Militarism and Communism

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Militarism is basically the culture, spirit and ideals of military life. These are, in the main:

1: Respect for the chain of command

2: Cooperation and team spirit. (I like this one!)

3: Personal discipline (ie keeping oneself neat and presentable, looking after your belongings/kit etc)

4: Bravery and self-control in stressful conditions

5: Importance of physical and mental fitness.

6: Willingness to self-sacrifice for the group/squad

7: Elimination of material differences in the ranks via dress code/uniform

8: Ability to react automatically to situations encountered before on the battlefield or during training

I can see why 1 can cause problems, but I don't see why officers can't be selected on the basis of competence (Meritocracy) at Command Tasks and leadership (and if more than one promotion candidate, a vote. Charismatic officers (Especially NCOs) that are well liked by the rank and file can inspire their men to even greater bravery)
I've also put some thought to some additional points, worth considering, to make militarism more palatable to communists:

A: Higher rank means greater responsibility, not greater privilege.

B: Officers must fight alongside the men- when the brass don't know battlefield conditions, you get the Great War.

C: Disobedience is only punishable on the battlefield, off the battlefield the offender is given a dishonourable discharge. Battlefield punishments will vary depending on the severity of the offence. Execution will only be in the case of outright treason.

D: At the end of military service, all personnell are to be given a sabbatical.

I'm interested in your thoughts and comments, particularly Redstar's.

-NoX, soldiering on (perhaps)

[Danton]

Clearly you've taken leave of your senses..

Militarism is discipline, hierachy and unquestioning obedience.. It is in direct contradiction with Communism.. Whatever next, Anarcho-totalitarianism?

[shyguywannadie]

Chain of command???

As a communist no-one will command me!

[redstar2000]

1: Respect for the chain of command

You were well advised to list this one first...it vastly outweighs all the other features put together.

All of the other "soldierly virtues" are secondary to the primary virtue: unquestioning obedience to authority.

It was and remains the main "virtue" of fascism...the effort to transform the military culture into a political movement.

In a slightly less aggressive form, it's also found in most if not all serious Leninist parties -- usually outside the "west". As "combat organizations", they copy many features of "army life".


2: Cooperation and team spirit. (I like this one!)

Don't we all. Fortunately, it doesn't require a "military culture" to exist and flourish.

Keep in mind, however, that "team spirit" can sometimes become a pair of blinders...the other "team" might actually have the better idea.


3: Personal discipline (i.e., keeping oneself neat and presentable, looking after your belongings/kit, etc.)

Personally, I think mental discipline is primary. If you've learned to think clearly (that is, critically) about the real world, the other stuff takes care of itself.

Someone who is a physical slob could change their behavior if they saw clear reasons to do so; someone who is a mental slob is pretty hopeless...no matter how neat their dress or living quarters.


4: Bravery and self-control in stressful conditions.

The question here is: can you train people to be like this?

You can certainly train people to perform certain routines: do A and if the result is not B, then and only then do C, etc.

That may give the appearance of bravery, self-control, or both...but it's actually just the performing of a routine task.

Which may or may not help the actual "stressful situation".


5: Importance of physical and mental fitness.

Soldiering is a physically demanding job...but there are many other jobs equally demanding if not more so.

Mental fitness is problematical; the habit of obedience discourages critical thinking in military circles...and military "doctrines" are remarkably resistant to changes in the real world. It is a rare "general" who appreciates the impact of some major technological change in warfare...and can actually use it successfully in the field.


6: Willingness to self-sacrifice for the group/squad.

Nah. Every soldier thinks the next guy is going to catch the bullet.

The rhetoric of "self-sacrifice" is for "memorial day" speeches by cynical politicians.


7: Elimination of material differences in the ranks via dress code/uniform.

Not really; it just looks that way to civilians. There are subtle differences that mark rank and status that are as visible to an ordinary soldier as a hat made to look like a huge rubber penis would be to us.


8: Ability to react automatically to situations encountered before on the battlefield or during training.

This is a restatement of no. 4 above. The same objection applies: is "automatic reaction" the most effective means to meet the situation?


A: Higher rank means greater responsibility, not greater privilege.

Well, that's the "official doctrine" now. The Germans during World War II were actually more egalitarian in this regard than the Allies (including the Russians). Officers, even at the highest levels, were "on the front lines", ate with their troops (the same rations), etc. Morale in the German Armed Forces was remarkably high right up to the surrender...in spite of the massive casualties, obvious impending defeat, etc.

If you "must" have an army and morale is one of the qualities you deem very important, then it's obvious that this is "the way to go".

But it doesn't really solve any of the other problems of military culture, though it may alleviate some of them to a small degree.


B: Officers must fight alongside the men--when the brass don't know battlefield conditions, you get the Great War.

Perhaps. But officers always answer to higher officers who are not in the front lines. The surprising degree of egalitarianism in the German army did not prevent the catastrophe at Stalingrad.


C: Disobedience is only punishable on the battlefield; off the battlefield the offender is given a dishonourable discharge. Battlefield punishments will vary depending on the severity of the offense. Execution will only be in the case of outright treason.

An interesting idea -- much would depend on the "social significance" of a "dishonorable discharge". Would people care that much about the status of one's discharge?


D: At the end of military service, all personnel are to be given a sabbatical.

Like a year's paid vacation to "decompress" and "get used to life as a civilian" again?

Vets will like the idea. But remember that you'd have to pay them at civilian rates...they wouldn't be able to get by in civilian life on army pay.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You were well advised to list this one first...it vastly outweighs all the other features put together.

All of the other "soldierly virtues" are secondary to the primary virtue: unquestioning obedience to authority.

It was and remains the main "virtue" of fascism...the effort to transform the military culture into a political movement.

In a slightly less aggressive form, it's also found in most if not all serious Leninist parties -- usually outside the "west". As "combat organizations", they copy many features of "army life".

Yes, this is perhaps the most thorny point of all.
real unquestioning obedience results in atrocities, illustrated by both WWII and the recent war in Iraq.
I'm not sure whether the typical 'I was just doing my job' excuse is really believed by the soldier saying it or whether it's just a lousy cover for their own concious sadism.
I think it will be important to teach soldiers to use their brains as well as their muscles.

I think it's fairly obvious what orders are reasonable and which ones are simply insane.
'detonate charges on that tank' is a reasonable order, but 'shoot those unarmed civilians' is clearly the order of a disturbed mind. Orders like 'charge that machine gun nest' tends to border on the insane, but there may be circumstances where you can choose to do nothing and die, or cause damage to enemy and die.

Fascism was very military oriented, but it also had nationalist, racist and sexist elements. Militarism was just a facet on the political crystal. (Although admittedly a large one)
I am not proposing incorporating nationalism, racism or sexism into communism. I like to think that militarism comes without that baggage.

I don't like Leninist parties either, but I don't see why they should have a monopoly on what might turn out to be a good idea ;)
Have you noticed that a lot of armies contain the most conservative aspects of a society? I can't imagine what we will come up with after communism, but if communists are the most conservative of such a society, it would be pretty funny to hear this: 'stateless, classless society has been good enough for us. Why should we follow Ideology X?'


Keep in mind, however, that "team spirit" can sometimes become a pair of blinders...the other "team" might actually have the better idea.

And thus military intelligence was born :D


Personally, I think mental discipline is primary. If you've learned to think clearly (that is, critically) about the real world, the other stuff takes care of itself.

Someone who is a physical slob could change their behavior if they saw clear reasons to do so; someone who is a mental slob is pretty hopeless...no matter how neat their dress or living quarters.

Whoo, that rather parallels with my earlier comment about allowing soldiers to use their brains.

But yes, mental sloppiness is also bad. I favour not allowing in anyone with a major religious superstition (because they're delusional)


The question here is: can you train people to be like this?

You can certainly train people to perform certain routines: do A and if the result is not B, then and only then do C, etc.

That may give the appearance of bravery, self-control, or both...but it's actually just the performing of a routine task.

Which may or may not help the actual "stressful situation".

Certain occurances happen more than others, and you can be trained to react accordingly, but for things less common or even not thought of by trainers, teaching soldier to be observant if not alert and not to accept any situation 'as it appears' (this also helps with spotting potential traps or ambushes)

Although you may not like the word, a certain amount of 'desensitisation' has to take place as well.
Battlefields are noisy places, and things can happen suddenly and without any warning at all.
It is important to get soldier to take a mental note, rather than jump up in fright, whenever something unexpected occurs.


Mental fitness is problematical; the habit of obedience discourages critical thinking in military circles...and military "doctrines" are remarkably resistant to changes in the real world. It is a rare "general" who appreciates the impact of some major technological change in warfare...and can actually use it successfully in the field.

I think that has more to do with the education of the generals in question. (And personally I think anything beyond battalion size is unnecessary)


Nah. Every soldier thinks the next guy is going to catch the bullet.

The rhetoric of "self-sacrifice" is for "memorial day" speeches by cynical politicians.

Have you no romance in your soul? :(


Not really; it just looks that way to civilians. There are subtle differences that mark rank and status that are as visible to an ordinary soldier as a hat made to look like a huge rubber penis would be to us.

If these 'subtle differences' are in uniform quality rather than pips/stripes, then my shpiel about rank not being a privilege ought to apply. If you meant pips/stripes, then they're just markers telling the knowledgable about honours gained.



If you "must" have an army and morale is one of the qualities you deem very important, then it's obvious that this is "the way to go".

But it doesn't really solve any of the other problems of military culture, though it may alleviate some of them to a small degree.

As I've illustrated, it's not the only measure I am proposing


Perhaps. But officers always answer to higher officers who are not in the front lines. The surprising degree of egalitarianism in the German army did not prevent the catastrophe at Stalingrad.

Even the best info about battlefield conditions will not help you if the idea was a bad one from the start! :wacko:


An interesting idea -- much would depend on the "social significance" of a "dishonorable discharge". Would people care that much about the status of one's discharge?

Probably not much. It'll probably simply mean 'doesn't like jobs in which orders are given'
Those discharged are probably better off as artists than soldiers.


Like a year's paid vacation to "decompress" and "get used to life as a civilian" again?

Vets will like the idea. But remember that you'd have to pay them at civilian rates...they wouldn't be able to get by in civilian life on army pay.

What is this 'pay' thing you are talking about? =D

But yes, a year to unwind should be long enough.

Allow me to add that military service is not compulsary, but everyone must have a passing familiarity with weapon handling procedure.

-NoX, disregards the halt command and marches off a cliff.

[SittingBull47]

Hell, I'd be super pissed if a communist country ever wanted to rule with the iron fist of authoritarian dictatorship. There must be some militarism involved, but if we use too much we'll end up like Hitler's Germany.

[redstar2000]

Have you no romance in your soul?

Not about this subject. I don't think there's anything "romantic" about military life in general or combat in particular...it is an extremely morbid and depressing part of human history.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[God of Imperia]

I think everyone will agree that war is horrible, but it is in the human nature to argue. I would say that sport should be a very important aspect in a communistic society, does someone know a better way to get rid of angry feelings? And besides, it is also good for your health.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Militarism is necessary for any militant movement, which would obviously include a communist revolution.
Militarism as a social force is something we really ought to stray away from. But I don't understand how Redstar rejects militarism, while I know for a fact he is in favor of a military revolution. For such a military revolution to be successful, the military will have to be encouraged and military values too.

Factions who seek militant control of society are facists, however, and very reactionary.

[God of Imperia]

Okay, so we need a military for the revolution, but what afterwards?

[redstar2000]

But I don't understand how Redstar rejects militarism, while I know for a fact he is in favor of a military revolution. For such a military revolution to be successful, the military will have to be encouraged and military values too.

Odd. I don't remember saying anything like that.

Rather the opposite, in fact. In revolutionary situations, if the old army chooses to fight in defense of the old regime, the revolution is lost.

Engels knew that in 1895...a century later it is even more true.

The "form" I expect proletarian revolution to take (and don't forget I'm just guessing like everybody else) is that of a massive popular uprising in which the army refuses to act and/or comes over to the side of the revolution. The only armed resistance that I foresee is from the police.

As soon as the old government is dispersed, the army and the police should both be replaced by workers' militias...unless there is an imminent threat of invasion from some remaining capitalist country -- a low probability event in my opinion.

If it is necessary to retain an organized army for a few years, then the principle of officers elected (and recallable) from the ranks must be strictly observed -- none of Trotsky's ex-Czarist generals need apply.

But I doubt if it will be necessary. By the time one advanced capitalist country is on the verge of proletarian revolution, I expect them all to be.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[SittingBull47]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:27 PM
Militarism is necessary for any militant movement, which would obviously include a communist revolution.
Militarism as a social force is something we really ought to stray away from. But I don't understand how Redstar rejects militarism, while I know for a fact he is in favor of a military revolution. For such a military revolution to be successful, the military will have to be encouraged and military values too.

Factions who seek militant control of society are facists, however, and very reactionary.
yep. i agree 100% with RedZep. I'm for a militaristic revolution, becuase really it's necessary. useless and excessive violence though, is something all forces have to stay away from.

[God of Imperia]

Do you know what, something strange, I think that we all are talking about the same thing, every revolution should start with a small military force, but it has the best chance to succeed if the old army joins their side or doesn't want to react, beacuse otherwise, the revolution is doomed to fail in time, they can't beat a real army unless a massive support of the local population. Right?

[Hate Is Art]

che won and the army opposed him?

The only thing they have that's superior is weaponry, we have the spirit, the comradship and the belief that we can, because we can't lose.

The struggle is only over when we say it is, as long as one person is will to spread the gospel and won't admit defeat we still have a chance.

[redstar2000]

Che won and the army opposed him?

Guerrilla war in pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist countries is quite different from proletarian revolutions in advanced capitalist countries.

"Third world" armies are usually poorly paid, are equipped with obsolete and inadequate weaponry, suffer from low morale, etc. The guerrilla army, normally consisting of landless peasantry, has a lot to fight for (land!) and is highly motivated.

Even so, most guerrilla uprisings lose...the technological superiority of the regular army is too much to overcome.

Material reality prevails!


We have the spirit, the comradeship and the belief that we can [win], because we can't lose.

Those are all "good things" to have...but they will not stand against an undefeated regular army in an advanced capitalist country.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Osman Ghazi]

The problem is not how many men the old army has but how many tanks, planes and particularly helicopters they have it is those weopons that give them the huge advantage that makes them nearly invincible. Even those things can be beaten with enough support from the people and outside, like Vietnam.

[God of Imperia]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 28 2004, 10:23 PM
che won and the army opposed him?
I also said that you should have the support of the population, like if you don't have the army on your side in the States or in Europe I don't think you'd win ...
Besides, Cuba and Europe aren't the same ...