Why so much hate for the military?

[OnFire]

I ask myself why do so many leftists in western countries and especially people on this site hate soldiers and the military? I know it was a force of reaction, but it can be seen only as a weapon of the ruling class: What is worse, the sword or the the hand that guides it? Having been in military service and being quite proud of it, I feel that in any modern military you can see that there are no divisions by class or race, only by merit. Every service member gives everything for his fellow comrades, the military family is a family of equals. Everyone is treated equally and without prejudice.The times of exclusively aristocrats and/or members of the bourgeoisie being officers are over. If I had to guess, the vast majority of service members are from the proletariat. Those guys do not want to oppress, they want to serve and so help others in any way they can. Even if you do not agree that it is a good thing, it is a necessary evil. What would have happened to the SU and the world if they had not had armed forces '41 ?

I think some of those that dislike the military are those whose only contact with the military is through video games, pc games, and what can only be called pacifist propaganda. They have absolutely no idea what it means to serve and go into combat. Most of them are scared of guns. Those who never smelled gunpowder on the battlefield can not understand what it means to be a soldier, and that most soldiers are not fighting for opressive governments, but for the safety of their fellow citizens.

So why do so many leftists hate soldiers and the military? What are your thoughts on this subject?

[#FF0000]

Those guys do not want to oppress, they want to serve and so help others in any way they can

What you believe or want doesn't really mean shit when your function as a member of an imperialist military is to do just that.

It isn't about hating soldiers. It's about recognizing the role of the military in society. It's pretty simple, I'd say.

[Zoop]

Go ask an Iraqi orphan whose parents got their heads blown off, and you'll know why.

[hexaune]

I feel that in any modern military you can see that there are no divisions by class or race,This isn't really true though, are you telling me that someone from a council estate in the north of the UK stands an equal chance of getting into Sandhurst as someone who's been educated in a public or grammar school and then gone onto Oxbridge?

The problem I have is that by joing the military you are agreeing to do whatever the state asks you, without fail. I don't support our state/government so how can I support someone who has agreed unconditionally to do their dirty work?

[Thirsty Crow]

The problem I have is that by joing the military you are agreeing to do whatever the state asks you, without fail. I don't support our state/government so how can I support someone who has agreed unconditionally to do their dirty work?
Yeah, this right here is fact in fact (pls stop me from makind bad puns). The situation nowadays in Europe and North America at least is such that there is no compulsory service (correct me if I'm wrong), and obviously no conscription. This needs to be taken into account as it unequivocally means that people volunteer to serve in the military.

It's also a matter of fact that people might do so out of economic coercion, which means that the status of general social reproduction is so fucking awesome that people have no viable options apart from enlisting. The conclusion would be that while motives count, communists ought not to turn the issue of the military and imperialism into quasi-personal problem of ethics and/or class consciousness (though the latter is by far more productive as an approach) in a moralizing way.

The most important thing being, there is one and only one paradigmatic role of the military - internal and external force and violence to perpetuate current relations of production and to advance particular national class interests. Sure, people in the army also do good things (e.g. cleaning out rubble and helping to repair people's homes here where I live after a horrible flood). But this isn't primary, and individuals can volunteer as assistance providers in such scenarios.

EDIT: Also, this


Even if you do not agree that it is a good thing, it is a necessary evil. What would have happened to the SU and the world if they had not had armed forces '41 ?

...is a horrible, horrible argument. First things first, it's clear that the current situation is not that of open intra-imperialist war, and sure as hell it's not like for instance the military in France is called upon to protect Romani people (they actually enforce their exodus).

Secondly, the argument also fails since a personal choice and a personal set of illusions is defended as "necessary evil". Indeed, the evil is there, it is necessary, but it is necessary for the ruling class. You know, those fine contractors that got to rebuild Baghdad and parts of Iraq for instance (I'mnot implying that this was the purpose of the political-military stratum of the ruling class).

So I have to ask, what's this mighty fine and noble job the military actually does, and that can't be done by, well, regular working class folk? Sure as hell cleaning out rubble and rebuilding damaged houses takes some construction know how, but it seems I've missed that the army now teaches construction.

[Armchair Partisan]

Every service member gives everything for his fellow comrades, the military family is a family of equals. [...] Those guys do not want to oppress, they want to serve and so help others in any way they can.

Even within the framework of your argument, that just sounds naive. "Help others"? Their job is to kill people that may or may not have wronged them in any way at the command of their government. They are dehumanized and turned into killing machines; they commit atrocities all the time. If someone wants to "help others in any way they can", they become a doctor, a social worker, or some kind of volunteer for a charity or whatever, not a contract killer. "They want to serve [their imperialist state]" is a more valid argument (besides "economic conscription" and "actual military conscription", the other two most common reasons), but that's not really a reason we should respect.


I think some of those that dislike the military are those whose only contact with the military is through video games, pc games, and what can only be called pacifist propaganda. They have absolutely no idea what it means to serve and go into combat.

Really? Where did you get that? PC games glorify war and violence; Red Alert 2 has raised an entire generation of Stalinists to develop hardons for Soviet military hardware. (I mean, I liked the game when I was young, and Operation: Red Revolution was one hell of a mission that I couldn't actually complete for years, but come on.)

[Counterculturalist]

I know it was a force of reaction, but it can be seen only as a weapon of the ruling class: What is worse, the sword or the the hand that guides it?

Why do you take pride in being the sword that is guided by the ruling class? Why not be the sword that destroys the ruling class?


Having been in military service and being quite proud of it, I feel that in any modern military you can see that there are no divisions by class or race, only by merit. Every service member gives everything for his fellow comrades, the military family is a family of equals. Everyone is treated equally and without prejudice.

Unless you're a woman, then you can get harassed and raped.

Also, leftists aren't into meritocracy.


I think some of those that dislike the military are those whose only contact with the military is through video games, pc games, and what can only be called pacifist propaganda. They have absolutely no idea what it means to serve and go into combat. Most of them are scared of guns. Those who never smelled gunpowder on the battlefield can not understand what it means to be a soldier

And until you've beaten somebody to death with a billy club or shot them in the back, you'll never understand what it means to be a cop. People who complain about police brutality just don't understand what it means to be a pig.

Until you've had the pleasure of evicting a family from their home, you'll never understand what it means to be a capitalist. Anti-capitalists just don't understand what it means to have money.


and that most soldiers are not fighting for opressive governments, but for the safety of their fellow citizens.

Who were you fighting that was a direct threat to your fellow citizens?

[OnFire]

So how would you guys handle things like ISIS and Taleban ?

[#FF0000]

So how would you guys handle things like ISIS and Taleban ?

I'd try to avoid what gave rise to the conditions those groups emerged from -- occupation by imperialist armies.

[#FF0000]

Also, I think you might be confused, because we don't think all organized armed bodies are alike -- there's a difference between a the military of a capitalist state and a working class popular militia or whatever.

[StromboliFucker666]

Ask my mother who was raped by a group of soldiers. (Well, you can't because she's dead but you get the point)

Ask everyone who had their homes destroyed by capitalist invaders.

Ask everyone who lost a family member to one of those capitalist invaders.

[StromboliFucker666]

About ISIS, I would start by avoiding the conditions that caused them to exist. If groups like them still form, then a people's militia (probably more than one) would stand ready to defend people from them.

[OnFire]

So what exactly is the difference between a standing army and a "people's" militia ?

[StromboliFucker666]

So what exactly is the difference between a standing army and a "people's" militia ?

A capitalist military serves either the state, the rich, or the corporations. A people's militia does what a military is supposed to do and serves the people. They ARE the people. They would be run in an egalitarian, democratic fashion and would exist ONLY to serve the PEOPLE.

By the way, sorry if I come across as rude. I just feel like too many of the people I care about have been wronged by your owners (and by extension, you guys as you are their sword) To be honest, you cannot be a socialist and support a capitalist military. Authoritarian socialists can support the military of their country (which would be a socialist military and either serve the state or the people) or a libertarian socialist can only support a "people's militia" like I described if we support a military of any kind.

[Alet]

Those who never smelled gunpowder on the battlefield can not understand what it means to be a soldier, and that most soldiers are not fighting for opressive governments, but for the safety of their fellow citizens.

What the actual fuck? What the soldiers think they do is not relevant. In fact, it is disturbing, that they actually believe the propaganda, that they serve 'their fellow citizens' and not their imperialist government. You are basically just saying, that you have to be indoctrinated bullshit to understand how it feels to be indoctrinated bullshit.

[Counterculturalist]

Capitalist states use military force for oppressive and imperialistic purposes, treating the lives of both their own soldiers, and their soldiers' victims, as disposable.

Sure, I feel for people who enlist because of a lack of decent opportunity and find themselves at war, but let's not harbor any illusions about what they're participating in.

It is impossible to advance the cause of socialism when you're literally a soldier for global capitalism. It's that simple.

[John Nada]

I ask myself why do so many leftists in western countries and especially people on this site hate soldiers and the military?I don't think a lot of leftists or posters on this site hate individual soldiers/sailors/marines/pilots. There's a few vets on here, and a lot have family that are vets.

Many argue that most soldiers come from working class backgrounds, and if not conscripted, forced to join out of poverty. If anything, IMO the left has a too sympathetic view of soldiers as being like the conscripts who did the Christmas Truce or the October Revolution, and are too optimistic about a volunteer professional military jumping to their side if a revolution. If your post is any indication, such optimism might be misplaced.

It's not about moralizing individuals, anymore than two different sides on the battlefield see the other side they're shooting at as "doing their job". Hell, it's not uncommon after a war to say of the other side,"I was fighting for my country, and they were just fighting for theirs". Rather, many oppose the role the military plays collectively in maintaining imperialist capitalism, which is against the workers' and oppressed peoples' interests, contrary to the side that wants a socialist revolution. While capitalism relative to feudalism was progressive, it's time has come. With the rise of imperialism, capitalism is now a force of reaction that will lead to barbarism(fascism, that neo-feudalist shit "Libertarians" want, environmental destruction via depleting resources and climate change, or complete extinction in a nuclear war). So naturally someone who wants socialism and not barbarism will not support an institution that violently upholds capitalism.

The military is the armed wing of the state. Nearly everyone on here likely comes from imperialist countries or their sub-imperialist allies. The capitalist state in the imperialist age is reactionary. Most on this site do not want states, so defense of "their" country rings hollow.
I know it was a force of reaction, but it can be seen only as a weapon of the ruling class: What is worse, the sword or the the hand that guides it?If a person started swinging a sword at me, I'm not going to start complementing how great that sword their trying to stab me with is. I'd rather that person attacking me not have that sword, and whoever gave it to them is an asshole.
Having been in military service and being quite proud of it, I feel that in any modern military you can see that there are no divisions by class or race, only by merit. Every service member gives everything for his fellow comrades, the military family is a family of equals. Everyone is treated equally and without prejudice.You're a veteran in a "European" military, yet you start this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/make-revolutioni-t193418/index.html) asking people to dry snitch on themselves and give advice on bombings and assassination. Didn't the military give you any training, if not actual combat experience? If anything, knowing the methods of the beast, you should be answering questions. Why ask supposed "pacifists" on how to wage guerrilla warfare?:glare:

Sadly, "Europe" only consists of imperialist alliances NATO and SCO. That these Alliances treat "their" neo-colonial puppets"host nationalities", women, LGBTQ, oppressed peoples and least of all the enemy or potential enemy forces as "equals with no divisions or prejudices" is laughable.:lol: The neo-colonies your military holds down are not treated as equals. I very much doubt "host nation's security forces" are treated with respect.
The times of exclusively aristocrats and/or members of the bourgeoisie being officers are over. If I had to guess, the vast majority of service members are from the proletariat.The modern military's recruits are likely mostly of proletarian background, but it's cross-class too, even without the draft. However, officers of a capitalist state buearcracy, and the mercenary army they lead, are in that capacity not proletarians. Same if I started my own business, or if someone who loses their business or farm and became a wage-worker. If there's seemingly no class division, it's because it's a lumpenproletariat mercenaries lead by petty-bourgeois officers.
Those guys do not want to oppress, they want to serve and so help others in any way they can. Even if you do not agree that it is a good thing, it is a necessary evil. What would have happened to the SU and the world if they had not had armed forces '41 ?If the world had no armed forces in 41' the fascists forces wouldn't have been able sent their soldiers(also just "doing their job" and "serving their country") out to wage genocidal anti-communist imperialist war, and throw their conscripts into the meat grinder. Though we Marxists recognize that talk of "peaceful disarmament" under capitalism is utopian idealism. War between nations is inevitable under capitalism.

I'm sure many do believe that what they do is good, just like cops think they "protect and serve", clergy think they're doing "God's work, politicians think they're "public servants" and capitalist think they're "captains of industry" and "job creators". They honestly think there right and doing good, and their ideology is the truth. It's rationalization for their role in an oppressive system.
I think some of those that dislike the military are those whose only contact with the military is through video games, pc games, and what can only be called pacifist propaganda. They have absolutely no idea what it means to serve and go into combat. Most of them are scared of guns. Those who never smelled gunpowder on the battlefield can not understand what it means to be a soldier, and that most soldiers are not fighting for opressive governments, but for the safety of their fellow citizens.

So why do so many leftists hate soldiers and the military? What are your thoughts on this subject?Have you smelled burning flesh and corpses on the battlefield? How was that bloodbath of the Vietnam War necessary to "protect fellow citizens"? Those that love imperialist wars are often the ones who's only contact with war is video games and movies(both often with government funding), falling for what could be called "capitalist propaganda". The idea that any war(besides maybe WWII) was for the "safety of fellow citizens"(but not non-citizens) is a lie to justify unjust imperialist wars of plunder. A line that lines the pockets of businesspeople with blood money.

We are not liberals afraid of guns. Marx himself supported arming the proletariat and opposed efforts to disarm them. We oppose unjust war, imperialist wars of conquest and in chase of profit. The working class has no interest in helping the rich acquirer and hold on colonies and neo-colonies(de jure independent, de facto puppet states), robbing the oppressed peoples' of resources, enslaving the workers and peasants for big businesses and slaughtering them the to that end. Propping up comprador puppet tyrants is not "defending democracy". Rushing to the aid of reactionaries is not "helping freedom fighters".

Marxism opposes defending the safety of the rich "fellow citizens", and support the global proletariat. War of revolution and if progressive in character, liberation are just wars. War waged by capitalist nations are not. No to imperialist war, yes to class war.
From the point of view of Marxism, that is, of modern scientific socialism, the main issue in any discussion by socialists on how to assess the war and what attitude to adopt towards it is this: what is the war being waged for, and what classes staged and directed it. We Marxists do not belong to that category of people who are unqualified opponents of all war. We say: our aim is to achieve a socialist system of society, which, by eliminating the division of mankind into classes, by eliminating all exploitation of man by man and nation by nation, will inevitably eliminate the very possibility of war. But in the war to win that socialist system of society we are bound to encounter conditions under which the class struggle within each given nation may come up against a war between the different nations, a war conditioned by this very class struggle. Therefore, we cannot rule out the possibility of revolutionary wars, i.e., wars arising from the class struggle, wars waged by revolutionary classes, wars which are of direct and immediate revolutionary significance. Still less can we rule this out when we remember that though the history of European revolutions during the last century, in the course of 125–135 years, say, gave us wars which were mostly reactionary, it also gave us revolutionary wars, such as the war of the French revolutionary masses against a united monarchist, backward, feudal and semi-feudal Europe. No deception of the masses is more widespread today in Western Europe, and latterly here in Russia, too, than that which is practised by citing the example of revolutionary wars. There are wars and wars. We must be clear as to what historical conditions have given rise to the war, what classes are waging it, and for what ends. Unless we grasp this, all our talk about the war will necessarily be utterly futile, engendering more heat than light. That is why I take the liberty, seeing that you have chosen war and revolution as the subject of today’s talk, to deal with this aspect of the matter at greater length.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/may/14.htm
War, this monster of mutual slaughter among men, will be finally eliminated by the progress of human society, and in the not too distant future too. But there is only one way to eliminate it and that is to oppose war with war, to oppose counter-revolutionary war with revolutionary war, to oppose national counter-revolutionary war with national revolutionary war, and to oppose counter-revolutionary class war with revolutionary class war. History knows only two kinds of war, just and unjust. We support just wars and oppose unjust wars. All counter-revolutionary wars are unjust, all revolutionary wars are just. Mankind's era of wars will be brought to an end by our own efforts, and beyond doubt the war we wage is part of the final battle. But also beyond doubt the war we face will be part of the biggest and most ruthless of all wars. The biggest and most ruthless of unjust counter-revolutionary wars is hanging over us, and the vast majority of mankind will be ravaged unless we raise the banner of a just war. The banner of mankind's just war is the banner of mankind's salvation. The banner of China's just war is the banner of China's salvation. A war waged by the great majority of mankind and of the Chinese people is beyond doubt a just war, a most lofty and glorious undertaking for the salvation of mankind and China, and a bridge to a new era in world history. When human society advances to the point where classes and states are eliminated, there will be no more wars, counter-revolutionary or revolutionary, unjust or just; that will be the era of perpetual peace for mankind. Our study of the laws of revolutionary war springs from the desire to eliminate all wars; herein lies the distinction between us Communists and all the exploiting classes.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_12.htm
So how would you guys handle things like ISIS and Taleban ?Imperialist like the US have long embraced the most counterrevolutionary movements in order to thwart even modest progressives that threaten their business interest in the third-world. They've backed reactionary regimes like the Sauds, Moboto, Pinochet and Suharto. The US and other imperialist nations had no problem with Daesh and the Taliban when it suited their geo-political aims against Assad and the Soviets. Hell, if circumstances change in the future I could see them becoming allies of NATO. In those two instances it just came back to bite them in the ass.

Islamists are reactionary as fuck. But it doesn't matter what the guys and women not in the countries involved want to do. The imperialist governments are out for themselves first and foremost. It's up to leftists in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq to do what's best.

[Thirsty Crow]

So how would you guys handle things like ISIS and Taleban ?
Like He-Man of course: by the power of GreySkull!

But seriously, what kind of a question is this?

I could tell you the stock communist answer - international social revolution. And poof like magic there's no more either of the two. But you're not looking for that, are you?

As for what I advocate now, see above as the only sensible answer to bloodthirsty gangs.

[#FF0000]

So what exactly is the difference between a standing army and a "people's" militia ?

The function of one is to secure the interests of the State and Capital, and the function of the other is to defend a revolution. I would think that is pretty simple. Regardless of what individual soldiers in modern national armies think or believe, their job is to fight on behalf of Capital's interest. I'm not sure what you don't understand about this, or why you can't see what I'd think is the very clear difference between an armed body organized by the State, and an armed body organized by a militant working class movement.

I think you'd do well to look into the writing of Major General Smedley Butler. He was a Major General in the US Marine Corps who participated in several wars on behalf of the United States and won the Medal Of Honor twice. He wrote a pamphlet called War Is a Racket which you ought to look into. This excerpt from one of his many speeches sums up what he tries to get across in his writing, however:



I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.


I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.


I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.



During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[#FF0000]

And, for what it's worth, you are flatly out of your mind if you think war-themed media is "pacifist propaganda". In the US it's widely known that the military uses this media to drum up recruits. The Pentagon has people advise movie studios and every branch of the military advertises in video game magazines. Hell, the Army made a video game of its own specifically for recruitment!

[Comrade Jacob]

Many soldiers (and police) of capitalist and imperialist nations joined to help, this is true. However they don't help, they have been tricked, they are simply doing wrong. They have no backbone to stand up to their "superiors" and say 'Fuck you mothafucking fuck'.

[OnFire]

Ok, thank you all for your input, very insightful and interesting.

Maybe one should only support the individual soldier and not the military complex. Maybe spreading propaganda among the enlisted is a good idea, so they switch sides in case of revolution.

[hexaune]

Maybe spreading propaganda among the enlisted is a good idea, so they switch sides in case of revolution.

If we were in revolutionary times, this would be a good idea, but I think we are so far away currently from a revolutionary period that we should encourage the enlisted to leave the army. The longer they stay the more harm is done to their minds (ptsd amongst many other problems) and having revolutionary elements within the armed forces is of no use to the movement for the forseeable future.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Maybe one should only support the individual soldier and not the military complex.

What does "supporting the individual soldier" mean?

In a revolutionary situation, if we're faced with a conscript army (even if the conscription is informal and economic), we aim to split it along class lines. But that doesn't mean glorifying the army - that means going to the soldiers and saying, you know, war is shit, the military is shit, you're not defending the fatherland, you're about to be butchered for the profits of the bourgeoisie so the only thing left for you to do if you know what's good for you is turn your guns against your officers, shoot your sergeant, frag your lieutenant and shell the general's quarters.

Whereas in everyday bourgeois politics "supporting the soldiers" means keeping quiet about bourgeois militarism, glorifying war, and letting veterans form a special privileged layer.

[PhoenixAsh]

Potatofucker You are relatively new here so I am going to let you off with a warning for use of rape analogy and perpetuating the notion of forced sex as a means of punishment. Not to mention the slightly homophobic subtext here.

Mind your language and attitude.

[StromboliFucker666]

Potatofucker You are relatively new here so I am going to let you off with a warning for use of rape analogy and perpetuating the notion of forced sex as a means of punishment. Not to mention the slightly homophobic subtext here.

Mind your language and attitude.
I didn't mean rape or forced sex...

I said fuck it (not in a sexual way) but thought it would be funny to follow it up sexually.You are assuming I mean forced. And how do you rape an idea? I was referring to the idea of the military, not actual people. As for homophobic, is anal sex only for gay people? If so then I guess some of the best sex I ever had with a woman was gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay or liking anal sex and it's funny that you assumed I was making fun of gay people.

I think you misunderstood the context, but I agree, I should not have posted it. It was immature and stupid weather I meant rape or consensual anal sex. I am sorry if I offended anyone.


EDIT: I have deleted the post in question so no one will get offended.

[#FF0000]

I tend to look at my friends and family who joined the military the same way as I look at people who are getting involved with other shady things -- I try to recognize what's good about them and hope they find honest work.

[Faust Arp]

Seems like everyone here except for the OP basically agrees on the role and nature of the military - and it's all absolutely true - but I think there's an important tactical question to be raised here.

Most Western countries utilize purely professional armies, based on volunteer service, and most of those who decide to join it are chronically intoxicated with ruling ideology - and eventually become even worse after systematic indoctrination forced upon them. Well, even if in the unlikely case that, after a revolution in one of those countries, the workers manage to seize the means of production without bigger clashes with the military, that same military is undoubtedly going to be deployed by the deposed ruling class against the workers.

The thing is, military tech has advanced a lot since the major revolutions we look up to, and the military apparatus posseses weapons which could fairly easily annihilate even a huge wave of light infantry (which is probably the best that the workers could achieve solely by themselves). In order for the revolution to be successful, there has to be a major defection from the ranks of the reactionary army - the equipment is not enough, but also trained personnel who know how to use it. It was, in most cases, necessary before, but is even more necessary now due to the greater imbalance between the two sides.

But due to the completely professional structure of today's Western armed forces, how can that be achieved on a significant scale?

[John Nada]

The thing is, military tech has advanced a lot since the major revolutions we look up to, and the military apparatus posseses weapons which could fairly easily annihilate even a huge wave of light infantry (which is probably the best that the workers could achieve solely by themselves). In order for the revolution to be successful, there has to be a major defection from the ranks of the reactionary army - the equipment is not enough, but also trained personnel who know how to use it. It was, in most cases, necessary before, but is even more necessary now due to the greater imbalance between the two sides.

But due to the completely professional structure of today's Western armed forces, how can that be achieved on a significant scale?A protracted people's war. Don't send huge wave to their death. Win the support of the people, set up dual power, accumulate captured/make arms over time, wear them out with attrition, make it impossible to hold anything down and rule, and if not get significant defections, get desertions, surrenders or split them into a bunch of fratricidal factions.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Those who never smelled gunpowder on the battlefield can not understand what it means to be a soldier, and that most soldiers are not fighting for opressive governments, but for the safety of their fellow citizens.
All soldiers in bourgeois armies are fighting for the ruling class and their class dictatorship. So spare us this right-wing "never smelled gunpowder on the battlefield" nonsense. It's bullshit used to prop up support for the ruling class and their imperialism. It's the kind of shit that should get someone restricted to OI.

[ñángara]

... most soldiers are not fighting for opressive governments, but for the safety of their fellow citizens.

So why do so many leftists hate soldiers and the military? What are your thoughts on this subject?

On the contrary. The most of the armies of the 3rd world countries has been used to fight communism and kill their fellow citizens. In 1965, Suharto dictator in Indonesia ordered his army to kill 500.000 communists. In the 1970s in Chile, military dictator Pinochet killed about 3.000 Chileans, more than in the independence war. The same occurred in Argentine where they speak about 10.000 "disappeared" Argentinians and it was worst in El Salvador (¿70.000 killed campesinos?), in the 1980s.

Anti-communism is part of the military ideology.

[Faust Arp]

A protracted people's war. Don't send huge wave to their death. Win the support of the people, set up dual power, accumulate captured/make arms over time, wear them out with attrition, make it impossible to hold anything down and rule, and if not get significant defections, get desertions, surrenders or split them into a bunch of fratricidal factions.

But the people's war doctrine presumes geographic conditions which are nowadays very hard to find in much of the urbanized West. The only attempt of adapting it to Western conditions was IRA's in the 80's, and it proved catastrophic. Also the entire doctrine, with its reliance on guerrilla forces as the ones which should light the fuse and seeing the general population only as an auxilliary factor at best, is based on a very top-down, voluntaristic philosophy.

[John Nada]

But the people's war doctrine presumes geographic conditions which are nowadays very hard to find in much of the urbanized West. The only attempt of adapting it to Western conditions was IRA's in the 80's, and it proved catastrophic. Also the entire doctrine, with its reliance on guerrilla forces as the ones which should light the fuse and seeing the general population only as an auxilliary factor at best, is based on a very top-down, voluntaristic philosophy.You're think of Che's foco theory, sometimes also called "people's war" by it's supporters and opponents. This is where a relatively small guerrilla force tries to start an armed insurrection themselves with the populous joining in later on. Focoism is where a nucleus of cadre go on a military offensive, pick up support along the way, the government starts losing control, then it snowballs into a general insurrection. This is supposed to happen rather quickly.

Focoism became popular after the Cuban Revolution, where it took the world by surprise how fast Batista went down. It worked in Cuba because the Cuban people had already been fighting the government on and off for decades, so the government was already on shaky ground. Most of the groups who were waging a "people's war" in the west, and many in the third-world too, from the 60's-90's were really focoists.

It has it's place, but outside of Cuba it's generally been a disaster. It either gets crushed rather quickly, the guerrillas end up isolated from the masses and remain a small force, and/or it goes on for years or even decades without desirable results. Plus it's foolish shit to advocate for now in most western countries, where this and insurrectionism(different from both focoism and people's war) is off the table.

Protracted people's war is Mao's theory. It depends on gaining the support of the masses first, and will not work if it's just a few people running around playing Rambo. It's mostly political, even relatively "non-violent" at first. But it's not a quick revolution, but in it for the long run.

The areas of support are the red bases. Whereas focoism's "the guerrillas are to the masses like a fish is in water" means blending in crowd and hiding, in people's war it's they don't survive without gaining popular support. The red bases are where dual power is set up, almost a new government. It doesn't have to be in rural areas with poor peasants. It's often in been in the countryside such as in the mountains, woods, jungles or isolated areas, because this is usually where the state does not give a fuck about the people living there.

Base have also been established in urban areas in various conflicts, like in slums where the state doesn't give a fuck about the people either. In Northern Ireland something like this was the "no-go zones" where the cops wouldn't enter. IIRC they've had similar in other people's wars too.

This is probably what the Black Panther's almost set up in the Black ghettos, with the "Serve the People's" "Survival" and "Self-defense" programs. Win mass support with the people for a base. And why the gov viewed them as the biggest threat at the time.

From these bases, more are set up. In Vietnam it was called "like spots on a leopard". From there, guerrilla and attack zones are set up. It's not a war to defeat the enemy in battle, but to build up support from the masses and make the enemy lose support. Territory is nothing sacred, so they'd pull out if needed. Large battles are avoided unless necessary. Once these bases have expanded, then more bold action is done.

People's war goes through three stages after bases are built, strategic defensive(defend and preserve forces, build up support and capacity), strategic equilibrium(consolidate gains), then strategic offensive(expand to more areas). It can move from one stage to the next in any direction. Once enough power is established, then a general insurrection is done. This is what "take the countryside, encircle the cities" means.

I think the overall logic behind it is more political in nature. Like flipping "War is a continuation of politics" backwards. It's an attack on the very legitimacy of the capitalist superstructure(laws, culture, institutions, governace, religion), whereas war traditionally focuses on the base, like factories, land and material. But in the process of the protracted people's war, also altering relations of production(the relation between the proletariat and other oppressed classes, and the bourgeoisie and their allies). The course of the protracted people's war changes the people involved very mindset over time. This is why the military often says in wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq "We need to win 'hearts and minds'".

Shit, it could even be applied to somewhat "non-violent" movements in a way. Because if the government loses support of the people, and a revolution gains support, it doesn't matter how many nice gadgets they got. De facto rule is impossible.

[Faust Arp]

You're think of Che's foco theory, sometimes also called "people's war" by it's supporters and opponents. This is where a relatively small guerrilla force tries to start an armed insurrection themselves with the populous joining in later on. Focoism is where a nucleus of cadre go on a military offensive, pick up support along the way, the government starts losing control, then it snowballs into a general insurrection. This is supposed to happen rather quickly.

Focoism became popular after the Cuban Revolution, where it took the world by surprise how fast Batista went down. It worked in Cuba because the Cuban people had already been fighting the government on and off for decades, so the government was already on shaky ground. Most of the groups who were waging a "people's war" in the west, and many in the third-world too, from the 60's-90's were really focoists.

It has it's place, but outside of Cuba it's generally been a disaster. It either gets crushed rather quickly, the guerrillas end up isolated from the masses and remain a small force, and/or it goes on for years or even decades without desirable results. Plus it's foolish shit to advocate for now in most western countries, where this and insurrectionism(different from both focoism and people's war) is off the table.

Protracted people's war is Mao's theory. It depends on gaining the support of the masses first, and will not work if it's just a few people running around playing Rambo. It's mostly political, even relatively "non-violent" at first. But it's not a quick revolution, but in it for the long run.

The areas of support are the red bases. Whereas focoism's "the guerrillas are to the masses like a fish is in water" means blending in crowd and hiding, in people's war it's they don't survive without gaining popular support. The red bases are where dual power is set up, almost a new government. It doesn't have to be in rural areas with poor peasants. It's often in been in the countryside such as in the mountains, woods, jungles or isolated areas, because this is usually where the state does not give a fuck about the people living there.

Base have also been established in urban areas in various conflicts, like in slums where the state doesn't give a fuck about the people either. In Northern Ireland something like this was the "no-go zones" where the cops wouldn't enter. IIRC they've had similar in other people's wars too.

This is probably what the Black Panther's almost set up in the Black ghettos, with the "Serve the People's" "Survival" and "Self-defense" programs. Win mass support with the people for a base. And why the gov viewed them as the biggest threat at the time.

From these bases, more are set up. In Vietnam it was called "like spots on a leopard". From there, guerrilla and attack zones are set up. It's not a war to defeat the enemy in battle, but to build up support from the masses and make the enemy lose support. Territory is nothing sacred, so they'd pull out if needed. Large battles are avoided unless necessary. Once these bases have expanded, then more bold action is done.

People's war goes through three stages after bases are built, strategic defensive(defend and preserve forces, build up support and capacity), strategic equilibrium(consolidate gains), then strategic offensive(expand to more areas). It can move from one stage to the next in any direction. Once enough power is established, then a general insurrection is done. This is what "take the countryside, encircle the cities" means.

I think the overall logic behind it is more political in nature. Like flipping "War is a continuation of politics" backwards. It's an attack on the very legitimacy of the capitalist superstructure(laws, culture, institutions, governace, religion), whereas war traditionally focuses on the base, like factories, land and material. But in the process of the protracted people's war, also altering relations of production(the relation between the proletariat and other oppressed classes, and the bourgeoisie and their allies). The course of the protracted people's war changes the people involved very mindset over time. This is why the military often says in wars like Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq "We need to win 'hearts and minds'".

Shit, it could even be applied to somewhat "non-violent" movements in a way. Because if the government loses support of the people, and a revolution gains support, it doesn't matter how many nice gadgets they got. De facto rule is impossible.

I'm very skeptical towards the building of dual power in isolated, backwoods areas - a workers' government isn't something that can be proclaimed by a decree of a vanguard force - in this case by a party-controlled army, but which arises spontaneously out of popular workers' councils, which show up only in urban areas which contain a mass of workers.

As such, I can see some strategic aspects of this working out if we see urban neighborhoods as "red bases" in Mao's sense (though that might be quite a stretch). Assuming control in urban districts can be beneficial not because the bourgeoisie won't care for them, but because urban battles in civil wars are typically where technological advantage gives a back seat to numerical and positional advantage - the ruling class will avoid using the most destructive weapons, at least in the starting phase of the war, because destroying the fuck out of a city full of civilians isn't going to be that easily forgiven by the rest of the populace.

But yeah, some aspects of the people's war doctrine might be useful, but I think that a new doctrine needs to be built from scratch - one adapted for urban conflict in the 21st century and relying on a workers' militia rather than a peasant guerrilla as the base for a revolutionary armed force.

[Zoop]

Maybe one should only support the individual soldier and not the military complex. Maybe spreading propaganda among the enlisted is a good idea, so they switch sides in case of revolution.

Fuck that, and fuck the troops. They made their decision. They know the nature of war. They are morally responsible for their actions; they are willing participants in a criminal empire. Soldiers are nothing but glorified, reactionary hitmen. Their pitiful excuses of ignorance and stupidity don't sanctify them. They deserve all our hate, not our support, as a result of the misery they inflict on a daily basis. And hey, fuck all the supporters of the troops as well. The fact that soldiers are supported shows how morally and intellectually weak people have become. They too, deserve nothing but rabid contempt. They're all nothing but spineless, weak brutes, who, quite frankly, I will not be shedding any tears for.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Well the military is a bastion of conservatism and they really fill you full of propaganda. If I'm correct in the US about a quarter of them believe the literal end times are around the corner and that they're warriors of God or whatever, really crazy shit. Another thing that gets me is the number of soldiers who become cops after leaving the service.

[John Nada]

I'm very skeptical towards the building of dual power in isolated, backwoods areas - a workers' government isn't something that can be proclaimed by a decree of a vanguard force - in this case by a party-controlled army, but which arises spontaneously out of popular workers' councils, which show up only in urban areas which contain a mass of workers.Dual power can certainly appear in isolated, backwoods areas, and it can appear in advance urban areas too. And though it may be more practical for some sort of vanguard for sake of a united command, it can be grassroots too, with them linking up. Either way someone(presumably fellow workers) has to convince the workers to "spontaneously" make a workers' council in the first place. Doesn't even have to be Leninists, anymore then insurrections are strictly Leninist(they're not).
As such, I can see some strategic aspects of this working out if we see urban neighborhoods as "red bases" in Mao's sense (though that might be quite a stretch). Assuming control in urban districts can be beneficial not because the bourgeoisie won't care for them, but because urban battles in civil wars are typically where technological advantage gives a back seat to numerical and positional advantage - the ruling class will avoid using the most destructive weapons, at least in the starting phase of the war, because destroying the fuck out of a city full of civilians isn't going to be that easily forgiven by the rest of the populace.
When the enemy retreats, he often burns down the houses in the cities and towns he has occupied and razes the villages along his route, with the purpose of destroying the guerrilla base areas; but in so doing he deprives himself of shelter and food in his next offensive, and the damage recoils upon his own head. This is a concrete illustration of what we mean by one and the same thing having two contradictory aspects.Source: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_08.htm

Depending on the people, they might not give a fuck. But in destroying "their own" cities, well, they just destroyed their own fucking city, and the bourgeois army will still have to fight an urban battle in stretches of rubble. That also denies the enemy infrastructure after capturing the urban bases. Oh, and it piss off the surviving inhabitants too, but in the bourgeoisie's collective mind, people are replaceable, property is not.:lol: If they're trying to intentionally depopulated the area, that would just spread rebel sympathizers around for new bases(it's been described as like poking an oil blob)

It's not because the area's neglected, but where the enemy is weakest and support for the group's side can be the strongest. It might seem like each base and zone are surrounded, but each one can link up. Then spread from there. Mao lists mountain, plains and I believe jungle areas as bases, but was unsure about cities(though this was written in WWII with the possibility of the fascists reading it too, IIRC there were actually battles and red bases/zones in cities too). I don't see how the rest of the theory can't be applied anywhere, urban, suburban, deserts, arctic, wetlands, even islands.
But yeah, some aspects of the people's war doctrine might be useful, but I think that a new doctrine needs to be built from scratch - one adapted for urban conflict in the 21st century and relying on a workers' militia rather than a peasant guerrilla as the base for a revolutionary armed force.It wasn't just peasants in the Chinese Red Army. It was proletarians too with their closest class ally, the poor peasantry. Peasants were the main force because they were the vast majority in China. Russia too had a peasant supermajority, that's what the hammer and sickle is, the worker-peasant alliance:hammersickle:.

Protracted people's war has been applied in modern times, and in cities too(Sendero Luminoso called it a "unified protracted people's war"). Many the stickies in the Ongoing struggle thread are protracted people's wars. Hell, I strongly suspect in Rojava both the YPG/YPJ and Daesh are fighting a protracted people's war style against each other!(not sure if that's ever happened before) Neither are Leninist either, YPG/YPJ libertarian socialists, Daesh Takfiri fascists.

[Faust Arp]

There's no need to try convicing me that People's War can work outside of a Leninist framework - I'm a Leninist, but just don't think Mao was one. :D

I actually mostly agree with this, except the comparison between Russia's worker-peasant alliance and the Chinese Bloc of Four Classes: while in the former the working class was undoubtedly the "senior partner" which after the revolution continously clashed with the interests of the peasantry and attempted to subjugate them (it was already a dictatorship of the proletariat), the Bloc of Four Classes presumed an interclass alliance on equal terms, under the leadership of the Communist Party, which should lead the way from "New Democracy" towards a genuine DotP - that is wrong because it assumes a stagist mindset, and also because it equivalates the party and the class.

But that's already going far off-topic.