing the goal, tactics towards its realization should be left to the discretion of the immediate commanders.

Perhaps there is no theory in regard to this because such armies did not yet exist. They are in the future.

fractal-vortex

[Comrade Chernov]

I don't really think it's possible. Armies are the leadership and ability of one at the helm of the might, determination, and power, of thousands. Armies by nature are hierarchal.

[Blake's Baby]

I think that the obvious answer is democratic centralism. That means that democratically a major goal is set. Once this is set, executing the goal, tactics towards its realization should be left to the discretion of the immediate commanders...

That really isn't democratic centralism as I understand it.

I'd speculate that there would be some kind of federated army council. Each unit elects delegates to the central council which then acts as a general staff. Or, as the militia units will probably be raised from the factories, they may in theory at least subject to the district soviet structure.

[erupt]

I'd speculate that there would be some kind of federated army council. Each unit elects delegates to the central council which then acts as a general staff. Or, as the militia units will probably be raised from the factories, they may in theory at least subject to the district soviet structure.

In theory this is wonderful, but this will take time. Time is of the utmost importance during war/revolution. While everyone is sitting in at the council meetings, the hierarchical counterrevolutionary army/militia will be on the attack.

So, how could the theoretical federated army council act efficiently in the face of a non-federated, hierarchical army, in terms of decision making?

Also, remember I'm in agreement with your idea, I'm not bashing it or anything of that manner.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't see the difference. Hierarchical armies still have army councils ('committees of the general staff' or whatever). The election of delegates to the council, rather than them getting their jobs because of the number of badges they have, doesn't change the efficiency of the institution. It's still a bunch of people in a room (or over telecoms) discussing what needs to happen.

[erupt]

I guess my thought boils down to making sure the federated councils can make decisions just as quickly as their theoretical opponent, that's all.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, regular armies would have a regional command structure. There's no reason that wouldn't be elective in a workers' militia.

[Tim Cornelis]

I agree with something resembling democratic centralism in military structures. All hierarchical positions in military ranks need to be elected and can be recalled (though not at any time). All decisions made by commanders in the field or by the majority outside of it are binding on all. Additionally, this military structure needs to be subservient to workers' power so maybe half of a central military committee needs to be non-military.


I guess my thought boils down to making sure the federated councils can make decisions just as quickly as their theoretical opponent, that's all.

Of course they can, commanders are commanders whether elected or appointed doesn't matter. These federated councils wouldn't be mandated in the same sense that workers' councils are.

[Red_Banner]

"It is the commanding position, and not the rank, of the commander that is important. Engineers and physicians have no rank, but society finds the means of putting each in his needful place. The right to a commanding position is guaranteed by study, endowment, character, experience, which need continual and moreover individual appraisal. The rank of major adds nothing to the commander of a battalion. The elevation of the five senior commanders of the Red Army to the title of marshal, gives them neither new talents nor supplementary powers."-Leon Trotsky

[Internationale]

I think it is possible to create a non hierarchical militia is possible. In my opinion, there would be democratic processes and councils to make decisions if they were attacked.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I think pirate ship rules would be a good method.

In the old days, during the Golden Age of Piracy, all pirate ships ran democratically. Everything from pay, to destinations, to choosing (and deposing) a captain were all done by vote.

Unless it was in the heat of battle. During battle, the captain's word was law. Defy it and suffer the consequences.

[cobrawolf_meiji]

in a revolution and/or Counter-revolution, there also has to be cooperation between the regular and irregular forces, the irregular forces to fight dirty against the enemy and the regular to do the knock-out blow.

[Venas Abiertas]

I think pirate ship rules would be a good method.

In the old days, during the Golden Age of Piracy, all pirate ships ran democratically. Everything from pay, to destinations, to choosing (and deposing) a captain were all done by vote.

Unless it was in the heat of battle. During battle, the captain's word was law. Defy it and suffer the consequences.

You know, there's actually something quite profound here.

Why were pirate ships run democratically? Because all of the pirates were EQUAL. They were a big bunch of tough, lawless brigands who didn't answer to anybody. The only way they could be governed was if they themselves had agreed on something. If they were in the minority on a vote--tough bananas. The majority ruled because it was the majority--it could literally kick the ass of the minority and make it agree, and the pirates knew that. So they had to accept the results of a vote.

So it follows that in a capitalist society there can never be a true democracy, because some members will always have more property, and therefore more power, than others. In fact, democracy is impossible unless all capital is abolished. As long as there is private property, some individuals or groups will always have more property than others and they will control things to their own advantage. Only when private property is abolished can everyone meet as true equals, each one bringing his/her own particular skills and knowledge to the table.

There can be no democracy, and therefore no socialism, until there is no private property. There is no middle ground. Any kind of reformism is simply a refusal to see this simple reality.

[Slavic]

I do not think that it is possible for there to be a purely egalitarian and democratic military organization that is actually effective in combat. Combat can be highly unpredictable and the speed and efficiency in which a military responds to such combat determines whether or not such a military is successful. While egalitarianism and democratic desicion making may bring with it a more broad spectrum of solutions to the problems that combat brings about; I do beleive that such a desicion making proscess will be unbarebly slow and ineffective in the demanding environment that combat exits today.

A hierarchical decision making system commonly found in most militaries worldwide has the benefit of immediate action with minimal deliberation. This type of system delivers fast and cohesive responses to combat situations. Although a hierarchical system may provide a more narrow field of responses to combat situations, it is more able to change its responses as situations develop. As a democratic system deliberates, a hierarchical system acts.

This is not to admonish democratic and egalitarian systems of descision making, but that such a system is inappropriate in the context of war.

To the suggestions being made of federated military councils being constructed I ask how is this form any different then current military councils. There exists military councils, at least in the US, at all levels in the military which form and collectively make decisions on logistics, financing, military operations, etc. Mind you there is typically always a ranking member which heads over these councils.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think it is possible to create a non hierarchical militia is possible. In my opinion, there would be democratic processes and councils to make decisions if they were attacked.

The image alone is laughable. While shells are dropping around them left and right, bullets flying around their heads, there is a bunch of anarchist militiamen sitting in a circle trying to reach a consensus on whether to fire back, retreat, flank left, right, hold their position, and so forth. The adherence to the principle of non-hierarchy is so embedded into your thinking it leads to an almost straightforward mass suicide in a hypothetical war scenario.


To the suggestions being made of federated military councils being constructed I ask how is this form any different then current military councils. There exists military councils, at least in the US, at all levels in the military which form and collectively make decisions on logistics, financing, military operations, etc. Mind you there is typically always a ranking member which heads over these councils.

The members of such councils would be elected by the lower ranks and workers' representatives may also have a seat in such councils.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I have a PDF of General Giap's book: "People's War People's Army" Haven't had the time to read it just yet, but it describes military organization along a Marxist-Leninist line. Application of democratic centralism to the armed forces, as well as the use of class analysis to dictate strategies.

If someone wants a copy of it I'll be glad to share it.