Confronting, or Organizing, the Military

[SocialismBeta]

I decided, based on several discussions I have had here and elsewhere, that it might be worth having a thread discussing the military. I might be wrong, but this does seem like a bind spot in leftist literature... though I am open to being directed towards anything written on the subject.

To the point now: in many theories/discussions of revolution, it always seems to be that, once the people are organized and/or angry enough, that they will revolt and eventually take state power. However, the power of the military is conspicuously absent.

I think this is far more important now considering that military technology is far in advance of anything in the 19/20th century. The combination of surveillance and military power make a working class revolution much more uncertain. It seems more and more that either 1) new strategies and tactics are needed to confront military power or 2) leftist organizing within the military must take place. Or perhaps both.

If we are serious about forming grassroots, democratic organizations that "can recon with state power" this cannot be ignored. So I look forward to any input anyone may have.

[Rudolf]

I think this is far more important now considering that military technology is far in advance of anything in the 19/20th century. and thus i think it might be a bit easier now than in the past. The increasing reliance on computing throws in tons of vulnerabilities that never existed before.

I propose a trinity for future revolutions: arms, production and hacking.



As for organising in the military the prospect of this coming to anything useful coincides with whether or not there's conscription. A fully volunteer army is more difficult to agitate inside of.

[Comrade Jacob]

The military is made up of mostly working-class lads (and lassies), sometimes it's best to organise a coup and others it's best to focus on confronting. All revolutions have a bit of a coup.

[SocialismBeta]

I had a thought last night shortly after posting this thread. I wonder if there is a place for veterans in a revolutionary movement? Just a thought.

[Soviet Aggression]

I had a thought last night shortly after posting this thread. I wonder if there is a place for veterans in a revolutionary movement? Just a thought.

Of course there is. The reactionaries intensify their efforts to get veterans to root for their cause, because they want folk with Infantry tactics for a conflict they foresee in the future. Among enemies talked about in these reactionary organization meetings doused in rhetoric, I have no doubt that socialists are mentioned.

What we need to do is provide information and education for ALL that want to ask questions about the left. They, if open minded, will be able to be educated on the fact that we are not the enemy. In regards to military personnel retired or not, they need to understand that they are tools for destabilization for the ruling class in this day and age, nothing more. They are not a protective vanguard, but a hit squad on the payroll of an already corrupt foreign policy.

[ACME_MAN]

I think the large bulk of those who go in the military are conservative/Republican. However, I think that as a result of their experiences in the military, whether it be thru war or other situations, they come out with a whole new political mindset and in many cases go completely to the left. A few other things to remember is that socialism is actually practiced in the military with housing benefits and other goodies as well. The military is also the most trusted organization/body in all of society. Recent polls put the approval rating at somewhere near 70%. This is something which obviously should be exploited from a political perspective. And on a historical note, prior to Hitler's rise to power, certain elements of the military in Germany represented a significant bloc of socialist thinking(Rohm). However, the Knight of Long Knives put an end to that faction and the rest was history.

[olahsenor]

Remember, there are Leftists and communists in any military organization. Just look what happened in Russia where the Left leaning sailors staged a mutiny in Petrograd to support the Bolshevik party.

[Guardia Rossa]

Remember, there are Leftists and communists in any military organization. Just look what happened in Russia where the Left leaning sailors staged a mutiny in Petrograd to support the Bolshevik party.

That was like, 98 years ago?

[olahsenor]

Military police vets any soldier who by slip of the tongue advocates leftism or socialism. He or she would be harassed, provoked or become victims of foul play. My uncle died under mysterious circumstances. I was vetted too in my application but was rejected and told, "sorry, try your luck next time', sarcastically.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

and thus i think it might be a bit easier now than in the past. The increasing reliance on computing throws in tons of vulnerabilities that never existed before.

To an extent it does, particularly when talking about the US military. On the other hand, it's an open question if an open insurgency could make use of those vulnerabilities before having a thermobaric weapon dropped on them.

Of course, such an insurgency could take the guerrilla road, but that forces a movement to rely on the peasantry, with all that entails.

The greatest weakness of any bourgeois military is the same as it has always been; the bourgeoisie, being a numerically small class and having to a large extent impoverished and destroyed classes and strata other than itself and the proletariat, is forced to rely on an army drawn from the dispossessed, with a bourgeois (and sometimes aristocratic) officer corps to keep them in check. Therefore in a revolutionary situation the army can split along class lines. This is neither "confronting" nor "organising" the military, it's splitting it. In 1918, a German workers' state would not have "organised" Ludendorff or Richthofen but given them a ditch and a bullet to the back of the head each, but it would have organised the proletarians and peasants that made up most of the ground forces and the surface navy.


As for organising in the military the prospect of this coming to anything useful coincides with whether or not there's conscription. A fully volunteer army is more difficult to agitate inside of.

Many armies that are "fully volunteer" on paper are driven by economic conscription; those that are not wouldn't be able to resist an organised proletariat in any case (notice how badly the Cossacks fared even against the Red Guards, a force that completely folded when they met an army organised for war).


A few other things to remember is that socialism is actually practiced in the military with housing benefits and other goodies as well.

You seem to be talking about something other than what we call socialism. Socialism, for us, is a classless, stateless society based on the common control of the means of production and production according to a general social plan to satisfy human need. Obviously this does not go on in the military, whatever Cunow and Lensch might have thought.


This is something which obviously should be exploited from a political perspective. And on a historical note, prior to Hitler's rise to power, certain elements of the military in Germany represented a significant bloc of socialist thinking(Rohm).

Actually, what do you consider to be "socialism"? Because what Roehm stood for was state support for petty business, along with anti-Semitism and other niceties of Nazi social policy (such as violent misogyny and homophobia, anti-scientific mysticism etc.). I generally try to give new members the benefit of doubt but it seems your "socialism" is a distinctly national one.

[SocialismBeta]

Anti-war movements (and I would certainly hope we get stronger ones organized in the future) might also help, at least ideologically.

For example: it is preferable to honor veterans by opposing war. The veterans' sacrifices may not have been in vain if we are committed to preserving their experiences of the horrors and injustice of war, and claim, rationally and clearly, that to make war is actually a disservice to veterans.
While this is not a confrontation with state power per se... it is a possible window to opening up veterans, and current servicemen, to the ideas of the left.

Not exactly on the point of the thread, but an anti-war movement could also open up international solidarity. After all... war requires at least two national participants (willing or not). Those opposed to war in one nation, have the same interests as those opposed to war in another.

Finally, because war is waged with people, nations have to (almost always) draw cannon fodder from the working class and peasantry (consider the great financial, educational, and retirement benefits the military gives members as an incentive to join). So here to, is a window through which an anti-war movement might be able to spread leftest ideas.

[Luís Henrique]

I think the large bulk of those who go in the military are conservative/Republican. However, I think that as a result of their experiences in the military, whether it be thru war or other situations, they come out with a whole new political mindset and in many cases go completely to the left.

This is possible, but it is a lot harder if there isn't a communist organisation within the military.


A few other things to remember is that socialism is actually practiced in the military with housing benefits and other goodies as well.

This isn't socialism.


The military is also the most trusted organization/body in all of society. Recent polls put the approval rating at somewhere near 70%. This is something which obviously should be exploited from a political perspective.

This is actually very dangerous, and not something that can be exploited from a leftist perspective.


And on a historical note, prior to Hitler's rise to power, certain elements of the military in Germany represented a significant bloc of socialist thinking(Rohm). However, the Knight of Long Knives put an end to that faction and the rest was history.

This is wrong beyond recognition, and I am not referring just to the "Knight" of Long Knives.

Röhm wasn't an element of "the military", not after 1918. He was a member (and top brass) of the SA, which is, the Nazi organisation for street brawling against communists and social democrats. As such, he was a fascist, not a socialist, and a man who made a living from repression against socialists. Yes, he had a set of disagreements with Hitler, and some of those disagreements can (in a quite contorted way) be construed as a position "to the left" of Hitler. But he was no "socialist" of any kind, not even the most conventional kind of social-democratic "socialist". Being "to the left" of Hitler doesn't necessarily mean being "to the left" of Hindenburg, Hugenberg, or von Papen.

Luís Henrique

[reviscom1]

The problem of the military for revolutionaries is not as insurmountable as might first seem.

Revolutions tend to happen when the government has mismanaged its affairs to such an extent that it is no longer able to effectively function.

As far as the military is concerned this has 2 effects:

Firstly, it means that they have problems getting paid, supplied and equipped, making them just as sympathetic to revolution as the rest of the working class.

Secondly, in that state of affairs, soldiers will no longer see the State as worth defending. Yes, in a reasonably healthy, prosperous, well run society protest is always going to be a minority interest, and soldiers called in to quell disturbances will do their duty and comply. In a society that is collapsing, when the majority of the populace are running riot or protesting in some way, protest will no longer be seen as the preserve of a few troublemakers but the conventional way to behave. In that situation, soldiers' loyalties will be a lot more divided. They will also ask themselves more questions about what reason they would have to prop up such a moribund state apparatus. Asked to fire lethal bullets at their fellow workers (a difficult thing to do at the best of times) they will not have sufficient incentive to comply.

Both the Russian Revolution of February 1917 and the Anti-Communist Revolutions of 1989 to 1991 relied heavily for success on the refusal of soldiers sent to quell disturbances to fire on the crowds.

Personally I think that when the next anti-Capitalist revolution comes it will be driven not by dedicated revolutionaries but by popular uprisings, as Capitalism becomes more and more inefficient. We can already see plenty of evidence of such inefficiencies if we look around today.

In that sort of revolution, I think it more than feasible that soldiers will refuse to fire on hungry crowds made up of people like them.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Young people should be discouraged from joining the military. A key point of agitation would be on high school and university campuses where military recruiters are present. Those who are in the military should be encouraged to apply for conscientious objector status.

[ComradeAllende]

Idk about organizing in the military. It may have worked in Vietnam, when there was an active anti-war movement back at home (along with Black Power and other social movements), and it could have worked in WW1 given the (relative) strength of the Socialist Party, but now I think the military is less receptive of leftist ideas, slogans, etc. From what I can tell, the most anti-war, anti-state elements in the military come from the right-libertarians and anarcho-capitalists; most of the rest are either conservative Republicans or "Independents". The most receptive groups in the military for leftist organizing are probably minorities and working-class elements (Appalachian whites, etc.); they enlist out of a sense of patriotism, but also because the military offers good benefits and an escape from institutionalized poverty in the ghettos and backwoods.

In the event of a revolution, I picture things going against our way. The government will do its best to fund the military and the National Guard, and the veterans will (for the most part) join the right-wing paramilitary groups (a modern Freikorps) against the revolutionary movement. Groups like the Oath Keepers and the Minutemen are bound to increase in membership in the event of a leftist revolution, given their appeal to reactionary whites in rural and working class communities. A few liberal and center-leftists may join our side, but I doubt they'll come in numbers large enough to tip the balance. Our best shot is to organize the working classes in the ghettos and the Rust Belt; the military is too reactionary and hierarchical (as well as professional) to have any revolutionary potential whatsoever.