Military-owned enterprises: potential for developing countries?

[Die Neue Zeit]

From an old discussion of mine: Progressive instances of militarized culture? [On peasant patrimonialism] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/progressive-instances-militarized-t162086/index.html)

Marx and Engels called for "Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm) and "In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm), yet perhaps the realization of this in Third World countries lies in the form of the military-owned enterprise?

Military-owned enterprises, though not a full economic panacea, could be the difference between sustainable yet robust defense industries in the Third World and military-industrial complexes with disproportionate clout. Coupled with appropriate military organizational overhaul (in very generous terms on my part), they may be a progressive form of public ownership that continues the normal capitalist tendency for military development to trickle into the civilian economy, while preventing economic rent from being enjoyed by private parties.

[bcbm]

:rolleyes:

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What of countries like Egypt where vast sectors of the economy are under the control of a military which posits itself as the "savior of the state" and inheritor (in an admittedly highly bastardized form) of the third-world socialist Nasserist legacy? I think it such an idea needs more developing to distinguish it from previous, failed militarist "revolutions" in the 3rd world. In the case of Egypt, it has just made the military into the biggest faction of the bourgeoisie, and Sisi is just working to prove this thesis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think it such an idea needs more developing to distinguish it from previous, failed militarist "revolutions" in the 3rd world. In the case of Egypt, it has just made the military into the biggest faction of the bourgeoisie, and Sisi is just working to prove this thesis.

Well, part of the "appropriate military organizational overhaul" I alluded to earlier argues that officers at all levels should enjoy skilled workers' standards of living at most and should be politically accountable, and that all soldiers should enjoy unionized workers' rights. The end effect is to have a self-sustaining, military-based defense industry that is part (state-owned) "national champion" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_champions) yet part gigantic co-op (bigger than Mondragon's wildest dreams) at the same time.

[Depardieu]

you guys remember what the italians and spanish and germans et. al. did when they were discontent with liberalism and decided to increase the military?

[cyu]

Do soldiers get to choose their officers, or do officers get to shoot soldiers for deserting?

[TC]

I don't see any reason to think that militaries could be more progressive modes of organization for being militaries. Some militaries might be *less reactionary than others* because they avoid the features typical of other militaries but they are still unlikely to be as progressive as non-military models for the same tasks.

Militaries are rigidly hierarchical, regimented, anti-individuality, anti-creativity, and disciplined and are not directly democratic - at best they might be representationally psudo-democratic but this is rare.

Militaries pretty much only serve one function well: fighting other militaries. They should only be used for that when it is necessary to prevent a greater injustice, not as a matter of course. Allowing the militarization of other areas of society is a terrible idea.

[The Jay]

So rather than individuals in suits taking my labor, people in fatigues get to?

[Devrim]

Can somebody please ban him?

Devrim

[Alexios]

Marx was calling for a "worker's army" in a nation with an army led by a fairly standard European aristocracy. The degree to which this was 'progressive' even in 1848 is debatable, but there's no question that it's an idiotic proposition in any modern context. Please point me to a "Third world" country that exists today with anything similar to the junkers, because it seems like you're posting this while high.

[Q]

I have to say that I'm not getting "the point" here at all. Who is going to implement said organisational change? A Chavez-like figure? This is a highly doubtful route to undertake. As SCM mentioned the army is very often in there with many interests itself (and it has the guns to defend them). And with that said, I connect with TC in that the army is hardly much of a progressive factor in society at large, even at the best of times.

Let me ask directly: What is propping the military-industrial complex actually going to achieve?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have to say that I'm not getting "the point" here at all. Who is going to implement said organisational change? A Chavez-like figure? This is a highly doubtful route to undertake. As SCM mentioned the army is very often in there with many interests itself (and it has the guns to defend them). And with that said, I connect with TC in that the army is hardly much of a progressive factor in society at large, even at the best of times.

Let me ask directly: What is propping the military-industrial complex actually going to achieve?

Comrade, this specific public ownership feature is not life-or-death essential for Third World countries (i.e., not central to contemporary solutions). However, it could help them defend themselves better against interventionists.

Implementation-wise, it would be realized as part of a TWCS regime, but if you must suggest a "Chavez-like figure" or Zizek's Thatcher of the left, then I'll suggest something longer: initially by presidential decree (a la Venezuela), then by presidentially initiated "urgent" legislation (a la Ecuador) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-presidential-systems-t166053/index.html).

[Five Year Plan]

Comrade, this specific public ownership feature is not life-or-death essential for Third World countries (i.e., not central to contemporary solutions). However, it could help them defend themselves better against interventionists.

Implementation-wise, it would be realized as part of a TWCS regime.

You know what actually is life-or-death essential for Third World countries? Proletarian revolution, a concept that rarely seems to be mentioned in your posts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You know what actually is life-or-death essential for Third World countries? Proletarian revolution, a concept that rarely seems to be mentioned in your posts.

Not only is it not mentioned, it is implicitly (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770716&postcount=24) disallowed (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770439&postcount=17). One wonders what is "Socialist" about "Third World Caesarean Socialism", and if a modifier is absent before "Socialist" that really should be there. Because all it seems to be is a blueprint for the petite-bourgeoisie to install a military dictator and enforce class collaboration between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as represented by the thwacs "party of millions". There is a term for that, and it's not pretty.

[Rafiq]

You know what actually is life-or-death essential for Third World countries? Proletarian revolution, a concept that rarely seems to be mentioned in your posts.

If the proletariat isn't a demographic majority than this would have to coincide with a proletarian revolution in advanced, powerful countries too. Otherwise it implies civil war with the peasantry.

[Five Year Plan]

If the proletariat isn't a demographic majority than this would have to coincide with a proletarian revolution in advanced, powerful countries too. Otherwise it implies civil war with the peasantry.

Hi, Rafiq. Welcome to 2014. We're long past the point where "peasants" who produced independent of a global capitalist market exist as majorities in any country. Now we have agricultural laborers who are either petty-bourgeois, but still market dependent, or are agricultural proletarians laboring on behalf of large capitalist agricultural firms.

And the frame of reference for proletarian revolution in any country in the world system is the world development of class forces, not the balance of class forces in a single country. Unless your starting point is the idea of socialism in a single country. Judging by your statements about Albanian being "bourgeois socialist," it's pretty obvious that you do support the possibility of socialism existing in one country. So I guess it's not all that surprising that I see you here, once again, defending the Third-World Caesarean line that you disavowed support for in countless other threads. This makes you either highly confused or a deliberate liar/troll. We can all guess which one is more likely.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not only is it not mentioned, it is implicitly (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770716&postcount=24) disallowed (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770439&postcount=17). One wonders what is "Socialist" about "Third World Caesarean Socialism", and if a modifier is absent before "Socialist" that really should be there. Because all it seems to be is a blueprint for the petite-bourgeoisie to install a military dictator and enforce class collaboration between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as represented by the thwacs "party of millions". There is a term for that, and it's not pretty.

That couldn't be further from the truth!

Where did I ever make any allowance whatsoever for the Maoist concept of a "national bourgeoisie?" :rolleyes:

A "national" or socioeconomically "patriotic" segment of the petit-bourgeoisie is another group altogether.


Hi, Rafiq. Welcome to 2014. We're long past the point where "peasants" who produced independent of a global capitalist market exist as majorities in any country. Now we have agricultural laborers who are either petty-bourgeois, but still market dependent, or are agricultural proletarians laboring on behalf of large capitalist agricultural firms.

My point is that the former outnumber the latter, actual farm workers.

[Depardieu]

do they, tho? where?

[Five Year Plan]

My point is that the former outnumber the latter, actual farm workers.

In which countries does a peasantry not integrated into the circuit of capital constitute the majority of the country? I would like some hard numbers to go with this list, too, and a citation if possible.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ignoring the operational sillyness of such a proposal, I think it's likely to end up highly counter-productive.

Observe that developing (I don't know why you insist on using the phrase 'third-world') countries that have large armies or active armies (think North Korea, Iraq under Saddam Hussein) tend to attract the attention of the imperialist nations (namely the USA).

Observe also a country that has not even been eyed by imperial armies for decades, despite being as genuinely Social Democratic in its constitution and societal make-up as other countries that more prominently wave red-flags all over the place: Costa Rica. Interestingly, Costa Rica hasn't had a standing army for ~65 years, yet it still manages to avoid invasion, despite a rich bio-diversity and relatively proximate location to the USA.

[Sasha]

The Iranian national guard and their capitalist intrests are one of the main block against revolution there, same goes for Egypt. (and I guess also Russia where the ex-kgb has the same role)

[Ismail]

Not that I support DNZ's politics, but I just felt like responding to this:

Observe also a country that has not even been eyed by imperial armies for decades, despite being as genuinely Social Democratic in its constitution and societal make-up as other countries that more prominently wave red-flags all over the place: Costa Rica. Interestingly, Costa Rica hasn't had a standing army for ~65 years, yet it still manages to avoid invasion, despite a rich bio-diversity and relatively proximate location to the USA."Jose Figueres, who headed the Costa Rican government three times, was always a rather improbable target of de-stabilization by the United States. He was a bona fide (North) Americanaphile, fluent in English, educated at MIT, lecturer at Harvard... typically referred to as an 'outstanding friend' of the United States, and had long been associated with the CIA in a variety of activities and fronts in Latin America. And if that weren't enough, both Figueres's wives had been American. Yet, the CIA tried to overthrow him during his term in office in the 1950s and twice tried to assassinate the man and perhaps tried again to overthrow him in the 1970s." (William Blum, Killing Hope, 2003, pp. 239-240.) The claim that the USA tried to assassinate him was from his own mouth, as was his admission that he worked for the CIA "in 20,000 ways... all over Latin America" for 30 years. (ibid. p. 82.)

He was also the President who abolished of Costa Rica's army.

Plenty of US allies have or had fairly large armies (enough to assist it regionally), such as Ethiopia and Morocco. The DPRK and Ba'athist Iraq were not targeted for their large armies, but in fact the size of their armies originated from the security situation of each state (with the USA having a direct role in the DPRK's army being the size it was due to the whole Korean War and armistice thing.)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Oh Ismail, if only you could rid yourself of the shackles of anti-Americanism you might actually be able to engage in a critical and honest analysis of the world.

For a kid, it's incredible how stuck you are in the politics of cold war re-enactment.

As I said, Costa Rica is as genuinely Social Democratic as any other country flying the red flag and paying lip service to socialism.

[Ismail]

Oh Ismail, if only you could rid yourself of the shackles of anti-Americanism you might actually be able to engage in a critical and honest analysis of the world.

For a kid, it's incredible how stuck you are in the politics of cold war re-enactment.

As I said, Costa Rica is as genuinely Social Democratic as any other country flying the red flag and paying lip service to socialism.You didn't actually argue against anything I wrote. Social democracy, in case you didn't notice, is not a threat to capitalism. The USA during the Cold War aided plenty of "socialist" governments such as Sweden, Senegal, Sudan and Somalia. With few exceptions social-democratic parties (especially those affiliated with the Socialist International) were staunchly pro-West. In addition the USA had relatively good relations even with the ostensibly "Marxist" governments of Yugoslavia and Romania.

You cited a country whose leader was literally a CIA asset, and who still ran afoul of it because of some minor differences in policy, as proof for some silly argument you're trying to make involving the USA only caring about countries with large armies, of which your example was manifestly disproved by the facts I gave.

Not to mention that while Costa Rica was and remains firmly in the US camp, more "independent" social-democratic governments like those in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Ecuador have drawn the ire of the USA at varying levels of intensity. The Cold War showed that it didn't even particularly matter what the ideology of the "offending" government was: from the liberal Bosch in the Dominican Republic to the reactionary anti-communist junta in Argentina when it invaded the Falklands, the USA was ready to move against them if they conflicted with certain economic and/or foreign policies. And this still holds true today with the example of the liberal Zelaya in Honduras.

As an aside, the British Labour Party literally waves the red flag more than the Costa Rican social-democrats. You're rather cheapening the impact of the phrase when you apply it to Costa Rica. It's meant to refer to avowedly revolutionary "Marxist" governments (e.g. during the Cold War Cuba, Angola, Mozambique, South Yemen, etc.) which, of course, were actually led by bourgeois nationalists.

[MarxSchmarx]

Isn't this effectively how state socialism in north Korea works with its state enterprises and their revenue going to a ''military first " budget? Of course the north Korean state has a civilian ruler, but I think it's fair to say he say he serves at the pleasure of the military. In essence a huge chunk of the economy is more or less owned and from what I understand run at least at the upper levels by the military.

From what i gather this basic approach existed before the North Korean economy became a basket case, and there are several other, more pressing limitations on firms in north korea.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Isn't this effectively how state socialism in north Korea works with its state enterprises and their revenue going to a ''military first " budget? Of course the north Korean state has a civilian ruler, but I think it's fair to say he say he serves at the pleasure of the military. In essence a huge chunk of the economy is more or less owned and from what I understand run at least at the upper levels by the military.

From what i gather this basic approach existed before the North Korean economy became a basket case, and there are several other, more pressing limitations on firms in north korea.

Comrade, my OP didn't imply any sort of "military first" budget like the NK one. You mention right there the clout of the upper levels, but my OP suggests a very different model: if the defense industry consisted of one huge co-op, and if an overhauled armed forces were that co-op.


The Iranian national guard and their capitalist intrests are one of the main block against revolution there, same goes for Egypt. (and I guess also Russia where the ex-kgb has the same role)

Would the same dynamic apply if all officer positions were sufficiently accountable to their units, if everyone in those units were unionized, and if the defense industry consisted of one huge co-op?

[Prole]

Marx and Engels called for "Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture" and "In future the armies shall be simultaneously labour armies, so that the troops shall not, as formerly, merely consume, but shall produce more than is necessary for their upkeep", yet perhaps the realization of this in Third World countries lies in the form of the military-owned enterprise?


I believe the way to achieve this would be setting the military to work "Nation-building" domestically. They should have the ability to build schools, repair bridges, install new energy-efficient hardware, etc. There are plenty of tasks that need doing here on the home front and I see no reason why, as employees of the state, they couldn't be tasked to do some of these things in their down-time at least.

I particularly liked Jill Stein's proposal during the last presidential election to have a "Green New Deal" where we set people to work doing important tasks to modernize our country. It seems like a win-win to me, however I could be overlooking something.

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade, my OP didn't imply any sort of "military first" budget like the NK one. You mention right there the clout of the upper levels, but my OP suggests a very different model: if the defense industry consisted of one huge co-op, and if an overhauled armed forces were that co-op.




sorry for the lag but I guess my point was merely to note how a system where the military has a heavy hand in economic production exists. Another probably much tighter historical precedent is the qing army in nw China, where the garrison was expected to be self-sufficient and spearhead colonization.


But i think it raises broader questions in the near to medium terms, where the structure of militaries and states are likely to remain highly authoritarian. most moder n military suppliers consist of both traditionally military suppliers like specialized arms manufacturers and heavily civilian sectors like logistics companies or aerospace firms.

So what sets the boundaries for the military coop? And if these mixed civilian military firms have to be responsible to the military, I think you end up giving a fundamentally undemocratic entity more economic, and hence real, power